SUPREME COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 5 March 1914, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

THE SPIOER WILL, CASE. - , ' (Continued from page 3.) •Earlier evidence will be found on page' 3of this issue. On the Court 'resuming this morning, Mr Hayes called further, evidence. Thomas G. Brougham, farmer, statedhis wife was a stepdaughteT of the late Mrs Spicer. YHe had known her for about" 50 years, the last 40 of which, he knew her intimately She was a hard-workin'g, very frugal person, and a keen btasinese. woman. One would need to be smart* to get the best of her in a business deal. She had a very good' memory. In."the beginning of January of last year he had received messages from his brother Graham and Mrs Atkins, as a result of which.-' he visited Mrs Spicer on January 2. She ■was in bed, and they chatted for a considerablo time on ordinary topics, after which she said she wanted witness to arrange to get cement and railings around " certain graves in the cemetery. iShe was quite capable of following witness .when, explaining matters in connection with the proposed -work. Before he left Mrs ' Spicer said : "Tom, I want you to ' call in at 'Mr Easton's and tell him to come out arid make my will. It is partly done, but not finished. You never'know what might happen." No mention was made by her of having relatives at Home. Witness told her that Mr Easlon was out camping, but that as soonas he noticed his office door open- he' would call in and ask him to go; out: Witness lived almost opposite; the office. Subsequently witness delivered the message to Mr Easton. who Teplied "Thai; is 'done." Witness was surprised at' this remark, and considered that a mistake had been made. Witness visited Mrs Spicer on other occasions sine© January 2. but. he could detect no differ-' enco in her "mental condition, though) physically she was not in such good health. Witness to his knowledge had no further conversation with Mrs Spicer re the will after January 2nd. On 12th February witness took his wife to see Mrs Spicer, where he found Mrs Durrartt/ who was acting as her nurse. He noticed not the slightest deterioration in. Mrs SpiceT's intellect on this occasion; He remembered Mr Spicer remarking that a fire insurance poliov was due next day, Mrs Spicer knew the exact amount from memory, and asked someone ' fetch her purse, when she counted. out the necessary sum. The first time a mistake of 3d was made, but after counting it a second time her daughter verified that the amount was correct. The eXr act change was not available, and witness offered to supply it. Witness paid the money in, and found that ,the suni given him was guite correct. On takinjj back the receipts,- he did not have the correct change, and' Mrs Spicer -told him to make it right out of small change.she had. On February 15 his brother Harr jr dTove Mr Eaeton to Mrs Spacer's," On, the following day he-and his wife" were there for about an hour. She was then much the same as usual in her mind, and ■he noticed nothing peculiar about her. He saw Mrs Spicer for the last time on February 27th, when she appeared to ; b'e very ill indeed. His wife accompanied him on that occasion. Witness conversed with Mrs Spicer, and found nothing, in her manner to indicate a weak mind. ,Mr Spicer was very grieved at the loss , of his wife. He was subject- to bad turps, and would on occasion forget'all knowledge of passing events. He would, perhaps converse with witness on one days f and the next 'forget all about it. .Mrs Spicer was keener in business than Her husband. ■ ' - • *' Cross-examined by Mr Harley; Mrs Spicer never told' witness thatthe.was an executor but he knew his wife was benefiting under the will by a remark Jnade by Mrs Spicer that she "had put Caroline's name in the will." Prior to 2nd January witness had not been in the" habit of frequently visiting Mrs.Spicer. Caroline Jane Brougham, -wife of the former witness, said Mrs Spicer was her step-mother. Witness did not benefit under her father's will, all going,to Mrs Spicer's daughters. The money was tied up so? that only the interest was,made payable to them After her • father's death witness left -Motueka,- but subsequently Tejturned. On _Eebruary,. 12th, 1913, in response a, message from Mrs Spicer, witness visited > her, aric! remained for about half-an-hour. Mrs Spicer was ill in bed, 'but conversed on subjects which witness had forgotten all about; going,back ,39 yeajs. Her po-wer of understanding* wa* very good indeed; witness had'-never-any difference in &er mental condition during all the years she had" known her. Witness corroborated her husband's evidence in reference to the counting toi jha money for the insurance policy.-' 'On'-the L6th "February witness again saw; Mrs Spicer, and it was-'the first which thev had had a long conversation by themselves. Witness noticed no difference that day in the mind; ofjMra Spicer; in fact- she appeared in _l?efter health. Witness'again visited.Mrs Sprcer on February 22,- accompanied by» Jher daughter. Dora, whom Mrs £pice£ recognised after an absence of over 12 yedrs. To his Honour; Witness .had not-visit-ed Mrs Spicer for about 15 yearsnrevious to the present occAs&oik -f There had been a- certain coolness .between them over a business!matter." -' - Mr Hayes: • Did you get the better ot her in a business deal? . - Witness: Not *much. Y L, . Cross-examined by. Mr, Harley:- There had been A'real coolness .between.witness and MrsSpicer dm™* the 15 years. , This 'was the case'for Mr Hayes. ;

