HUNTER WILL CASE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 147, 19 December 1930, Page 7

HUNTER WILL CASE

OPENING OF DEFENCE PLAINTIFF'S CASE FINISHED LADY HUXTEirS WISHES

After ;i hearing of almost seven days, on three of which the Court sat until 10 o'clock at night, evidence for the plaintiffs, Cyril and Thomas Hunter, in tho Hunter will caso in the Supremo Court, was completed yesterday afternoon, and before tho Court adjourned Mr. G. G. Watson, counsc-! for Lady' Hunter, made a start with his opening address for tho defence. Thirty-seven witnesses were called for tho xilaintiffs, who also gave evidence. la view of tho Christinas vacation of tho Court, tho case, after to-day's sitting, is to be- adjourned until February, probably until the third week in February, according to an intimation, given by his Honour Mr. Justice Jlced, who is presiding. It was not intended yesterday afternoon to call Lady Hunter until the case is resumed in February. Lady Hunter is challenging the will and codicils of the late Sir George Hunter, purported to have been executed in. November, 1929, on tho ground that at the time Sir George \was of unsound mind, memory, and understanding. She alleges that the last true will was made in 1924. Cyril and Thomas Hunter, nephews of the late Sir George, and with Lady Hunter tho executors of his will, arc asking for probate of the November will and codicils. IN INTERESTS OF DAUGHTER. In liis. opening address, Mr. Watson stated that the origin of tho proceedings was a caveat lodged by 'Lady Hunter after opinions had been obtained from. Dr. Steelo and Dr. Giesen, who, it was alleged, had declared that at no time during Sir George's illness prior to his departure for Kotorua did he have testamentary capacity. Counsel stressed that Lady Hunter's attitude in contesting the wills did not arise from any complaint against her own treatment; and that she had taken the action in which she believed to be the interests and for the benefit of the daughter Betty. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with Mr. W. N. Matthews, is appearing for the plaintiffs; Mr. Watson has with him 'Mr. H. J. ■V. James; and Mr. AY. Perry is appearing on behalf of the seven-year-old daughter, Betty. Mr. Watson, to Dr. J. M. Twhigg: "If there is extensive paralysis due to apoplexy, is there not in general mental impairment?"—" There is usually, but not always." Witness said it was quite possible to have a paralysis case that had nothing to do with the brain. DOCTOR'S IMPRESSION. To his Honour, witness said there had been nothing in the history of Sir George Hunter's case that gave him the impression that the stroke was severe. Dr. Twhigg was the last witness for the plaintiffs. LADY HUNTER'S EVIDENCE. His Honour, before Mr. Watson commenced to op.en tho case for Lady Hunter, asked counsel if he was calling Lady Hunter, and counsel said that ho was. His Honour: "Can we get through her evidence to-morrow?" —"It depends partly on my friends. I should be inclined to doubt it." His Honour suggested that in that event it would bo better, if convenient, to call other witnesses in the meantime, rather than interrupt Lady Hunter's evidence. He did not anticipate being able to go on with the caso until about the third week in February. In reply to his Honour, Mr. Watson said that should it be suggested he particularly desired to avoid Lady Hunter having to continue her evidence in the evening. His Honour agreed with counsel that such a course was not desirable. Mr. Watson said he had two other moderately long witnesses to go on with to-day. He would not like, however, at that stage to say definitely what witnesses would bo Called to-day. He would like to review the position first. His Honour: "I don't .care, as long as I have something to go on with." In reply to another question from his Honour, Mr. Watson said that arrangements had been made for the carrying on of the estate in the meantime. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. "In opening the caso for the defendant, Lady Hunter," said Mr. Watson, "I shall endeavour to be as brief as ,the dimensions the case has reached will permit. In view of the fact that I. shall have tho opportunity at a later stage, I shall not take up any time in the meantime in traversing the plaintiff's case." He would restrict himself only to certain essential matters that must be gone into before leading evidence. "These proceedings," continued Mr. Watson, "originated in a caveat lodged by> Lady Hunter, and the first point to which I desire to address myself is the question of why the caveat was lodged ajfd why the proceedings thereby were 'brought about. In tho first place I would point out, as tho evidence for the plaintiffs has foreshadowed and tho evidence for tho defence will establish, that the caveat was only lodged after full inquiries had been inado from those persons considered most competent to express an opinion as to testamentary capacity, namely the two doctors, tho physician who was in attendance on Sir George, and the other consultant. As a result of a long interview with them tho evidence will show, in so far as it lias not already been'shown, that both Dr. Steelc and Dr. Gieson at that time were emphatic that Sir George Hunter at no time prior to his departure for Eotorua had any tcstamentry capacity whatever. They both expressed that opinion in unqualified form, and they both had . a statement of facts on which they relied submitted to them. . . . Dr. Giosen in the course of the defendant's case will give aii unqualified addition to the opinion that he has formed and will give several reasons for that opinion, and will also give certain evidence dealing with Dr. Steelo's previous utterances and actions in connection, with Sir George Hunter's testamentary capacity, so that the responsibility for the initiation of tho caveat must rest partly at least on the opinion of the doctors. Lady Hunter, having obtained these opinions that Sir George Hunter had no testamentary capacity, decided that she would contest tho granting of probate." His Honour: "Apart altogether from the merits of the case ... it seems to me that tho last will is a very much fairer will than that which is set up." His Honour was referring to the will of 1924. LADY HUNTER'S ATTITUDE. Mr."1 Watson: "I desire at this stage to stress the fact that Lady Hunter's attitude in contesting tho wills docs not arise from any complaint against her own treatment. She has not taken this action for her own benefit or to protect or conserve any selfish interest of her own. She has taken it in what she believes to be the interest and benefit of the child Betty, the only child." His Honour: "The child takes absolutely nothing under the will of 1924." Mr. Watson:. "The child ultimately,

