SUPREME COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 14437, 7 June 1910, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

MONDAY, Cth JUNK. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Williams), A DISPUTKD TRANSFER. Susan McSporran v. Mary Sellars Wilson, was a claim for a recall of a probate. Mr J. S. Neavo appeared for plaintiff, and .Mr W. Macalistor (with him Mr A. B. Haggilt) for defendant. Hr Ncave stated that the plaintiff resided at Oteramika, and the defendant at Makarewa, and the case was for the recall of probate of the will of Neil McSporran, dcceascil. brother of the present plaintiff on 11 jo ground that the testator at the time of making the will was of unsound mind, and that defendant had exercised undue Influence. The defence admitted that Neil McSporran was a bachelor, and that he had three sisters, one of whom had since died. He made a wilt on May 25, 11)01, and probate was granted to .Mary Sellars Wilson on June 19, 1902. It was denied that the deceased was of unsound mind, or that undue inlluence had been used by defendant. The facts of the case. as •fated by counsel, were that about IS7O, plaintiff, her deceased sister (Barbara), ‘.he brother Neil and another sister .Amelia) arrived in New Zealand, having then relatives at Morton Mains, Hargaret McCallum, wife of Robert Melallum, who was manager of Morton tlains station, was a sister of Neil Alciporran. They were advised to lake a piece of land to make a homo for themselves, and In July. 1880, took a .section in the Oteramika district on the deferred payment system. Nell McSporran tit the time had no means. His sisters Barbara and Susan were working at the Morton Mains station. The application for the land was made in the name of Neil .McSporran, ;ind the sisters out of their earnings paid the money for the rent as it fell due, Neil obtaining the money each time from Barbara and making the necessary payment. Before he loft Home Nell had hail an accident ■which had so affected him that he could pot even at that lime he said to he a man of sound mind. For some months ho did easy work on the tramway, and later he and his sister Amelia went to reside on the section (of Vo acres i at Oteramika. From is,so till (he time of his death the whole of the work he did on the farm would md consist of more than five or ten acres of ploughing, as ho would not work, and Mas generally looked on as a man who could not work. For some two or Ihree years between 1900 and .1901, the sisters had to gel assistance from the (’.A, Beard, which desired a transfer of the property to it, but this was not agreed to. Neil MeSporran died In 19011, Amelia in 190). and Barbara in 1909. Nell .McSporran made a will in IS9O. Inn it had been lost ami could not ho traced. In Ilia], Neil .McSporran executed a will in favour of tim present plaintiff, lie 'Med in April. loop; and about ten days he furs his death he went, to town (from (Meramika) in response to a Idler from .Mrs Wilson, who was his niece, lie (lien executed a deed, transferring the farm I" .Mrs Wilson, purporting to he in eonsiderution of £2lO, Nothing was known about the deed till sarnie lime after llrSporran’s death, and it was nol registered till August. 1909, Regarding (lie payment a declaration was made that MeSpnrran was indebted to .Mrs Wilsmi for money lent and goods sold to the extent of £2OO. Just after ,M eSporra n's death Airs Wilson visited the two sisters (Susan and Barbara), and represented to them that she would take care of the 4 provisional titles of certificate to the property. Site got them and they were given to the solicitor, who had previously prepared the transfer, of Hi" existence of which the sisters were limn not. aware. The present will was in favour if the sister Barbara and the pr-ieni daintiff, hut a. settlement was, ai rived •t with .Mrs Wilson, by which they were o have v life rent of the whole estate. Defendant then did not carry out the terms of the settlement. She leased dm land, removed the stock and endeavoured to eject the two sisters from it. In actOrdanee with the sett lemon I the debts if the estate were to have been paid, ■le understood that these amounted to £9O, and thai. nothing had been paid, and that eiui e'pnmi ly the terms, of settle-irll-nl had nol been carried out. i'minslated that MeSpi-n an had been eccentric during the v, hole lime of his residence in New Zealand, nml dint lliis eccentricity hud much Increased in later years. He submitted that at the time ho made the transfer Neil McSporran was not of sound mind, and dial defendant had exercised undue influence. He

would bring evidence in support of his statement as to AlcSporran's slate of mind (hat on Um day after he had made the transfer he returned to Oleramlka. and wanted to sell the laud to a neighbmir. Kvidenee on the lines of eounsel’s slalemenl was given by Margaret McCalluin (sister to plainlifl ), Hubert MeCalium (plaintiff's brother-in-law), and William .). Drake (farmer, ULcfamika). Dealing as it did with events dial occurred many years ago the evidence was to a great extent of a roundabout nature, and the necessity (or separating direct evidence from hearsay, and revivin'; indistinct recollections entailed a considerable lax on the time of Court. The Court adjourned at 5.15 p.m. till 10 o'clock lids morning.

AIT INSURANCE CASE.

(Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June «, The adjourned case Emily Prosser v. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Ltd., a claim for tITO on a lire insurance policy, was resumed in the Supreme Court to-day before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Hubert Stout). The policy covered a quantity of furniture, stock, etc., in a house in Cambridge Terrace, which was destroyed by tire last year. Mr P. J. O'Hogan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr T. M. Wilford for iiie defendant Company. evidence for the defence was given on behalf of the claim. In Ills defence Air Wilford pointed cut that Air Prosser had already had two fires, and the present policy covering the goods was taken out by ids wife, the plaintiff. There was suggested a transferred ownership, but there was no deed. Counsel urged that plaintiff had displayed a lack of good faith In attempting to derive benefit from the policy. A claim had been forwarded for a machine which had not been destroyed. and lie alleged that there hud been gross misrepresentation ami exaggeration. He referred to a quantity of benzine which was in the house, and to a gas jet which was left burning, and which, it was said, was put out tit 10 p.m. prior to the fire, although another witness stilted thill it was alight at midnight. Air O'Began, for plaintiff, contended that Mr Prosser had never asked an insurance agent to accept a risk over any furniture destroyed in the fire. Xothing had been shown for the defence that any of the furniture had been removed. It was admitted tiial benzine w;is in the house. Regarding the machine which was declared for and which was not destroyed counsel said that there was no intention of deliberate fraud. There had been no evidence to sustain the charge of incendiarism against Airs Prosser, The answers to questions when making out the proposal were only representations and not warranties. His Honour reserved iiis decision.