WILLS OF SIR G. HUNTER

Taranaki Daily News, 19 December 1930, Page 11

WILLS OF SIR G. HUNTER

WIDOW OPPOSES PROBATE V .. ■ ■/ ’■ ■ ■ l,'. ... '■ MENTAL CAPACITY OF,. TESTATOR, ~ ' ’ ——- - ARGUMENT IN' supreme CQURT. ■ ' / . ' , ■; '’' . . 'Ey yclejrapb..—Press Association. , . \ < Wellington, Last Night,/,; The case in which -'Lady' .Hunter li; jpposing' probate of, the • will of Sl r . George Hunter, questioning the testamentary capacity of the testator,, w continued in the Supreme Court tordayf,-,-Daniel George Arthur, Cooper, erly registrar of the Supreme • Court and afterwards S.M., said that he Sir George Hunter* last. August,,'when ? he spoke clearly and. his. face seemed , the same as witness had always known, it. ■■ : ■ Recalled, Alexander Dunn, barrister and solicitor, produced- a file of letters v from Bethune and Hunter. The letter., book was forwarded to Per«y Hunter in connection with Sir. George’s affq-irs between October 8, 1920, and June 17, 1930. .The letters were-based on conversations; he had had with Sir George,'Witness said that Sir George’s power of doing business was the same after, the stroke as before, his whole manner was the same and he required no prompting. ■ ' Mr. Justice Reed said; that he ' garded the letters as vei"y important.. ; Replying to His Honour witness Said Sir George appreciated the. Government’s. super-tax would affect him considerably; in fact Sir ■ George’s ; case had been, quoted in. Parliament. ’-- ; , ■ Dr. Twhigg said that providing M» affairs were not too intricate' and that he had some assistance it..was possible Sir George could have made a. will with.-: in two weeks of? in's stroke. -There wer® no definite tests for testamentary capijcity Jaid down as far es' witness knew. / One judged cases on general lines and it was usual to satisfy oneself as to i patient’s soundness of' mind. Where there was extensive paralysis due to apoplexy there was usually general mental impairment, but not always. It was possible to have a paralysis .case that had nothing to do with the brain. There had been nothing, in the history of Sir ; George’s- case that gave him; the imj'; pression that the stroke had been severe. ; This concluded the : plaintiff’s case. Mr. Watson, in opening his address, said Lady Hunter had decided to take the; present action only after-full inquiries had. been made from people' who. were, thought to be competent to say Sir George had had no testamentary capacity; Drs. Steele and Giesen, the at- - tending doctor and consulting doctor respectively, and as a result of a long., interview with them, and the evidence would show that. at the time both; Dr.*-. Steele and Dr. Giesen were emphatic' that Sir George.-at no time before, his departure for Rotorua had had any testamentary capacity; Included in Dr.’ Giesen’s evidence; would be certain evidence dealing with Dr. Steele’s previous actions and utterances as to Sir George r &- testamentary capacity. • ' ; : Lady Hunter as a result of the evidence gained at this conference had de-;, cided Jb contest the granting of prq-i.f bate. Her attitude in contesting the wills did (riot arise from any complaint of her' treatment; she ;had taken -action.:; for the interest and benefit of her, child. Betty..- •• • His.Honour: But the child takes nothing under the 1924 will! . Mr. Watson: Ultimately she-will - take . everything. .She has a reversionary in- ■' tere5t......... ..... - -■ - ■ His Honour: She gets nothing in the . meantime. .Lady Hunter is a young wp-;. man and tlie girl takes no interest. till" her dpath or/her re-marriage. ’lt is* very different position under tho last will. , , • - ' Mr. Watson said Lady Hunter was trying to ensure that the wishes of Sir, GebrA, made before his. illness, would be given effect to. She had had noth-; ing to do with the October will and had entirely'disapproved’of the will in the . making at that time. , ; . His Honour: Can you point out any. unfairness in the October • edll t Mr. Watson: In its unexplained and' ■ sudden cutting down of the child’s interests; ' ' ? Mr. Watson ■ proceeded to compare the provisions.' made- for the -child- in the-/ three wills and went on to say that it/ was suggested that the estate'was not* worth the . value it was /said until all the annuities had come ; back into the estate on the deaths of the people' to whom they were paid, thus making the annuity fund available for ' the estate. If. it was a fact that there would be no ’ income from . the estate until the annuities and other rcharges had fallen* back in the residue, - then counsel contended the child w2A not;/ ,a khit 'better off under the 1929 wiff ' than under the 1924'wi11, on which. Lady/ Hunter; asked for the Court’s pronounce-■ ment. ’ ’’