A DISPUTED WILL CASE.
[By Telegraph.]
(from oub own oorrespokdeht.) Oamaru, January 7th. Only one matter came before the District Court to-day, but this was of an important nature. Probate was moved for, under in. Btructions given to Messrs Newton and Mirams to prepare a will for Mrs Margaret Maloney, who died recently from injuries received on the railway. The fact? were briefly these. The deceased made a will in 1876 bequeathing her property to certain persons, and appointing George Sumpter and Daniel Toohey as her trustees.- Shortly prior to her death Mrs Maloney left written, signed, and attested instructions with Messrs Newton and Mjrams for a new will, making a fresh distribution of her property, and appointing Toohey sole trustee. Mr Newton, for Toohey, now moved that probate be granted under the instructions given Newton and Mirams, as a will. Mr Hislop appeared for Sumpter, one of the trustees under the first will, and Mr O'Meagher for the legatees under both instruments. After the matter had been argued at length, during which the chief objection raised was against Toohey being appointed Bole trustee, Judge Ward held the instructions given to Newton and Mirams to be a valid instrument and granted the order, and ordered costs on all sides to be paid out of the estate. Mr Newton then undertook that Bteps should be taken in the Supreme Court to have a second trustee appointed to act with Toohey. There was very little difference in the manner in which the testatrix disposed of her property under the two instruments, the second dealing with funds not mentioned in the first will. The greatest dissimilarity lay in the fact that by the original will two trustees were appointed, while in the second instrument only one was earned; and it was chiefly on this ground that the question ai to whether the written instructions given j;o the solicitors to prepare the second will could be accepted as a revocation Of the prior and more formal instrument.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT18790108.2.15
Bibliographic details
Otago Daily Times, Issue 5269, 8 January 1879, Page 3
Word Count
333A DISPUTED WILL CASE. Otago Daily Times, Issue 5269, 8 January 1879, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in