subject to a life interest, takes everything." Ills Honour: "She takes nothing m tho meantime. Lady Hunter is a. young woman, and this girl takes no ] interest until Lady Hunter's death, except if she remarries. That is a very different position from that under the last will." ■ ! Counsel said he thought it would be shown differently. Continuing his .address, Mr. Watson said that Lady Hunter desired to ensure that the "wishes of Sir George as set out in the will before Sir George's illness should be given effect. She held a strong view that the wishes expressed in that will when Sir George was well and strong were really the wishes 'that should bo given effect to. Lady Hunter had nothing whatever to do with the making of the October will. She had entirely disapproved of the commencing of tho will-making process in October within a few weeks of the occurrence of her husband's stroke, and tried to prevent it being made; but as soon as it was made she objected to the contents, and at once sought to have it replaced by another one more in the child's favour. Lady Hunter herself was better off under the October will than under either the prior will or, the later will. BENEFIT" UNDER WILLSMr, AVatson then proceeded to give what he called a brief analysis of Lady Hunter's position under tlio yarious wills. His Honour: "Can you point to any unfairness in the October will?" Counsel: "The October will shows an unexplained and sudden cutting down of the daughter's interest." His Honour: "She had no interest under the 1924 will." Counsel: "She had a reversionary interest, sir." Mr. Watson said that it was partly on account of the fact that it would have involved double death duties, and in addition, of course, that Betty's interest was cut down that Lady Hunter objected to tho October will. "ESTATE OVERVALUED." Lady Hunter was of the opinion, said Mr. Watson, that the estate was not as valuable as suggested by the plaintiffs. It was he.ld that no residue would be available until the annuity fund became available on the death of the annuitants. Before Betty would get any residue, it was submitted, first of all there had' to be a fund of £13,000 for legacies. There had to be an annuity fund creating sufficient to provide £3500, if one disregarded Mr. Dunn's annuity. It was estimated that it would require a fund of £76,000 to provide the annuities,-and there also had to be found death duty, which was estimated at approximately £40,000, in addition to the costs of realisation and administration. If the cash legacies, the amount of the annuity fund, and the death duty wer.e ' deducted from the realised value of the estate Lady Hunter held a strong opinion that no residue would be available at all for Betty until such time as she (Lady Hunter) and the other annuitants died. Lady Hunter would tell the Court that that belief was corroborated by the other trustees at the meeting held after Sir George's death. Mr. Watson contended that it required no undue pessimism to suggest that the value of tho estate rapidly came down to below ■ £150,000, the amount at which Mr. Dunn ' admitted that the child's interest in the residue disappeared until the death of the annuitants. There was no source of income in the estate to pay legacies, death duties, and other charges. Eealisation must take place before there could be any hope of an increment, or an addition to the prices counsel had suggested were tho true values of the estatel If there was no money to pay the annuitants, Lady Hunter being the principal annuitant, the child would be no better off than she was under the 1924 will. Under the -1924 will {Ho child took a very much larger estate by way of residue than she could ever hope to take under the 1929 will. Mr. Watson had not concluded his address when the Court adjourned until this morning. . |