AN AUCKLAND LADY'S LEGACY.

Evening Star, Issue 14575, 25 May 1911, Page 3

AN AUCKLAND LADY'S LEGACY.

WHY IT WAS REDUCED BY £I,OOO. [From Oun Special ConaF-srosuENT.] j LONDON, April 13. Mrs Jessie Brigham, of Auckland, was V/& 1 plaintiff in a probate actiou heard in the ■ law Courts this week, arising out of the - testamentary dispositions of her cousin, Miss ■ Mary Garner Savage, of Hampstead, a pb.il- | anthropic lady of literary gifts and suffrag.st sympathies, who died on December 7, 1909, '. aged thirty-two. Miss Savage loft a large amount of property, valued at about £30,000, and she had distributed it by will and 1 codicils amongst relatives, friends, and persons whom she had befriended. The defendants were Miss Ethel Mary Odell and Mr John Garner, to whom probate was granted on December 22. 1909. Mrs lirigha.ni claimed revocat.on oi probate, granted to defendants, of a will dated April 31, 1906, and two codicils of November 13 and November 30, 1909. Plaintiff alleged that the second codicil was not duly executed, as the deceased ladywas not of sound testamentary capacity. Other parties cited and affected by the two codicils put defendants to proof that the testatrix was mentally capable. Defendants, Miss Ethel Mary Odell and Mr John Garner, denied incapacity on tho part of the decased lady. The effect of the second codicil was to reduce plaintilf's legacy from £3,000 to £2,000. and to increase Miss (Moll's legacy from £I,OOO to £2,000. A sum of £I,OOO was also left to a Miss Whiteford on the understanding that that amount, and the extra £I,OOO "left to Miss Odell, should be employed to keep up the payments to pensioners of the testatrix. Other legacies were left to friends and old servants. Mr Clavell Salter, K.C., and Mr Malcolm Macnaghten (instructed by Carr, Tyler, and Overy). appeared for plaintiff: Mr Hume Williams, K.C., Mr Willock, and Mr Clifford Mortimer (instructed by Linfud and Hortin) for defendants: and Mr W. 0. Willis (instructed by Truhernc, Higgins, and Co.) for the parties cited. Mr Hume Williams, opening defendants' ca.se, explained that in December, 1906, Miss Savage (the deceased lady) and her mother made their wills, ami when the latter died, in October. 1907. Miss Savage became pos- ! sessed of about £30,000. Miss Savage had made her will in accordance with the fact that she was her mother's heiress. In January, 1907, whilst on the Continent, testatrix was taken ill, and returned to Hampstead, and was attended by a lady doctor. Tcsta- { trix had been in the habit of paying allowances to a number of poor relations and friends. In 1909 she became anxious that these poor people should be provided for 'after her death, and the aim of the codicils was that these payments should be continued. In consequence the two codicils I were executed, Mr Hortin. a cousin of the deceased lady, drawing up the documents. Counsel added that the reason plaintiff's legacy was reduced by £I,OOO was that Mrs Brigham had herself told Miss Savage she had £9.000 of her own money. The result was that Miss Savage left her £2.000 instead of £3,000. at the sanw time expressing the sentiment that the reduction of the amount showed no diminution in her affection for her cousin. Miss Ethel Mary Odell, of Southhill Park, Hampstead, giving evidence, said that she was a Bachelor of Arts of Loudon University, and an assistant mistress at the North Loudon Collegiate School for Girls. She and the testatrix had lived together since the death of the lattcr's mother. Testatrix was always perfectly capable, and knew what she was doing until within twenty-four hours of her death*. In the course of cross-exami- • nation witness said that after Miss Savage's death some of those who had been her | friends formed themselves into a "guild of; service"—a little band to do good, ill the! deceased lady's memory. —Mrs iirigfiam's Legacy.— ) Mr William Hortin. solicitor and cousin j of the testatrix, gave evidence as to the drawing up of the codicils. With regard lo the codicil of November 30. 1909, witness said he telephoned to l)r Lydia Lcney (a lady doctor who attended Miss Savage), and asked if Miss Savage was fit to transact business. | Or Lcney replied that she was, for, although Miss Savage was ill, she was quite sensible. The same "evening he went to Miss Savage's tlat at Hampstead, and saw Miss Odell, who said: "Mary (.Miss Savage) has for some years paid pensions to several old people, and wishes to provide for them. We have, been talking it over together, and have made out that it will take £2,000 to provide the nccessarv funds." Anv surplus of the £2,000, Miss Odell addt-d, was to be applied by j herself and Miss Whiteford to similar pur- < poses, whilst Mrs l'.righani's legacy was to be reduced by £I.OOO, as she (Mrs Brigham) had recently written to her from New Zealand saying she had £9,000 of her own. Witness and Mi-s Odell then went to the, room where Miss lavage was lying ill. Kneeling by her side—she was rather deafMiss Odell spoke to her about tho codicil. With reference to the reduction of Mrs I'.righam's legacy. Miss Odell said that witness did not like it. and Miss Savage said: "Oh, yes, .less does not need the money." All this time, witness explained, he had been ' standing at tiie open door of the room, not wishing lo disturb the patient, and heard even-thing that passed between the ' two ladies." When Miss Odell came out she said: "Mary will not alter her decision." ; I this referring to the reduction of plaintiff's , legacy. Afterwards witness and Miss Odell went'to Miss Whiteford. who was to be men- , tioned in the codicil for £I.OOO as a kind of ; trustee, and witue.