AUCKLAND WILL CASE

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 33, 9 February 1922, Page 11

AUCKLAND WILL CASE

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT

(BI IEOSGRAPH I'MSS ASSOCIAT.'ON.)

AUCKLAND, Bth February

Hearing of the Hartley will case, an 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, was concluded in the Supreme Court today. The parties were Clyde Powell Lu'dwig (plaintiff) and the Public Trustee (defendant). Mr. Justice Stringer; in giving judgment, said that he had formed a very clear opinion of the case.' In a, case of this sort, the onus was heavily on th* person propounding the will to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the testator making the will was of sound mind and understanding. In this cast the testator, though illiterate was obviously a normally intelligent man. Th» evidence showed that when found on his verandah on 9th January, Hartley's mind had Vieen in a confused state, although he had not completely lost the U6e of his limbs. A few days later he died. It was impossible to doubt that hemorrhage bad started on 9th January. The weight of medical evidence made it clear that there would be a confusion of mind, which would make it impossible for the man to have intelligently tramsacted What was the most important busi' ness of his life. The'analogy supplied t>J Dr. M'Diarmid, that of deceaeed's actions being similar to those of a drunken man, was most apt. A man in that condition could not possibly transact business, and would be unable to realise his obligations. If Hartley had no relatives, it had been shown that he had had other objects in mind, such as the benefiting of some institution for returned soldiers, which seamed feasible in a patriotic man. When one came to consider x the actual facts surrounding the making of the supposed will, it seemed almost ludicrous. Dr. Smith admittedly had acted with extreme foolishness, but there was nothing to show that the doctor had been under the influence of liquor as suggested. It was evidently his temperament that hid made him act boisterously as had been stated.

The fact that Hartley had signed a paper which he supposed to be his will (if he were capable' of understanding anything), and which was afterwards torn up without any protest from Hartley, 6howed tha,t the man had not been mentally capable. Also it could not be supposed that a mentally capable man would allow a stranger to take away a paper signed and duly witnessed which was capable of being afterwards filled In at will. His Hononr quite'accepted Dr. Smith's statement regarding why this was done, but said that his action showed that the doctor was not of sound judgment in regard to matters of that sort.

If he could have been satisfied that lono; before 10th January the deceased was on friendly terms with the young manj and that lie had expressed an in-_ tention of, Benefiting ium, it would have altered the .aspect oP%he case, but there was nothing definite in that direction. He fiould only conclude that Hartley did not know what he wns doing when putting his maifk on the document, and would therefore have to find against the will. His Honour added that the plaintiff had acted quite reasonably in the matter. Costs were allowed io all parties and also in respect to the previous action for probate from the estate.