■ THE DEFENCE. In opening the case for, the defend, Mr Harley 'said' there' were Trio children to Mr and Mrs Spicer..-. sJhen Mite Heath married Mr Spicer, she had -a small interest in a property. Mrs Spice?, on her marriage, was *a keen business woiran, and in the, course' o£. business; money was handed:to her,.by her htis"band, and both accumulated* considerable property in iheir.own' named/* .On 10th February, 1918; Mrs- Spicer made a will, under which she gave a life interest to her" husband and £2O *sp\ to the grandchildren, amd to Tier four daughters. This was the will which, the defendants were counter-claiming as the true will of Mrs Spicer. "The defendants, of course, .did not' know anything of the instructions,.giyen M fa\*£ r Easton ; and on Bth August," 1912; the . daughters each received a letter from their mother's legal advisers complaining that she was not being 1 treated properly. Previous to this the- relations between mother and daughters were -most cordial, and they were continually at the Spicers' house. There' was not'.the slightest complaint made to the daugnters. The letters caused great surpr:se> and created quite a - ferment in the family. After this one or .others of daughters were constantly Avith their mother, although two of them had families to look after. Mr Harley contended that the reason why Mrs bpicer altered her will was because she had got. it into her mind that.her children were not treating her properly. This,'saw* counsel, was a delusion. Medical evidence would be given to show, that juts Spicer was incapable of making a wm at the time. In regard to the will made on sth January he had been instructed by Dr. Deck that Mrs Spicer was quite unfit to make a will, and was still worse on the 15th February .when the wiliwaa re-executed. After the will was read, the parties interested in the will ©t "»•" were greatly astonished at its contents, and determined, to take legal advice on the matter. A meeting had been; new

by' those interested, on the 14th April. Mr-.Spicer. was . present,' -and made a . long.detailed statement, saying he was Satisfied Mrs Spieer was not, fit to make the ; will, and he would join with the others, in opposing probate. Mr flarley called: Harley, solicitor, Motueka, •who deposed that he remembered attending a'meeting-in company with his father at Mr Atkins' house on 14th April. The defendants in tbe present case were among those present. The object of the meeting was to obtain statements from all intending witnesses for •the defence, and it was on these statements that his father was to advise tbe defendants. whether or not they had a case . Witness attended to take down the - statements, 'in company with his father. He took down Verbatim what was-'said, including the remarks made by Mr Spieer. With the exception of one or two slight alterations, the notes of his own and his father's coincided. : Cross-examined by Mr Hayes : Mr Spieer.gave his statement fairly freely, although occasionally he was asked questions by witness' father. It was very probable that leading questions ■were put to Mr Spieer, who seemed quite rational and appeared very enthusiastic about upsetting the will. Witness did not see Mr Spieer again until a week ago, when Mr Spieer said he had foTgotten all he had said at the meeting, remarking that sometimes he forgot one day things that were said the dav" before. Witness would not swear that Spieer was t6ld thilt ' he would lose his homestead unless he opposed the will. Witness did hot think the 1910 -will was read to Spieer. Elizabeth Jane Williams, wife of Francis Williams, farmer, and eldest daughter of Mrs Spieer, stated that she had always been on good terms with her mother, and had always visited her as much as she possibly could.- She remembered receiving a letter in August, 1912, written by Easton and Nicholson, the contents of which surprised her very much. . The next day witness called on Easton and Nicholson, and told the latter that she could not do any more for her mother unless she went to" live with her altogether. She . calhtd at her mother's on her way-home, and told her she could not understand the reason ior the letter. Her mother "*es, I : have sent, one to all- of them. On the 17th August witness went to her mother's and stayed there more than " half her time np to ten days before Christmas. Witness got completely knocked up at the condition of her mother, who never seemed to rest, and witness was ordered by Dr. Deck to return to her home. . When witness first -wenfc to her mother, she seemed funny in her "ways, and gradually got worse She would first want one thing and then another; nothing would suit lier. She' complained that her daughters should cpnie to see her more of ten than they did. Her mother and Jtfr Spieer got on well together, although Mrs Spieer always got her own way. She was very queer On Christmas Day. On

