AFTER FOUR DAYS

Evening Post, Issue 122, 26 May 1933, Page 8

AFTER FOUR DAYS

WILL CASE SETTLED

TERMS OF AGREEMENT

PROBATE APPROVED

After a long conference between counsel for the parties, a settlement was arranged today in tho Glover Estate will case which has been before the Supreme Court all tho week. Counsel for tho defendants informed tho Court that no further evidence would be called, and the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said that on the case as it stood he was prepared- to pronounco for the validity of the will nnd two codicils propounded by tho executors. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the terms of settlement, other than the pronouncing of the validity of tho will and codicils, were made a rule of Court. The testator, George Glover, died at Wellington in July last year in his 89th year, and he left a will dated February 25, 1028, and two codicils dated respectively August 30, 1928, and January 3», 1929. Probate of theso documents, as executors of the estate, was sought by Albert Alexander Wylie, solicitor, and Mrs. Edith Sophia Galbraith, one of Mr. Glover's daughters. Tho other two daughters of the testator, Mrs. Grace-Adeline Dunn and-Mrs. Jane Helen Cowles, opposed the granting of probate, on the grounds that when tho will and codicils-wore made their father lacked testamentary capacity, and was coerced into making them by Mrs. Galbraith. Mr. S. A. Wiren and Mr. L. K. Wilson were counsel for tho plaintiffs, and Mr. G. G. Watson and Mr. W. P. Shorland for' Mrs. Dunn. Mr. 11. J. V. James appeared for Mrs. Cowles, and Mr. M. F. Luekie- for tho children of Mrs. Galbraith and Mrs. Cowles. TEEMS OF SETTLEMENT. Tho memorandum of settlement was as follows:—Subject to tho approval of the Court the will and codicils propounded to bo admitted to probate, subject to the following terms: (1) After the payment of legacies provided for by the will and codicils (including that of Mrs. Cowles), Mrs. Galbraith to receive out of tho residue the first £3000. (2) Gilbert Glover to receive next the sum of £500 upon the condition that he agrees to settle both the original legacy.of £500 and such additional £500 upon trustees for the benefit of himself for life with remainder to his children equally. (3) Mrs. Dunn and Mrs. Cowles to receive the next £750 equally between them. (4) The balance of residue to be divided per stirpes between the- children of Mrs. Cowles and Mrs. Galbraith. (5) Trustees' taxed costs to be paid out of tho estate. Defendants, Mrs. Dunn ' and Mrs. Cowles," to receive tho sum of £500 on account of costs, and the solicitor, for the children of \Mrs. Cowles and Mrs. Galbraith to receive the sum of fifty guineas and disbursements. After announcing the terms, Mr. Wat. son said that pursuant to the settlement the defendants (Mrs. Dunn and Mrs. Cowles), having heard the evidence, withdrew all the allegations mado against Mrs. Galbraith. NO UNDUE INFLUENCE. Tho Chief Justice said ho saw no reason why he should not pronounce in favour of the will and codicils. So far as the question of undue influence was concerned, upon the cvidenco that had boen adduced when pie Court rose last evening, it would have been quite impossible to find there had been any undue influence. Of course, in saying that, ho knew nothing of any other evidence 'there might have been. But Mr. Watson had said on behalf of himself and Mr. James, who agreed, that no further evidence would bo called, and that the charges against Mrs. Galbraith were withdrawn. His Honour said he thought it his duty to say that the charges had very properly been withdrawn. IMPORTANCE OF LETTERS. As to the question of testamentary capacity, his Honour continued, again, of course, he could deal with the evidence only to the.extent to which it had been placed before him. This he could say: Mr. Wylie and tho other witnesses called for tho plaintiffs certainly established a prirna facie case of testamentary capacity, and it lay then upon the defendants to displace the inference of testamentary capacity on the evidence for the plaintiffs. The main evidence that had been called so far for the defence was tho evidence of the two doctors. On questions of fact he accepted their evidence with-, out the least reservation, but each had agreed in the course of his evidence i that the opinion they respectively formed could riot be correct if the letters which the testator wrote • during the crucial period were bdna fide letters of his own composition. The doctors said they could not believe the letters were bona fide: All he could say was that on tho face of them they did appear to be bona fide letters, and on | the evidence that had been adduced ho felt be would not be justified in drawing any other conclusion. On the case as it stood, he"felt-perfectly justified in pronouncing for the will and codicils propounded^ ■