HUNTER WILL CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21264, 19 February 1931, Page 7

HUNTER WILL CASE.

GRANTING OF PROBATE. FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, February 18. The hearing was continued in the Supreme Court to-day of the case in which the granting of probate of the will of Sir George Hunter is opposed by Lady Hunter. Mr A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr L. K. Wilson, appeared for the plaintiffs, Cyril Paul Hunter (of Akitio) and Thomas Percy Hunter (of Porangahau). The defendants, Lady Hunter, widow of the late Sir George Hunter, and her seven-year-old child, Elizabeth, were represented by Mr G. G. Watson, with him Mr H. J. V. James and Mr W. Perry. Lady Hunter continued her evidence. Mr Gray: “ Under the 1824 will Betty would be entirely dependent upon you? Your daughter’s welfare will depend entirely upon your bounty.” Lady Hunter said that when the will was made it was not thought that she would live. Sir George had every confidence in her. If she died then, under the 1024 will, Betty would get everything. She would give anything she thought proper to the child if such a provision were drawn up legally by anyone having the power to do so. She did not want to keep anything Irom her daughter. Evidence was also given by A. K. S. Mackenzie (who prepared the 1924 will) and Carl H. Jorgensen, masseur, who said he found Sir George Hunter unable to concentrate on anything or to maintain his interest in any subject. Sir Donald M'Gavin said that not within the days of his stroke, nor within a montli—nor for that matter, at any time after the stroke—could Sir George have been able to make a will.

In cross-examination by Mr Gray, witness said he did not think it possible that Sir George could have been able to make some alterations in a will he bad made some years ago, and with which he was mainly quite satisfied. The fact that a number of codicils had been made within 10 years would not have been helpful to Sir George. Dr Theodore Gray, Director-general of Mental Hospitals, said he had seen Sir George some time after his illness. Witness had been in court to hear the medical evidence given in the case, in particuJar that given by Sir Donald M Gavin. Witness was sure that Sir Georges stroke had involved the Intellectual centres of the brain. In Sir George’s ease, witness said, he would have expected considerable mental impairment and from the nursing and evidence of the case witness was sure Sir George had suffered severe mental impairment. On the evidence also witness was of opinion that Sir George did not have testamentary capacity. Before the court adjourned Mr Gray asked his Honor’s permission to recall Mr Cyril Hunter and Mr Dunn to reply to various allegations made by Lady Hunter in the course of her evidence . llle Col 'U adjourned till the morn-