HUNTER WILL CASE

Hawera Star, Volume L, 17 February 1931, Page 10

HUNTER WILL CASE

RESUMPTION OF HEARING

DOCTOR'S LENGTHY EXAMINATION.

(My Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Fob. I*o. The Hunter will case was continued in the Supreme 'Court to-day. Lady Hunter, widow of Sir George Hunter and one of the three executors, is op posing probate on the ground that the testator was not of sound mind, mem ory, or understamfing. In Dccembei the ease occupied the court nearly eight full days. Dr. Giesen, of Wellington, gave ev< j (lcnce of being called in by Dr. Steen to sec Sir George, whom ho did nol I know prior to that. He saw him alto gethcr on five occasions between tin end of September 1929 and August 1930, just before death. On the oc casion of his first visit he was not sure whether Sir George realised that witness had come to see him. He was un able r o get Sir George to speak to lam One could dismiss anything in the mini without his tal mg any notice of ii In answer to n question lat.w - a boa: Sir George llut. lei’s condition at lid: time, witness raid he was stuporous Witness wont <..a to say that the so'ci,/ visit was ir. relation io the signing o 1 the will. Dr. Steele would not give lib consent until witness saw Sir George and witness could see that Dr Steele wished to protect himself. The icai was that any excitement might .'n-i-j on another apoplexy. There was m mention of that when the will was ore pared, and witness had assumed that ii was ready for completion and that Sii George had boon taken ill before it; w;u signed. Sir George Hunter did not know him or remember the first visit. Tire following week Dr. Steele twin rang him and asked for a certificate On tin- second occasion Dr. Stcoie said: 1 “Dunn lias asked for a certificate, ’ : and witness understood that the desire for the document was prompted by a feeling that it might be suggested Sir George was not capable of transacting business, in witness’ opinion ho could understand he was signing a will, and if would bo/safe for him to do so. Asked if at that time -he knew Sir George had made a new will since his illness, witness said ho knew nothing about that will until Lady Hunter told him after Sir George had died. Questioned as to whether he had been asked to give a certificate as to Sir George’s test eritary capacity, witness leplied that, be would not have given it, nor would ho have been present at the signing of the new will, nor would have had anything to do with it. He would never have believed that the man knew what he was signing. At a later stage His Honour asked witness why he thought the will had l>een prepared for signature before Sir George limiter’s illness. Witness ro-

I'lioil lli:i I il was so obvious to him that Sir (ii'nrjjc could not luivo originated tlio will after apoplexy. Tt did not enter witness’ head that the will hau been prepared afterwards. ’ In the course of his evidence Dr. tricsen said it was quite consistent with Sir George’s mental condition that he should be able to discuss land deals and other business matters that had been part of his usual life before the illness, but he would bo quite incapable of initiating business ideas or .doing business involving complex sets of facts. Replying to Mr Gray, witness said he l ad given evidence in a number of corn- j pen sat ion and accident cases and would I not disagree with suggestions that that I he had always been dogmatic. Nothing in the evidence would convince him that Sir George had testamentary capacity. Witness did not think Sir George woidd realise the importance or significance of anv alteration suo-n-ested in the will. I “My object in going to see i.Sir George,’’ said witness, “was the one of protecting him if there was any fear of his having another stroke. It was told to see him and find out the earliest day on which he could sign a will, and I said then that I thought that time had already come.’’ Witness said that he had boon merely concerned in testifying that Sir George bad been capable of performing the physical act of signing the will. Answering further questioning witness said that Sir George had been prone to suggestion after his stroke. In reply to Ibis Honour witness said he thought it likely the gift of 300 acres in favour of his daughter might have been the result of suggestion It •vas equally likely that the codicil he made revoking that clause in the will had also been the result of suggestion. The court adjourned at 5.30 p.m. till to-morrow, with Dr Giesen still in the box. ‘