AUCKLAND WILL CASE

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 32, 8 February 1922, Page 4

AUCKLAND WILL CASE

FURTHER EVIDENCE

AVAS DECEASED'S MENTAL

HEALTH FAILING?

(BY TEUiOIUPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

AUCKLAND, 7th February.

The hearing was continued in the Supreme Court to-day of the action to "propound in solemn form" the will of John Hartley, an old man of no known relatives, who died at Pukekohe, leaving property valued at about £6000 to Clyde P. Ludwig. The parties are Clyde Powell Ludwig v. the PublicTrustee. The plaintiff, who gave his age as 21, stated in evidence that ho had been on good terms with tho deceased, whom lie assisted on occasions with his farm work. On the way to the hospital in a motor-car deceased said to him, "You will 16ok after my property all right?"' Witness replied, "Yes." Hartley said, "My word, you are the boy " Replying to Dr. Fitchett (who appeared for defendant), plaintiff, who had previously traced his family history to show that ho was not of German descent, said lie had heard that deceased had referred to his family as "German spies," but he did not believe Hartley did say that. He had never heard that deceased had referred to his family as "German swine" and to his father as "old Kaiser." Dr. Fitchett said that Dr. Campbell Smith, as executor, had applied for probate of the will. When they learned about the disposition of Hartley's property the settlers in the district were very much dissatisfied. From their general knowledge of ,the relations between the deceased and the \Ludwig family, they thought it extremely improbable that the old man would leave everything to the plaintiff. " They communicated with the police, and several officers took statements in writing from various people. Mr. Justice- Adams refused to grant probate. He first gave Dr. Campbell Smith an opportunity of filing affidavits, and affidavits were filed. Dealing with the different statements made, the Judge said that if probate was wanted it must.be by action to prove the will in solemn form. Dr. Campbell Smith renounced the executorship, but plaintiff decided to go on with the matter. The Public Trustee was, by order of the Court, appointed to represent the next-ofrkin, and accordingly he was the defendant. He had'no interest in the" matter, and his sole duty was to lay before his Honour all the information obtainable. Dr. Fitchett said also that the medical superintendent of the hospital and the doctors who conducted the post-mortem examination would give evidence that deceased had been unfit to make a will. The evidence as to, the relationship between 'Hartley and the Ludwigs would show that deceased was unfriendly with them; that he had referred to \hem as "German spies and swine," and to Ludwig, senior, as "old Kaiser"; and that there was a feeling, that Hartley would not leave all his property to plaintiff. It would be shown that for some time Hartley's mental health was failing. He had a bank account at Pukekohe, and he was so unsatisfactory that the manager had to take charge of his financial affairs. The impression of the bank manager was that for weeks and weeks before his death Hartley's mental state was distinctly unsatisfactory and he was unable to manage his own affairs. Moreover, it appeared that deceased was subject to hallucinations. One witness gave evidence that 17 years ago Hartley spoke of having a wife in Australia, and at another time indicated that he had friends or relatives in the South Island. ' Another witness said that Hartley mentioned five or six years ago a sister in the South Island, and some years ago said that he had received a letter saying his wife was dead. I

Dr. Fitchett mentioned that the Public Trustee did not know if there were any relatives awaiting the decision of the case before inquiry.