WILL DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 5 November 1936, Page 7

WILL DISPUTE

COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION. (Per Press Association—Copyright). PALMERSTON N., November 4. Strange features are associated with litigation which commenced m me Supreme Court before Mr Justice Ostler to have determined and admitted, the last will of Mrs Catherine 'Wilson, of Palmerston North, in which the youngest son of a former Gover-nor-General, Lord Plunket, is named as heir to the estate. Two wills were made by testatrix, one within nine days of the other in 1922. The second will, which cannot be found, revoked the first. The effect of this has been to render deceased intestate, with no next of kin yet discovered.

The action was brought by Captain Arthur Tabu Rhodes, x of Old .Jury, London, against the Public Trustee,the latter representing himself, and any next of kin of deceased. Plaintiff seeks a pronouncement by the court in favour of either of the two wills. This is opposed by the Public Trustee on the ground that testatrix destroyed the second will intentionally. Plaintiff’s answer i$ that, if that happened, testatrix was of unsound mind. Plaintiff’s statement set out that he was the executor named in the last will of deceased, who died in January, 1935. He claimed this will was neverrevoked or destroyed by testatrix, nor by any person by her direction. This will, dated January 17, 1922, was at the time of her death, valid, but could not be found. It revoked all former wills, and appointed Tahu Rhodes, then of Christchurch, trustee unci executor. Mrs Wilson bequeathed all her realisable property on trust for the Hon. Brinsley Plunket, formerly of

County Wicklow, Ireland, and now of Geraldine, Canterbury. Plaintiff had been unable to discover any next of kin to cite as party to the proceedings. It was alleged that testratrix made an earlier will on February 8, 1922, in identical terms.