TAILOR AND HIS WILL

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 May 1931, Page 7

TAILOR AND HIS WILL

COSTLY GRAVE AND UPKEEP. Remarkable extracts from the will of a man who was said to have “systematically starved, overworked and beaten” his family were read in the Probate Court fin London lately. The testator was Mr William Eyre, a journeyman tailor, who died in 1928, and the Public Trustee sought to propound his will and codicil. The relatives opposed the will on the ground that the testator was of unsound mind at the time he made it. ' Counsel for the "Public Trustee said

that the will was made in 1922, and the codicil in November, 1923. For many years before his death Mr Eyre was blind, and he dictated the will He had thirteen children, of whom some had died. His estate was of the value of about £3400. Testator left £lOO each to two daughters and £5O each to three chums. The will directed that the testator be buried in a private grave for him- , self and his two daughters, Lilian and Daisy, if unmarried at the time they died, “the funeral expenses,” the will went on, “to be fixed at £lOO, and to be in first-class style, with motor conveyances for same. Also I wish to have paid the sum of £2 to all my friends attending funeral for their expenses incurred.” “I leave the sum of £5OO in order to have a first-class tombstone, a beauti-fully-kept flower-bed, and an ornamental- monument, preferably a broken column, with all necessaiy inscription on same. Also a further . sum of £4OO for upkeep and beautifying of grave, tombstone and monument for the space of 30 to 40 years or more, and incidental expenses attached. This sum, viz, £looo—to be the first charge on the estate and take precedence over all other allocations. Mr Eyre made bequests to a home for aged tailors, and to the Regent Street Polytechnic. There was also a bequest of £lOO for the Welfare of the Blind (civilian section). The codicil revoked the gift to one “chum,” and directed that any residue be equally divided between the Society for the Welfare of the Blind and the Middlesex Hospital ’ According to the defence, proceeded Mr Mortimer, until about 1918 the testator earned not less than £lO per week. He lived with his family in two rooms, one of which he kept exclusively for himself, except that his wife slept there. Mr Eyre had a passion for saving money that amounted to a mania, the defendants said, and his estate “was only accumulated at the expense of his wife and family, whom he systematically starved, overworked and beat.”

The Public Trustee had been advised, said counsel, that he was bound to expend the extravagant sum left by testator for the tombstone, grave and its upkeep. There would, he believed, be a saving of some hundreds of pounds in that respect. The Middlesex Hospital, as one of the residuary legatees, had beeir approached with regard to the sum saved, and they had volunteered to give up half their share of the extra, money—which would be half of the sum which would be saved —lor the benefit of the relatives. The

Public Trustee would, if it were possible to identity the other residuary legatees, make a. suggestion (hat (hoy adopt the same course. Counsel for the defendants said that (her family appreciated the way in which the Public Trustee had dealt with the matter. The children were now satisfied that there was medical evidence to show that, whatever his eccentric habits and harsh conduct, Ihe testator could not. be said to be insane in the sense of being incapable of making a will. They would agree that. Ihe will and codicil propounded by the Public Trustee be pronounced for. Mi- Justice Bateson found in favour of the will and codicil, and by consent il wan directed t hat the defendants’ im-L. (.oiiir out of the estate