FORTUNE LOST

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 April 1932, Page 12

FORTUNE LOST

SON DISPUTES FATHER’S WILL. LONDON, February 19. A stepmother who had been, left the whole of her husband’s estate £6,100, was, by a judgment in the Probate Division yesterday, deprived of the property. A son of the testator asked for the revocation of the probate, contending that the will was not properly executed, as the testator signed it after the attesting witnesses had affixed their signatures. He claimed an intestacy. The plaintiff was Mr Charles W. H. White, of Blaenavon, Mon, and. the defendant Mrs Gladys L.S. Jones, of Chepstowroad, Newport, she having married again last year. For the defence, Mi’ Cotes Preedy, K. C., said the correspondence in the case suggested that the testator had trouble with his family and had good reason for looking after his second wife. In her evidence, Mrs Jones stated that the plaintiff wrote her a letter, in which he said: “I think you are a wonderful girl for the tyay you have looked after dad, in spite of the fact that you are not robust yourself ...” Mr. Bayford, K.C. (for plaintiff): You are not suggesting, are you, that Mr. Charles White has got up a false case because you got married again?

Mrs Jones: I do. Mr. Frank C. White, brother of the testator, was asked by Mr. Bayford if he- had any objection to Mrs Jones marrying again in 1931. “Only that I thought it was too soon,” he replied. Mr. Bayford: Is there any truth in the suggestion that you have been making a false ease in order to spite the widow? Mr. White: Absolutely none. The President (Lord Merrivale), giving judgment, said it was not disputed that the testator was competent to make the will. The plaintiff came back from Africa, and his lordship was satisfied that he was displeased at the speedy marriage of the defendant. He began to see whether his father’s will could be disputed on the ground that his father was not of testamentary capacity. He consulted his ujicle and he satisfied him that his father was of perfectly sound mind and quite capable of disposing of his property. Then a good deal of manoeuvring took place. From the time the testator’s brother became aware that the widow intended to marry again, he treated her with hostility. He (the President) could not conjecture, but had to determine whether the due execution of the will was proved beyoifd reasonable doubt. “I am not able so to determine,” he said, “I may be profoundly dissatisfied with the state of affairs, but that is not a matter which can affect my decision. “The result is that the defendant is deprived of that which her late husband, at the last moment of his life, intended that she should have.” His lordship revoked the probate already granted, and pronounced against the will. His lordship directed that the defendant should have her costs out of the estate.