DISPUTE OVER WILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17110, 15 March 1919, Page 7

DISPUTE OVER WILL.

UNDUE INFLUENCE ALLEGED.

JUDGE RESERVES DECISION.

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT URGED.

Tho hearing of the application for probate of the will of the late Mrs. Maria Theresa Styak, of Thames, made by the executrix, Mrs. Mabel A. L Mountain (Dr. Bamford), daughter of Mrs. Styak, and opposed by. William A. Styak (Mr. Reed, K.C., and Mr. Anderson), Bon of the testatrix, was continued at tho Supreme Court yesterday, before Mi'. Justice Hosking.

Evidence regarding tho mental and physical condition of Mrs. Styak prior to her death was given by Ada Wilton, who attended to the deceased for two years prior to November, 1917.

Mrs. Mountain, called by Dr. Bamford, with the object of rebutting the charges of undue influence in regard to the making of a second will by her mother, made by defendant, said she was aware that her mother was displeased with her brother for not having visited her as frequently as she would have liked. Witness was quito certain that her mother was not influenced in any way in the making of a will or in regard to its provisions. She had never heard her father and mother say anything about the property being held in trust, though she had heard her mother express a hope that the property might go equally to her son and daughter. She d.d not mention the second will to her brother on the day of her mother's funeral, because she did not feel lit to discuss business. Sho referred him to Mr. Clondon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Reed witness stated that Mrs. Luslington and defendant were on unfriendly terms, and that the former had said that defendant did not deserve to get anything out of tho property. The reason for her mother altering her will was that she was disappointed and hurt at what she considered neglect on the part of her son. The disagreement between Mrs, Lushington and defendant was no doubt one reason for her mother wishing to alter her will. Sho had never heard anything of & trust. She had always understood that the property left by her mo'her had been purchased by witness's father with money advanced to him by his mother. Mrs. Sarah Jane Lushington, sister-in-law of the testatrix, who was called as a witness by the Court, gavo evidence regarding the making of the second will by Sirs. Styak. She stated that Mrs. Styak was very much hurt by what she considered to be her son's neglect, and had frequently spoken to wi ness of her desire to make a will. Mrs. Styak asked witness to make a will, but wiVess said Bho CMild not do so, b"» puv-pp'tod that Mrs, Johnson might be able to. The latter wps sent for and request.d to write a will, but declined, and went for Mr. CendoTi, who drew up the document, Regarding the matter of a trust, witness said she had originally understood that her mother, who had advanced tho money for the purchase of the property in dispute, had expressed a w ; «h that it should be kept for the benefit of the two children.

After hearing compels' addresses, His Honor reserved his decision, remarking that it seemed a great r> ; ty thai such a purely family dispute could not be settled out of Court. He Biweested that an amicable settlement might be arranged before it would bo necessary for him to givo a decision.