THE WILL CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10573, 30 September 1910, Page 4

THE WILL CASE.

A TANGLED SKEIN. ANOTHER MYSTERIOUS TELEGRAM. (Per Press Association.) -, Wellington, September 29. The examination of Robert Morton Gillespie in connection with the Tuckwell case .was,..continued-.before Mr Justice Gooper in iMei Supreme Court this morning. •'- ":- • ■ ~- ■- . . In answer to Mr IVtherick., Gillespie saicl.t-hat he did;not wisli to correct any of the statements lie had made on the previous day in reference to the hie insurance policy he saw in Cobar. and in view of the" statements made by Mr Stafford (representing the Public Trustee), that the original Government- Life policy issued had not- .left '"New-Zealand.- The policy he saw could not ha\se been that one, but to the best of his. belief it was a life in'siirance policy.' : He was not mistaken about the marriage certificate, for he certainly saw, a mark on, it which was, .fw-itiiessiHb to., as the mark- of Richard Tuckweil. He was surprised to find that Richard Tuck well could not sign his -name. Questioned as to the accuracy of his memory on some details ol his'meetings with Tuckweil and not on others, witness said he did not know then, as he did now, the importance oi those meetings. Tuckweil had agreed to give witness a power of attorney to obtain the /money due to him. hut he disappeared mysteriously, and witness could not trace him. When witness returned to; Now Zealand he «aw Septimus Tuckweil, a brother of George Tnckwell, and told him about his brother. Practically all that appeared in.his (Gil espio'sj" affidavit. Witness declared that the letter he had written from Cobar stating that George Tnckwell was sitting at-his elbow had- been stolen .'from When witness' returned from Australia ids mother advised him not to have anything to do with the matter. . . Mr Stafford : And I suppose you wish von had not:-' . . Witness: "You are quite right, -Mr Stafford." Continuing, witness said, m- answer to- Mr Fetbeiiek. that he, did all. that was 'possible to piit the Tuckwells on the track of the supposed impostor, and to clear his own character. " Diiriii" the genera! examination ol Gillespie bv Mr IVtherick. his Honor pointed out that in ' Archer 1 uckwell s affidavit there was a distinct suggestion of furgorv against the Gillespie lainily. The particular matter referred to the conveyance, of some property in 189;., :t■Kaiwaira belonging to George I uckwell. The affidavit stated that ■•members of the Gillespie family bad many opportunities of familiarising themselves with the hand-writing .of George I uckwell. and later on in the affidavit it was sworn that it was not Tuckweil who had signed the conveyance. ' "His Honor: 1 consider this is infereiithilly a charge ol lor-n-e-i-v .suggested. . The two statements correlated' could have no other construction. , , , Mr Petherick denied that any such su""estioii was intended. Mr Stafford was proceeding to explain, when his Honor said: To intelligent people that passage must bear that inference. An unfortunate feature ol the matter was that this affidavit was filed, and might be seen 20 years hence, when the imputation on the Gillespies would be apparent to the reader. 1 here was iiiferentiallv a charge of iorgery. Mr IVtherick explained that with ail the facts before him be endeavored to <dvo the Courts all the inlorniation (via affidavit) that he had. His Honor: Anyone reading the affidavit would infer that tbes e siatenieiits ■\\ere most injurious. The only reasonable inference was that some . members of the Gillespie family had perpetrateu this forgery in 1893. and had continued to perpetrate the improprieties until 1901. On counsel further deprecating anything on his part of an improper intention i his Honor said: "Then the wording of the passage was distinctly mi fortunate."' After further exchanges, his Honor asked whether counsel would withdraw the imputation of forgery or other improprieties on the part of George GillesP'° '■ Mr IVtherick expressed himsell as quite willing to withdraw the imputation unreservedly. He bad met George Gillespie personally, and believed thai he would be the last man to do such a thing. In further elaboration of the discussion, his Honor suggested that George Tuckweil himself might have signed the conveyance. Council agreed as to that possibility. When Mr Stall'ord was examining Gillespie, witness stated that he had just received a telegram from someone whom he knew offering io give information. The wire was signed "M. Walker," was dated from Auckland, and read: —"Am forwarding statement re George Tuckwell in New South Wales, 111(11." A. H. Hamilton, clerk. GovernmentInsurance Department, deposed to having George Tuckwcli's policy issued in 1879. There was no record of the existence of any other duplicate policy of the one before, the Court. The policy liecame void on loth July. 1881. Two half-yearly payments were paid alter that: no more.

Mr A. de 0. Hrandnu had been called previously to prove that a policy (which was annexed to the conveyance of the Kaiwarra land) had been in the possession of his clients since 1303. Mr Blair (as representing R. M. Gillespie) was granted leave to inquire a* to costs. His Honor statod that he had authorised the payment of Gillespie's personal' expenses incurred on the trip to give evidence in. Wellington. The question of counsel's (Mr Blair) costs could stand over for the present. Gillespie's expenses would be met out of the estate. The accumulation of interest might be sufficient to meet costs. When the examination of Gillespie was concluded, Mr Petheriek, addressing his Honor, intimated his intention of .withdrawing certain imputations and allegations 'respecting the ohief witness..'ln view.of the discrepancy in Gillespie's evidence v'e the assurance policy Gillespie stated that he saw an assurance policy in Tuck-well's possession in Collar in 1000, whereas Tuckwell's policy had lapsed' in 1881), counsel said he could not unreservedly withdraw all the allegations, but in respect to the imputations of forgery, conspiracy (1901), and impersonation he would withdraw. He admitted that Gillespie believed he had been deceived, by an impostor. He regretted that Gillespie should have been .<lnrnai into the case, but he (counsel) bad no alternative. The Court was to be given the fullest, information that could be supplied, and itwas with that idea that Gillespie was summoned. His Honor said that in view of the telegram he would adjourn the hearing till Saturday morning at 10.30'.' The' sender of the .telegram plight then be able to give the' Court further information. The publicity given, to the case had produced first.Gillespie and now someone else. .Mr Stafford: .The-publicity might produce further. claimants. It certainly has' produced' something, and that is costs. •. ■ ;.-■•...-■ . The case was, adjourned as stated. I