WILL DISPUTED

Southland Times, Issue 21271, 18 December 1930, Page 8

WILL DISPUTED

LATE SIR G. HUNTER

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DOCTOR IMPORTANT EVIDENCE (Ter United Tress Association.) Wellington, December 17. The hearing of the Hunter will case was continued to-day. Dr. Hughes. Steele, under cross-examina-tion by Mr Watson, said that at the conference of the doctors he heard Dr. Giesen express the opinion that Sir George had not testamentary capacity “at that time at all.” Witness did not know the legal definition of “testamentary capacity.” He knew the medical side. Continuing, witness said the statement was compiled by Mr Watson as the result of the conference between the lawyers ami the medical men. Most of the discussion was based on the question of Sir George’s testamentary capacity and the legal interpretation of the word “make” in the attestation clause in reference to the will. At the time witness was under the impression, owing to the bulk of the will, that Sir George had made a very complicated will. He was perfectly satisfied, in his own mind, that Sir George was possessed of testamentary capacity under the circumstances and the conditions which witness had adopted, but he was not sure whether this was strictly and legally correct —whether Sir George would have had to make a will without the help of someone who was conversant with his affairs and knew how he proposed to dispose of his property and who could aid his memory. Witness admitted that the plaintiff’s solicitor visited him a fair number of times. He came mostly on account of Dr. Giesen’s statement which rather alarmed witness.

Witness denied the suggestion by Mr Watson that he (Steele), after having received a certificate from Dr. Giesen, communicated with Giesen and told him: “The certificate will not do Mr Dunn.” Mr Watson: Isn't it a fact that the certificate was in this form: “While it is obvious Sir George is unable to transact his business, he is able to understand the act of signing his will?” Witness: Nonsense!

Under further cross-examination, witness declared he frequently called in Dr. Giesen for consultations but he did not like the way in which Giesen mixed up medicine and law. If Giesen had said Sir George had not testamentary capacity witness would have stopped the will making at once.

Mr Watson asked if witness knew that Dr. Duncan had expressed his opinion that Sir George had no testamentary capacity while at Rotorua and whether, in view of that, he was prepared to say Duncan’s evidence was nonsense. Dr. Steel: Utter nonsense!

Mr Watson: Have you had previous experience in testing a man for testamentary capacity ? . Witness: Not previously for will making. Dr. Steele said he carried out no specific tests as to the capacity of Sir George in that respect as he was seeing him every day. As the case progressed he tested out Sir George’s memory for lack of confusion of ideas.

Further cross-examined, Dr. Steele said that when Sir George had returned from Rotorua in .lune, witness had told him he had regained his full mental vigour. Witness admitted that a sick person was usually more inclined, from apathy, to assent rather that dissent wliei* questions were put, though not on serious matters. Dealing with the second will, the opposing counsel asked the witness: “Was any specific question asked you if Sir George was capable of making a will?” Witness: “Yes, and I said he was.” Counsel: Did you not at the conference say that you thought “making” a will meant the physical act of signing a will? Do you deny that your interpretation was “signing?” Witness: I do deny that I said I would have the opportunity of explaining what I meant by "make” in the witness box. Mr Watson (angrily) : “Do you suggest there was any mention of the witness box then ?” Witness (equally perturbed): I do, Sir. You suggested to me that I would have a sad time over the word “make.” His Honour: Well, let's have a quieter atmosphere and not so much shouting. Further Medical Evidence. Dr J. 11. G. Robertson, a medical practitioner and specialist in skin diseases, said he had known Sir George Hunter for about 10 years. He had been called in to see Sir 'George by Dr Steele with reference to some skin trouble in February of this year and the interview had lasted for about half an hour. There had been some desultory conversation and Sir George had seemed pleased to see him. He had appeared very frail and witness ha.l refrained from discussing anything obstruse for that reason. Witness said there had been nothing in Sir George’s mental reactions to differ from witness’s previous recollection of him. Sir George was not wanting in clearness and took an intelligent part in the conversation. Counsel: If, four days after the stroke, Sir George had discussed farm operations with his nephew and, later, with one of his men. what would that indicate? Witness replied that it would indicate that the stroke had not been severe and that the mentally evidently was not so gravely affected as it might have been. It was possible for people to have apoplectic seizures with partial paralysis without suffering any mental impairment, but the latter was usual. Cross-examined by Mr Watson, witness said he would have inferred that, any complicated question would have put a strain upon Sir George’s mind at that time. Witness would not consider he could take any involved business at that time without mental tiredness. Counsel: If you were.told that an old man of 72 had had a severe apoplectic seizure, would you not expect severe mental impairment? Witness: Yes; I do not think he would be fit to make a will for sortie months. It. would be impossible within fourteen days or six weeks.

Witness said he could not judge from his observation of Sir George in February whether the stroke had been severe, or not.

In reply to Mr Gray, witness said his answers to Mr AVatson had been based on the assumption that the stroke had been a severe one. If it, had been a light one, the answers would not, apply. , At this stage the Court adjourned until to-morrow.