PROBATE RECALLED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19142, 7 October 1925, Page 15

PROBATE RECALLED.

AGED WOMAN'S TWO WILLS, j SECOND ONE. SET ASIDE. DISPUTE BETWEEN DAUGHTERS. The difference among the daughters of the late Mrs. Mary Buckler, regarding the two wills made by her in the closing years of her life, was the subject of judgment delivered in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr. Justice Herd man, at the close of argument in a case which was commenced on the previous day. Mrs. Buckler made a will on February 17, 1921, dividing her possessions between her husband, Samuel Buckler, anc'l bar :hr«e daughters, Mesdames Jeacnette Morrow, Frances C. Butler and Florence Chatterton, ail of Auckland, and her son, Arthur Picard, of Dunedin. While she was in a nursing home, on June 21, 1924, she made another will, bequeathing her whole estate to Mrs. Chatterton. She died last March and probate of the second will was granted. The action was brought by Mrs. Mary Howie, executrix of the 1921 will, and the other beneficiaries (Mr. Northcroft), to procure a decree setting aside the disposition to Mrs. Chatterton {Mr. Finlay), an the ground that the te-tatrix was not, at the time of the execution of the 1924 will, in such a state of sound mind, memory and understanding, as to be capable of making a proper will. The evidence was concluded on Monday and legal argument was taken yesterday. Mr. Finlay submitted the evidence showed that at the time the 1924 will was executed, testatrix had a sane and clear disposing mind, an obvious appreciation of the claims of the various members of her family upon her bounty, and i;hat under these conditions she had deliberately disposed of her estate to Mrs. Chatterton. Ail the legal requirements had been satisfied, and, if this will was to be se-t aside, then the will made by e.ny person in old age would be in jeopardy. His Honor, at the commencement of Mr. Northcroft's address, observed that ! the fact that the testatrix, while under the supervision of Mrs. Chatterton in hospital, revoked a will that recognised the claims of all members of Iter family, and substituted another wholly in favour of Mrs. Chatterton, were circumstances sufficient to arouse suspicion in the mind of the Court. The whole question to be decided was that of Mrs. Buckler's condition at the time of the execution of the second will. Mr. Northcroft contended that there was evidence of feebleness of intellect and childishness on the part of testatrix. His Honor interposed in the course of Mv. Northcroft's address by intimating th it he was prepared to give judgment. After a review of the evidence he decided that Mrs. Chatterton had not discharged the onus which rested upon her of establishing the point that her mother, at the time of the execution of the later will,; was in a mental condition that rendered her capable of making a satisfactory disposition. His Honor accordingly made an order recalling the probate granted in respect of the second will, but intimated that before granting probate of the prior will some further evidence would be required. Mr. Northcroft said it- was possible that Mrs. Howie, as executrix of the 1921 will, would probably prefer that the Public Trustee, or someone else, should administer the*estate. Costs of the case were ordered to a charge against the estate.