SIR GEORGE HUNTER’S WILL

Evening Star, Issue 20671, 19 December 1930, Page 13

SIR GEORGE HUNTER’S WILL

SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY’S HEARING [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, December IS. At to-day’s sitting of the Supreme Court, when the will case was continued, Alexander Dunn, barrister and solicitor, who was recalled, gave further evidence.

“ Did you ask anyone to get a certificate from Dr Giesen? ” asked Mr Watson (counsel for Lady Hunter). Witness said he had not asked anyone to get a certificate. It had been arranged that Dr Giesen should see Sir George and certify to his testamentary capacity. _ ■ , Did you at any time see Dr Giesen in connection with this certificate? — Not until the inception of these proceedings. Did you inquire whether Dr Giesen had given a certificate ?—No, I did not. I remember saying to Dr Steele that I would embody the certificate in the attestation clause His Honour :What was the position on the morning this will was signed so far as Dr Giesen was concerned? — He was thoroughly satisfied after having made an examination on the previous day that Sir George was competent to make a will. His Honour: From whom did you get that information? —From Lady Hunter. His Honour: Is there any doubt about that?—No. Dr Steele also referred to the fact that Dr Giesen had examined Sir George. His Honour: I want to be quite clear about it. I don’t know whether Lady Hunter disputes it or not. Is there any doubt that Lady Hunter said to you that Dr Giesen hud said the testator was in a fit condition to make a will?—There is no doubt about that at all. Mr Watson: When did Lady Hunter tell you that ?—I cannot remember the time.

Where did she tell you ?—I cannot remember. It was either on the morning the will was signed or the previous day. . His Honour asked the witness to try to be clear about the matter, as it was important. Witness said ho was unable to recollect. His Honour asked witness if he had taken any steps to see whether a second doctor approved of the will being made. Witness: I took no steps that I can recollect, except taking an intimation from Lady Hunter that the doctor was satisfied. His Honour: You are . quite clear about that? —I am quite clear. His Honour observed that the explanation appeared to _ be that Dunn was undei the fixed impression _ that the testator was capable of making a will, but ho required two doctors to witness it. He had assumed there was no question that Sir George was competent, and that the two doctors would be there. Mr Watson: That seems to he the explanation. Witness said Sir George had been unable to make up his mind on a number of points In tho second will Sir.'. George changed his views. His Honour asked witness, if the codicils were made with the intention that Lady Hunter should not know of them. Witness: Certainly they were. ' Dr J. M. Twliigg gave technical evidence as to the results of apoplectic seizures. Rarely were two cases alike. It was possible for a person to have paralysis without loss of mental power after the initial reaction was over. Cases had been known in which- paralysis arose without even a loss of consciousness, but such cases were rare. Mr Gray: If a person suffers from an apoplectic stroke and the initial stroke passes off in a few days leaving the patient somewhat paralysed need there be necessarily much or any loss of mental power?—No. ' Mr Gray: If it be a fact that Sir George, after the stroke, was never wholly unconscious and that his semicomatose condition passed off in a few days and his bodily functions were so normal that four clays after the stroke ho was able to talk business with his nephew, what would that indicate as to tho severity of tho stroke?—Well, in these cases one gauges one’s prog--nosis on certain factors. These include tho depth of coma, the fact that the coma is not deepening, the fact that there is no recurrence of the coma, and if it clears up fairly quickly the outlook of the case is considered more favourable. Moreover, tho fact that there was no interference with the bodily functions indicates that the coma could not have been very severe in degree. If the coma has cleared up rapidly this again is a favourable sign. How would you describe a stroke accompanied by such consequences ns you have mentioned?—l should say tho stroke was not severe—a mild one. A slight slurring of the speech would not necessarily indicate mental impairment. Witness said that with the assistance of a lawyer and a man of business ho thought it possible for Sir George to have arranged the disposition of his property. Provided his affairs were not too intricate, and provided that he had some assistance, it was possible Sir George Hunter could have made a will within two weeks of his stroke. There were no definite tests for testamentary capacity laid

down so far as witness knew. One judged cases on general lines, and it was usual to satisfy oneself as to a patient’s soundness of mind. Where there was extensive paralysis due to apoplexy there was usually general mental impairment, but not always. .It was quite possible to have a paralysis case that had nothing to do with the brain. There had been nothing in the Mstory of Sir George’s case that gave him the impression that tho stroke had been severe.

This concluded the plaintiff’s case. .Mr Watson, in his opening address, said that Lady Hunter had decided to lodge the caveat that had caused the present action only after full inquiries had been made from people who were thought to be competent to say that Sir George had had no testamentary capacity, Dr Steele and Dr Giesen, attending doctor and consulting doctor respectively. Evidence would show that both Dr Steele and Dr Giesen were emphatic that Sir George, at no time befoi’o his departure to Rotorua, had had any testamentary capacity. Included in Dr Giesen’s evidence would be certain evidenco_ dealing with Dr Steele’s previous actions and utterances as to Sir George’s testamentary capacity. Lady Hunter, as the result of evidence gained at this conference, had decided to contest the granting of probate. Lady Hunter’s attitude in contesting tho wills did not arise from any complaint of her treatment. She liad taken action for the interest and benefit of her child Betty. His Honour: But the child takes nothing under the 1924 will. Mr Watson: Ultimately she will take everything. She has a reversionary interest.

His Honour: She gets nothing in the meantime. Lady Hunter is a young woman, and the girl takes no interest till her death or her remarriage. It is a very different position under the last will. Mr Watson said Lady Hunter was trying to ensure that the wishes of Sir George made before his illness would ho given effect _ to. She had had nothing to do with tho October will, counsel said, and had entirely disapproved of tho will-making at that time.

His Honour: Can you point out any unfairness in the October will ? Mr Watson: In its unexplained and sudden cutting down of the child’s interests.

Mr Watson proceeded to compare the provisions made for the child in the three wills, and went on to say that it was suggested that the estate was not worth tho value it was said to be until all the annuities had come back into tho estate on the death of tho people to whom they were paid, thus making tho annuity fund available for the estate. If it was a fact that there would be no income from tho estate*until tho annuities and other charges had fallen back into the residue, then, counsel contended, tho child was no whit better off under the 1929 will than under the 1924 will, on which Lady Hunter asked for the court’s pronouncement. The court then adjourned.