WILL DISPUTE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 89, 31 March 1926, Page 5

WILL DISPUTE.

PROBATE CHALLENGED. Christchurch, March 30. Was a lack of filial duty or unsoundness of mind the reason why the late Louisa Christina Anderson cut three sons out of her will ? TTiis is what his Honour Mr Justice Adams had to decide, when Hubert Edward Anderson and George Etherington. trustees in the estate of the late Mrs. Anderson, applied for probate of the will. Probate was opposed Dy the three sons of the testatrix. George Robert Anderson, William Anderson, and James Anderson. The position, as outlined bv counsel for the plaintiffs, was that the testatrix, before her death, had given a house valued at £4OO to George, and had left £4OO in her will to Hubert. She excluded the other two sons because she declared they had not looked after her. The case, which was adjourned from last month, was resumed in the Supreme Court "this morning. Mr. Greason asked for an adjournment, as there was a possibility of the case being settled out of Court. The application was granted, the Court being adjourned for half-an-* hour. Mr. Rowe said that the position had been fully discussed, and he moved for a decree granting probate. Defendants, he said, would withdraw the application on condition that Hubert Anderson paid £l5O and costs (£2l) to defendants, this is to be a charge on his interest in the estate. This was agreed upon, and it was further decided that the £l5O be divided equally between James and William Anderson. Probate was granted.