A DIVIDED FAMILY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19141, 6 October 1925, Page 12

A DIVIDED FAMILY.

TROUBLE OVER ESTATE. SECOND WILL DISPUTED. QUESTION OF MENTALITY. A family difference arising from the will made by Mrs. Mary Buckler, who died in Auckland last March, was ventilated in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Herdman. Probate was recently granted in respect of a will dated June 21, 1924, under which the whole of deceased's property —stated now to be worth only £sß4 wets bequeathed to one daughter, Mrs. Florence Chatterton. The purpose of the present action, which was brought by Mrs. Mary Howie, Samuel Buckler, second husband of deceased, Mrs. J cannot te Morrow and Mrs. Frances C. Butler, two of her daughters, all of Auckland, and Arthur Picard, her son, of Dunedin, was to set aside the probate o;t the will of 1924, on the ground that the testatrix was not of sound mind, memory and understanding at the time jof its execution; and to assert an earlier wili, dated February 17, 1921, which j divided her possessions equally between | her husband and children. Mr. Northcroft appeared in support of the applicaj tion, and Mr. Finlay appeared for Mrs. Chatterton. The circumstances, as stated by Mr, Northcroft, were that Mrs. Buckler, who died at the g,ge of 76, was in a state of partial paralysis and senility for the last two years of her life. Up to a certain stage she was living at her own home, and the two daughters then resident in Auckland, Mesdames Morrow and | Butler, were doing all that was necessary for h?r. Then arrived in Auckland the eldest daughter, Mrs. Chatterton. who is proprietress of " beauty parlours" in Wellington and Auckland. She practically took charge of her mother's affairs, kept her for a time in rooms attached to the beauty parlour, and finally transferred her to a nursing home. It was during her stay in that institution that the se.cond will was executed, leaving the whole estate to Mrs. Chatterton. Mr. North croft submitted to the Court, that , the signature to the document showed extraordinary physical weakness on the part of the testatrix, and that the evidence would prove ehe was not in a fit montal condition to make a will. Mary Howie, who had known the testatrix for some 40 years, and whose connection with the case arose merely from the fact that she was appointed executrix of the earlier will, gave evidence as to deceased's mental weakness in the closing years of her life. Other evidence in the same direction was given by another woman friend of ; testatrix, by Samuel Buckler, husband iof testatrix, by members of deceased's | family, and by the owner of the nursing home in which the second will was executed. An Old Man's Eights. It transpired that if the second will were sustained, the husband of deceased, I now an old and infirm man, would be i left with but small financial means. His I Honor "pointed out that this would entitle i him to claim against his late wife's esi tate under the Family Protection Act. Mr. Finlay intimated that his client, Mrs. Chatterton, recognised his claim and would be prepared to make him an allowance. For the defence it was claimed that deceased was of full testamentary capacity when the second will was executed. Further, it was denied that Mrs. Chatterton had influenced the making of that will, and it was asserted that for some years before the death ot testatrix Mrs. Chatterton had provided her with maintenance, medical attention and comforts, and it was in consideration of these facts that the bequest was made. Mr. Finlay submitted that Mrs. Chatterton had undertaken the whole financial responsibility for the medical expenses of testatrix and her treatment in the nursing home, besides contributing to the cost of board when deceased was living with another of her daughters. Mrs. Chatterton's total expenditure on her mother's account was about £2OO. Recognising her moral obligations under these" heads, deceased instructed Mr. Fitzherbert, solicitor, who had called upon her at the nursing home on other business, to obtain the original will from the fii'm with which it had been left and call upon her again to receive instructions lor the preparation of a new will. Some weeks later he visited her again, when deceased reviewed to him the claims of the different members of her family, laying stress upon her indebtedness to Mrs. Chatterton, as the daughter who had borne the _ whole burden, and then directed him to draft another will bequeathing to Mrs. Chatterton her whole estate. Drafting ol Second Will. Mr, Fitzherbert gave evidence to the effect that neither Mrs. Chatterton nor any other person was present while he was receiving his instructions and drawing the will, but the proprietress of the nursing homo was afterwards called in to attest it, in conjunction with himself. Testatrix was in a normal state of mind throughout the interview, but her physical condition was such that he had to steady her hand when she signed the will. A cross-examination of witness as to business which he had conducted on behalf of deceased was summed up by His Honor as indicating that Mrs. Chatterton had received over £7OO from testatrix in her lifetime. Mr. Northcroft pointed out that, as against this, Mrs. Chatterton's payments for nursing home expenses amounted to £lO5. Replying to Mr. Finlay, witness said he had seen nothing to suggest that undue influence was exerted by Mrs. Chatterton upon her mother. Mrs. Chatterton, in the witness-box, stated that since she was about 18 years of age she had regularly sent money to her mother —on an average £1 a week. When deceased went to tho nursing home witness undertook the full responsibility for ail the expenses. The money whioh she received on her mother's account in her lifetime was used for her mother's benefit. Her mother had told her tho final will was made in witness' favour in acknowledgment of witness' past kindnesses. Witness used no influence whatever upon her. It was not true that deceased showed mental decay in her final years. Counsels' addresses were deferred until this morning.