SPINSTER’S WILL.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 264, 6 October 1936, Page 2

SPINSTER’S WILL.

PROBATE CONTESTED.

Per Press Association

CHRISTCHURCH, Oot. 5,

The hearing of an application to have the probate of a will allegedly made by the late Elizabeth Smith, spinster, revoked and the wi 11 declared null and void was commenced before Mr Justice Northeroft in the Supreme Court- to-day. The will was sworn for purposes ol probate at £77,000, but at the .time it was drawn up the estate was estimated at between £50,000 and £BO,OOO. Plaintiffs were Olive, Judge and Ivy Cookson, both of Christchurch, and defendant was the Guardian Trust and Executors Coy. of New Zealand, Ltd. It was claimed by plaintiffs that at the time the alleged will, dated June 8, 1934, was purported to have been executed Elizabeth Smith was not of sound mind, .memory, and understanding. On June 8, 1934, the statement continued, Elizabeth Smith was aged 80 years, or thereabouts, and remained until the day of her death suffering from senile dementia.

With the exception of an admission that probate of the will was granted to the defendant company on July 19, 1935, the statement of defence was a general denial of the allegations made in the statement of claim. It was agreed that the case for the defence should be taken first, Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., contending that the onus was on the defendant company to uphold the will. Mr Haslam, for the defendant company, said that at the beginning ot 1933 the Guardian Trust Coy.’s manager became concerned because he had found that Miss Smith had been approached by the representatives of the Investment Executive Trust and had transferred to them shares in the South British Insurance Coy. and the New Zealand Insurance Coy. Later she had transferred further shares to the representatives of the same company. Later the manager of the Guardian Trust had found that Miss Smith had been investing in gold mining companies, a flax company, and a tobacco company, Mr Haslam continued, and he had approached her relatives with a view to obtaining an order under the Aged and Infirm Persons Act, but they would not agree to do so. Finally, the Guardian Trust and Executors Coy. had sought and obtained an order under the Act. For a number of years Miss Smith had been very careful in financial matters, and it was freely admitted that she had been going round the, streets picking up small pieces of wood and fruit which fell from stalls. This was probably eccentricity, and was no evidence of incapacity, Mr Haslam added. After a discussion with Mr Justice Ostler in chambers the Guardian Trust had proceeded to recover some of the investments. The manager of the trust suggested to Miss Smith that she make a will and in March, 1934, she agreed to do so. It was suggested to her that she leave the residue of her estate, after specific bequests, to relatives, but she said she had already provided for them. The residue should go to charity, she said. She was against leaving her relatives too much money. Evidence was given by Charles S. Thomas, barrister and solicitor, of conversations with Miss Smith about taking out a protection order, the put chase and sale of shares, and the drawing of her will. Fie was fully satisfied that she knew what she was doing, and knew the full purport of the will she executed. Other evidence was given by Claude Wilkins, law clerk, about conversations when the will was being prepared and when it was signed. Rev. Frederick Norman Taylor, vicar of St. Luke’s, said Miss Smith had lived in parsimonious fashion and dressed poorly. Her mental condition always seemed to him normal and her memory good. Duncan McKenzie, detective, said he questioned Miss Smith about a man who had obtained money from her for shares and who subsequently was charged in Court with obtaining £125 from her by false pretences. Miss Smith’s statement and evidence in Court had been clearly and coherently given. The hearing was adjourned until to-morrow.