GIFTS NOT ALLOWED

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1929, Page 3

GIFTS NOT ALLOWED

MENTAL DEFECTIVES ACT. ! . DECISION OF APPEAL COURT. i L . ; Wellington, July 17, The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Haydn Algar, of Kilbirnie, a builder, and Annie Algar, his wife, against Harry James Tasker, of Porirua, mental defective, suing by his administrator, the Public Trustee, For about six weeks prior to September 21, 1926, Tasker lived with the Algars at their residence in Kilbirnie, Wellington, and during that time he made gifts to them of £315. From 1907 to 1917 Tasker had been an inmate of Porirua Mental Hospital, and shortly after making these gifts he showed evidence of insanity. Mr. Justice Smith held that the gifts should be set aside, on the ground that there was a confidential relationship between the parties, that a presumption of undue influence arose against the donees, and \ that owing to the state of mind in which Tasker, continued thereafter it was impossible to conclude that Tasker, with a full sense of responsibility for the disposition of his property, adopted or confirmed the gifts.

The appeal was against this decision. The Chief Justice, the Hon. M. Myers, read the judgment of the court: “We agree with the learned trial judge that the evidence throughout is consistent with the view that after making possible suitable gifts of sleevelinks, studs and a gold pencil to his host and hostess Tasker made three gifts of £lOOO each in rapid, succession to the same donees, under the delusion from which he was then suffering that money was of no use to him. We agree also with him that the appellants have not succeeded in discharging the burden of proof cast upon them by the presumption of undue influence. “It remains, then, to consider the contention that the alleged gifts were confirmed or adopted after, it is said, the influence of the Algars was removed, and that appellants should succeed on this ground. The inference drawn by the judge in the court below was sufficient to answer this contention, the inference being that whether Tasker was actually fit to make a will or not, he was mentally infirm, and that the court ought not to accept the statement of Algar as to Tasker's attitude as confirmation of a gift arising from the free exercise of

Tasker’s independent will.” Costs were allowed against ; the . appellant.