6th" January, 1912, witness xeceived * telegram in Nelson signed "William Spicer" asking witness to return at once, a£ her mother was dying. Witness returned immediately to" her mother, wh<seemed very strange- Her mother was in. bed, and complained of pains m the head. Witness stayed with her mother for four days, and she seemed much worse when witness left. On 16th February her mother again complained of paini in Tier head, and appeared strange in manner. Witness was with her mother during the last few days of he. life, and she was in a very bad suite indeed On the night of February 27th ahfwas almost out of her mind, and they had to hold her down m bed. Cross-examined by Mr Hayes: Witness was herself in ill-health when she went to" help her mother. She could S Understand why the letter was sent bv" Mr Nicholson on ner mother s be-, half. Witness, in discussing the matter with Mr Nicholson, did.not discuss the Sufeanour of her mother, as she did not find this out until afterwards Witness g£ to leave her mother as she was too stay. When witness «tm™d» Tanuarv, her mother knew her. Mxs IS senr., was with her mother after witness Sit. Witness did not think her SK'was capable of business after 16th February. . witness that under Mrs The reason she supposed was that hei Mother had said that those most would get, the most. <* February, witness iScer tions for Mr Spicer's will. Mrs tspicer was also present, but witness did no., S&tetfiat she was then m her rgu mind, although probably she had takeD S*in giving ?&£s£■££& t e ovef £ lS. •H« motheVsaid she did not ther there was enough money to pay Sriegacies Sat enough and some to spare, and this - SSSpeSed to her mother who said «All riant" On November 28th, 1912, , • aavine she would leave -™ loul ?Sham something. W»tne» djdjngb trvino- to upset Mr Heath s win. Her mother's aeath she JS at Mr Easton's office along Ser relatives .talking ..over Mr gicer's will, when witness said she wa sure- her mother that.-Ihe referent S> 2? disposal of ro o*t would get the most, \nne-Maria Durraut, wife of J. JDulS, said she had been Motueka for five years under ~r.A Tpffries She went to nurse r>n- ■ IpiceJ o?l2th January, 1913, previous she had.never spoken to her. Witaeif remand for about month •nr Deck was then attending Mr. ?m'cer Witness was in bed when sh< - Irrivld, and she was in constant * tndance on her for a month, with th exception of occasions when one of Mr. Spier's daughters r « ll€ve ;* J 16 ?" Smcer slept in another roorc- from in. Soger «P* d after witn€SS arrived Mrs*Spicer behaved very strangely. Sn. after complained about her children na coSngVsee her, in spite of the, fa, that they constantly visited her. On cm Scasion Mrs Spicer had been Sflbout things, and asked ™tne» t J«fn<r her a knife and she would cut heSroat She worried because she wa: S better friends with her children, al Sough withes, could see no reason^ between - them. Mr* Seer had also remarked on another" P c fon aTnear as witness could, remem- " had forgiven all her■<*»and had left them equal sha.es vnYl -t!£L was in attendance, Mrs ffieWSSS oYmtlTelse than *er «w» Spicer l* informed Mrs W-l----r*£?'that Mrs Spicer iad spoken to

ness told both Mrs Atkins and Mr Spieer of the request of Mrs Spieer lor a knife. The vagaries of Mrs Spieer in regard to her food were more noticeable than in 1 ether elderly people she had nursed. '• Witness had known Mr Spieer to have lapses of memory. Mrs Spieer was very fickle with witness. Dr H. O'B. Deck deposed that he had ' been practising 26 years at Motueka. He was frequently Mrs -Spicer's medical attendant. He was called in on 16th October, 1912, and with the exception of a gap of ten days, he attended her until her death. She was suffering from giddiness, shortness of breath, and general weakness when he was called in in October. He came to the conclusion then that she was suffering from a weak heart. He had \known her for a good many years, and when first called in he did not pay much attention to her mental conditiou, but- endeavoured to relieve her physically. _ After a time witness noticed on his visits that her mental condition, -was changing. She became very suspicious and melancholic. On 15th and 16th Nov. at the request of ilrs Spieer, Dr Paxton was called in in consultation, and he agreed with the diagnosis of witness that Mrs Spieer was suffering from fatty degeneration of the heart and chronic softening of the brain. In answer to his Honor, witness said he came to the conclusion he did from the general mental condition and restlessness of the patient. She also had delusions, one of which was that people -were going to poison her. She also asked Dr Paxton to take over her case. His Honor: Do you call that a delusion (Laughter. Continuing, witness said h continued attending Mrs Spieer. One day he would be dismissed and.the next he would be 6ent for again. His Honor: Then the delusion did not last long ? Witness: No, your Honor. (Left sitting.) On the 28th February, his Honor Sir Robert Stout, on the application of Mr. Glasgow, granted probate of the will of | Mrs Sarah Thompson, late of Richmond, ; to Mrs Kate Eliza Littleproud, the sole , executrix named in the will. On the sth I March his Honor, on the application of Mr Cyril Rout, granted probate of the will of Mary Ann James, late of Collingwood, to Frank James, of Puramahoi, : the sole executor named in the will. In the of James Anderson, late c£ . Craigieburn, Hongkong. This was a; petition by Mr H. 0. Ledger praying | for the appointment of the Public Trus- ; tee as sole executor in New Zealand < f the late Mr Anderson's will. On the application of Mr Glasgow, the petition was granted on 3rd March.