-s said to her: " Gipsy, will you join Kltier-" (Miss Odell). Miss ' Whiteford replied that she would. Witness ' said: " It w.ll be giving you a packet of trouble." and she replied : " I don't mind, so i i I long as Mary's wishes are carried out."' As ] | the outcome a simple codicil was drawn up , ; and signed by the deceased lady. .Miss | \ ; Odell steadied" her friend's hand while Miss i , j Savage affixed her signature. I , Mr riavell Salter (cross-examininci : You J ! knew Miss Savage was suffering from what j ' j is called creeping paralysis, which was killing ! • i her by inches;----Weil, we never thought she j ' , would" live in 1907, but she recovered mar- j 1 vellously after her mother's death. . ( ' On one occasion did you .-ay to l)r j , Leney: "Would you be able to certify her; iMiss Savage) as insane:-'"—No. I never said ; anything of the sort. j I Jiil you read to her from a book on lunacy ! and ask her whether the patient would come within that definition? —1 don't remember . doiuy anything of the sort. Are you prepared to swear that you iliil : not. or is it only a matter of memory?—l hive no recollection of saying anything of the sort. There was no oceasion to do so. ! The witness further said he did not think , it necessary to see the testatrix regarding • the execution of the codicil of November 30 (the second), a., he had trust in Miss Odell, ; who at the time was living with Miss Savage. , He had previously never made a will for a ■ client, without, personal instructions. His bill of costs certainly would lead the ordi- j nan' reader to believe that he had seen the i testatrix personally. He was standing out- ! | side Miss Savage's room, and could hear her ' I voice when .Miss Odell was talking to her ; I about the codicil. He could net say why his ! | bill of costs did not state that he hail given ; Miss Odell instructions to get iMiss Savage's I confirmation of the instructions. Tic had j advised £I,OOO to be left to Miss Odell and j £I,OOO to -Miss Whiteford for the purpose of j keeping up the payments to Miss Savage's j pensioners. Though he had advised that, no j trust provisions should lie put in the codicil, I he regarded those two stuns of £I,OOO as | trust moneys. j hi answer to the President, he said he | meant that neither lady h:ul any beneficial | interest ii: the money. j Mr Hortin, further cross-examined, said he had never in any other case carried out I a similar arrangement. He thought it j better i:i the present case, so as to give the ! two ladies absolute discretion to do as the J testatrix had wished. Miss Savage was quite I capable of giving her wishes, and he under- ; stood what she wished. As far as he knew. I up to February'2l. 1910, when the plaintiff! j ordered an inquiry concerning the last codicil, j ' there was no document in existence to show : ' that the money was not an out-and-out gift i to Miss Odell and Miss Whiteford. He ; could not say why the money was not given , in one sum of £2.000 to these two ladies I jointly. He proved the documents within ; fifteen days of the death, and did not con- j sider it unusually prompt. At the time of | the execution of the codicil on November 30 ! Miss Savage was not staring blankly into I space in front of her. He saw her ien minutes before she died (December 7). He was told then that she was not comatose | until forty-eight hours prior to her death, j Mr Salter suggested that the testatrix had | beeu in a comatose condition for many days ] before death. i Witness said that on December 6 Dr | Lcnev (the lady doctor who had attended) ' told "him that Miss Ravage could do business ' if he made haste. Miss Savage died next day, and on December 8 the witness wrote to the plaintiff, then in Auckland. New j Zealand: " You come in for £2,000 under her | will." "Is that quite a frank way of putting it?" inquired counsel. Witness, whose answers were difficult lo hear, replied that he had no idea of deceiving Mrs Urighain. Answering the President, witness slated that the father of the two Legge children (the parties cited in the suit) died about a w<:ck ago, leaving them without a shilling. The children's ages range from nineteen • downwards. The witness thought they i might be objects of the charity to be dispensed by Miss Odell and Miss Whiteford. Further evidence was given of tho testa- . «iontaiy capacity of tho testatrix and of bex l

interest in books, news, and politics, and of the great pleasure she experienced in seeing her friends ami relations during October and November, 1909. Evidence was also given of her fondness for and skill at chess, and of her playing chess on various dates between November 6 and November 30; on the latter date she had played for two hours. The testatrix "had not been allowed to win," nor had she' any difficulty in moving the pieces. Towards the conclusion of this evidence the President said that it was obvious that the testatrix wished to benefit some people in her lifetime, and that it was natural that sho should wish to do so after her death. He thought that something ought to be done. Later Mr Clevall Salter asked on what day it would bo convenient to continue the trial, if it should be necessary lo resume the hearing. His Lordship's intimation, of course, would be communicated to his clients. The President; The first day of next sittings. The case accordingly stood adjourned until that day.