WILL DISPUTED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 8 October 1936, Page 7

WILL DISPUTED

OPENING OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE WEALTHY WOMAN’S ESTATE (United Presß Association) CHRISTCHURCH, 7th October. The conclusion of evidence for the defence and the. opening of plaintiffs’ case were given in the Supreme Court to-day during the hearing of the application to have probate of a will allegedly made by the late Elizabeth Smith revoked and the will declared null and void. Plaintiffs were Olive Judge and Ivy Cookson, both of Christchurch, and defendant was the Guardian Trust and Executors Company of New Zealand, Ltd. Henry James Biggins, accountant to the Standard Insurance Company, said he had seen Miss Smith, who held £12,000 worth of shares in the Standard Company, rummaging at night in city rubbish tins. Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C.i opening the case for plaintiffs, subtnitted there were circumstances about the making of this will such as to excite the suspicions of the Court. First an order was made in respect of the testatrix under the Aged and Infirm Persons. Act six months before, the will wasi made, and she was the subject of the. order at the time the will was made. Secondly, section 26 of the Act.provided for confirmation of the will of such a person by the Court. Thirdly, no independent instructions were given by Miss Smith to her solicitors. Fourthly, instructions for the will came from Harris, who represented the Guardian Trust Company;' which benefited immediately and in perpetuity under the will. “I do stress at this stage,” said Mr O’Leary, “that there was a great want of care in the preparation of the will. The solicitor concerned should himself: have taken the matter in hand. He should have had a medical examination made and should have gone to the Court under section 26 of the Act.”

The first witness for plaintiffs was William Sidney Smith, artist, of Sumner, a nephew of testatrix. He said he had known Miss Smith for about sixty years. For 20 years he visited her every week, and for the last three years once a month. He had seen his aunt dressed in filthy rags, in strange contrast to her younger days, when she was very dainty, neat and clean. “IN SHOCKING STATE” Mr O’Leary: “She did not look after herself personally?” Witness: “No. She was in a shocking state.” Witness said his aunt had very little education. Her memory in later years seemed to be failing fast. Her speech was disjointed and inclined to be rambling and dreamy. It was utter nonsense to suggest that his aunt formerly had been a good business woman. She seemed to suffer under the delusion she was poor. Recalling references to Harris by testatrix, once she said to witness, “Mr Harris is collecting dividends on my shares. I don’t know what he is doing with the money and I don’t know where I stand.” Later Miss Smith said: “Mr Harris wants me to hand my ! affairs over to him for all time.” Witness said to her, “No; I wouldn’t do that.”

Later, said witneses, his aunt said she had signed a paper. Her account 1 of it was rambling, but she said something had happened “in camera.” She told witness, “The judge asked me if I understood what I was doing and I said ‘Yes’.” Witness asked why she said this when she had not understood,, and she replied, “The judge was so nice I couldn’t say no.” Before the will was made testatrix said to witness, “Mr Harris is worrying me about a will. I don’t know .i; what to do. What will happen if I don’t?” Witness answered that with • out a will her money would probably go to the relatives, and she appeared to be satisfied: with this probability.' ’• After the will was made witness gathered she wax not satisfied. Witness said he was sure his aunt had no idea of the extent of her estate. Ivy Cookson, one of the plaintiffs,, said she received £ 100 under the will. The cheque she received she returned to the Guardian Trust - Company. The accumulations in her aunt’s house were chiefly rubbish, skins, bits of bread, bottle caps, pieces ■ of rag, string and paper and very dirty handkerchiefs. Witness, who visited the house frequently, never saw a fire there winter or summer. On one occasion Miss Smith said, I don t want to make a will but Mr Harris wanted me to.” v. Mr Barrowclough (for the defence). Did she complain about Mr Harris? Witness: She said he bossed her. Witness added that Miss Smith had said, referring to Harris, “He* thought it was his money." The court adjourned until to-mor-row.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE HEARD

CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Medical evidence as to the testamentary capacity of testator, was given in the Supreme Court to-day, when the hearing of the Elizabeth Smith will case was continued.- ' : • u Dr. John Russell, Deputy-Directoi of Mental Hospitals, giving evidence this morning, said that so far as this case was concerned, in February 0.. this year all the papers in connection with the application under the Act for aged and infirm persons protection were" - placed before him.' In his report he said that from a medic?! point - of view he considered that Elizabeth Smith did not have a disposing mind , in December 1933, and it could be proved that she did. not have a disposing mind six months later. The case ix proceeding.