WILLS INVALID

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23296, 15 March 1939, Page 16

WILLS INVALID

SUPREME COURT RULING

CAPACITY OF TESTATOR

STATEMENT BY DOCTOR

Tiie hearing of an application to have two of a deceased person's three wills declared invalid on the ground that they were made when the testator was in an unsound mind was concluded before Mr., Justice Callan in the Supreme Court yesterday. The application was made by Robert King, trust manager of the New Zealand Insurance Company, as administrators of the estato of Herbert Victor Bartlett (Mr. Finlay), and the defendant was Mrs. Rayner Woolfe Skinner, of Auckland (Mr. Quartlev). Mr. Bartlett, a bachelor, died in Auckland in 1937, leaving an estate valued at about £ISOO to £I9OO. '4yt :

Plaintiff si aid in his statement that in 1924 Mr. Bartlett executed a will bequeathing all his real and personal property to his brother and sister, who lived in England. They died prior to the testator, and the next of kin were the three children of the brother. On July 4 and July 27, 193i5, defendant notified him that she held documents purporting, to be wills of Mr. Bartlett, leaving in the first, dated 28, 1937, all (lis "personal property" and in the second "all his personal belongings" to her. Plaintiff alleged that when Mr. Bartlett signed these docur ments he was not of sound mind or testamentary capacity, and he asked that they be declared invalid. He also sought a decree' that Mr. Bartlett died intestate and asked that the letters of administration granted to him should be continued. •

j; Case lor Defence ! "Three; things about this case seem to differentiate it from the ordinary cases of contested wills," said Mr. Quartley, in opening the case for the defence. The contested wills excluded nobody whom Mr. Bartlett intended, when there was no question of . his mental capacity, to benefit. Moreover, nobody had a greater claim on the old man's bounty that the person who was to benefit, and in addition Mr. Burt- 1 lett seemed to have known that the two beneficiaries under the first will were dead. The contested wills were in the handwriting of Mr. .Bartlett himself and gave evidence of co-ordination of mind, Mr. Quartley continued. There were witnesses who had daily contact with him who considered that he had testamentary capacity. Disclosure of Documents

Defendant, in evidence, said that she had known Mr. Bartlett for 12 years when ho died. She described how-she came into possession of the two contested wills, and said that the second was handed to her by Mr. Bartlett in a scaled envelope. She did not know what this envelope contained until she opened it after Mr. Bartlett's death To Mr. Finlay witness said that she did not disclose the existence of the second document handed her by Mr. Bartlett; lor some time, as she did not consider it of any value. At Mr. 1' inlay's request, witness wrote on a slip of papeif the words. "1 know the difference between personal belongings and personal property." This was handed to His Honor. The witnesses to the two contested wills described the circumstances in which they had acted, and said that they had ho hesitation in signing. They saw nothing in Mr. Bartlett's conduct to indicate that he did not have a normal; outlook. . His Honor's View

Dr. Henry Meredith Buchanan, superintendent of the Auckland Mental Hospital, said that very little evidence had been given as to Mr. Bartletit'js true intellect. He thought that Mr. Bartlett had not testamentary capacity. This view was based on his history ivhile he was in the mental hospital, and the fact that there were diagnoses that he was suffering from senile, dementia, which was progiessive and incurable. Mr. Quartley said that, in view of Dr. Buchanan's evidence, he could not take tlie case any further.

"My duty is quite clear, to pronounc€i against these documents," His Honor said. He decreed that at the time Mr. Bartlett executed the two alleged!'wills he was not of sound mind and testamentary capacity, and that each of the documents was invalid. Thus he diftd - intestate, and letters of administration were granted to plaintiff. The question of costs was deferred.