SUPREME COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 5 March 1914, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

NELSON, WEDNESDAY, -MARCH 4 7 1914. (Before his Honour the Chi.f .Justice, Sir Robert Stout.) The Supreme Couii session continued yesterday afternocn after we went to press. IN THE ESTATE OF FANNY SPICER, DECEASED. This was an action by certain relatives of the deceased to prevent probate being given of a will' ot* the deceased on the grounds that she was not of testa mentary capacity at the time of making the will. Mr Hayes, instructed by Messrs Easton and Nicholson for the"executor.' —Messrs T. G. Brougham and Williarr Boyce; and Mr Harley for the parties objecting—Arthur Gvooby, William Atkins, Amelia Jane Grooby, Ellen Inwood, Elizabeth Williams, and Frances Atkins. Following evidence, in addition to that published in last evening's issue., was taken up to the adjournment at 5 o'clock : William Spicer, widower of testatrix, cross-examined by Mr Harley :—Previous to the writing of the letters in August, 1912, he and his wife had frequently visited the Groobys and Atkins' on Sundays. They had also quite frequently visited them during the week days. Mrs In wood did not come fortnightly and clean up the house. The daughters also visited their home as often as they liked. He could not remember if Airs Williams spent the greater part of her time between 17th August and December at his place. He did not remember that Mrs Williams left his - house because she had broken down under the strain. He knew just before Mrs Soicer died that his brother John's children were coming out. The money was sent Home for their passage. The manager of the bank at Motueka had found out the whereabouts of his relatives. Previous to this he was not aware of their existence. He .did not remember giving instructions to oppose nrobat'e of the wills of sth January and 15th February. The wills were quite satisfactory to him, and he did not authorise a lawyer to oppose them. Further questioned. Witness said if. he had signed such an authority he did not know anything about it. He remembered a meeting at the house of Mrs Atkins of those dissatisfied with the will, at which Mr Harley was present. Counsel pressed witness as to what he (witness) had said at the meeting, and he read copious notes taken down at the time. Witness maintained that he had no recollection of what took place. His Honor remarked to witness that cne extracts read by counsel appeared to he notes of what he had said at the meeting in the house. Continuing, witness said his nephew and his wife had been living with him at his home, since they arrived from England. They had discussed the provisions of the wills made, and he had told his nephew that. they. ware : to get the residue of the will drawn up by'Mr MeCallum. ' He h?d never altered his mind about opposing the will. To' his Honour: He remembered nothing about trying to upset the will after his wife's death. • To Mr Harley : Sometimes he had bad turns and .did not remember what occurred. On the night before the will was made, he did not remember if his wife was taiKing ana singing. At this stage witness had an attack of faintness, to which he is subject, and he was led out of Court. Counsel decided not to question him further. Henry Brougham, carrier, of Palmerston North, said his first wife was the daughter of the late Mrs Spicer. for whom he worked for about 15 months sorre 35 years ago. He had found her' an acute, straightforward woman. Since he left Motueka he had seen her four or five times, the last occasion being in February, 1913, when he stayed for four or five days, seeing Mrs Spicer frequently. He did not discuss business with her then, but sfle showed no signs of mental weakness. William Henry Mander, manager of> %he Bank of New Zealand at Motueka, said he had known the late Mrs Spicer for over seven years, during whi-h period he had done considerable banking business with her. to which she. was quite competent to deal. . The last transaction was on 14th January, 1913. She was a verv careful and shrewd woman, and to his knowledge never ed any signs of softening of the brain. She had a very retentive memory in connection with banking, business. ~ She was decidedly clear-headed in any banking transaction. He was certain she knew the amount of her deposits when he last saw her in January, 1913. On 29ih October. 1912. witness had written

a letter fo"r Mrs Spicer to her relatives at Home, and had also forwarded a sum of money. On 10th December a cablegram was received from John Spicer stating that his son and daughter had left. He took the message to Spicers. and they seemed very pleased to know their relatives were coming out. On the 13th January he sent her a list of her fixed deposits, amounting to £3IOO. Cross-examined by Mr :. He did not know whether Mrs Spicer could calculate, but was quite confident she would- know whether she received the right amount of money or not in payment of a cheque. • • .Re-examined by Mr Hayes: On the /13th January he considered Mrs Spicer quite capable of making a will. Elizabeth' A. Chapman, wife of John Chapman, Pangatotara, and postmistress at that place, deposed she had known Mrs Spi-er for 18 or 20 years, living about half-a-mile from her. She was a very keen business woman, and quite clear-headed. She noticed no change in Mrs Spicer in this respect as she grew older. ' Witness last saw her in bed some eight weeks before she died, when she iioticed no difference in her mentally. W 7 alter Nicholson, member of the legal firm of Easton and Nicholson, Motueka, stated that on Bth August. 1912. Mrs Spicer came to his office to s*e Mr Easton, who was awy ill. Witness informed Mrs Spicer that Mr Easton had told him- that he had received instructions re the drawing up of a will. Mrs Spicer complained of the conduct of her daughters. and requested witness to write tt; them asking them to take enre of "their parents, as they required attention, and further said that according to the replies received she would dispose of the greater part of her property. So far as witness could say, her 'mental condition at the time was miite right. The letter was drawn up, a-nd a copy sent to the four daughters. Mrs Inwotjd and Mrs WTlliams saw witness in connection with the letter. He afterwards saw Mrs Spicer, and told her of the visit to him cf her daughters. On the 20th August he a S aln saw , rs Spicer, when he went through with her the instructions drawn up by Mr Boston for a will. Mrs Spicer approved of them. The sum to be disposed of was about £4600. Subsequently Mrs Spicer brought witness an old will of Air Spicer's. and asked to be advised on it. He told her that if the provisions were still to Mr Spicer's liking the will was all rfcht. Witness drafted the will ol sth January. The only reason tor redrafting the will was because the e*e, < utors had not been appointed. There wa« no alteration in the substance of the will. On the day of the funeral witness

attended and read the will, and he believed all the parties concerned were present. After reading the will he offered tu explain anything wanted, and Mrs In wood asked "Why does Mrs Williams get £2CO more than we got." Witness, replied it was in accordance with Mrs Spicer's wish. After leaving the house he met some of the relatives, chielly the husbands of the daughters, who complained of the unequal division. No mention was made cf the testamentary capacity of Mrs Spicer. Cross-examined by Mr Harley : Mrs Williams and Mrs Inwood wore an injured air when they saw witness in regard to the letters. Mrs luwood said she had her own home to look after and did not have much time. Mrs Williams' husband said that his wife's health had prevented her doing more than she had. Mrs Spicer was not satisfied with the treatment of her daughters. The real reason of Mrs Spicer altering her will was .because she was not satisfied with the conduct of her daughters. The Court adjourned at 5 o'clock until 10 a.m. next da\ T . . (Continued on J Cf£« . )