HUNTER WILL DISPUTE

Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1931, Page 9

HUNTER WILL DISPUTE

RESUMPTION OF HEARING

ISSUE OF TESTATOR’S CAPACITY.

DOCTOR. ALL DAY IN WITNESS BOX.

. By Telegraph.—Press Assoeiation. Wellington, Feb. 16. The Hunter will case was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Lady Hunter, widow of Sir George Hunter, and one of the three executors, is opposing probate on the ground that the testator was not of sound mind, memory, or Understanding. In December the ease occupied the court nearly eight full days.

Dr. Giesen, of Wellington, gave evidence of being called in by Dr. Steele to see Sir George, whom he did not know prior to that. He saw him altogether on live occasions between the end of September 1929 and August 1930, just before death. On the occasion of his first visit he was not sure whether Sir George realised that witness had come to see him. He was unable to get Sir George to speak to him. One could discuss anything in the room without his taking any notice of it.

In answer, to a question later about Sir G'eorge Hunter’s condition at this time, witness said he was stuporous, Witness went on to say that the second visit was in relation to the signing of the will. Dr. Steele would not give his consent until witness saw Sir George, and witness could see that Dr. Steele wished to protect himself. The fear was that any excitement might bring on another apoplexy. There was no mention of that when the will was prepared, and witness had assumed that it was ready for completion, and that Sir George had been taken ill before it was signed. Sir George Hunter did not know him or remember the first visit. The following week Dr. Steele twice rang him and asked for a certificate. On the second occasion Dr. Steele said: “Dunn has asked for a certificate,” and witness understood that the desire for the document was prompted by a feeling that it might be suggested Sir George was not capable of transacting business, in witness’ opinion he could understand he was signing a will, and it would be safe for him to do so.

Asked if at that time he knew Sir Geor_ j had made a new will since his illness, witness said he knew nothing about that will until Lady Hunter told him after Sir George had died. Questioned as to whether he had been asked to give a certificate as to Sir George s test entary capacity, witness replied that he would not have given it, nor would lie have been present at the ing of the new yill, nor would have have had anything to do With it. He would never have believed that the man knew what he was sighing. At a later stage his Honour asked witness why he thought the will had been prepared for signature before Sir George Hunter’s illness. Witness repPed that it was so obvious' to hirri that Sir George could not have originated the will after apoplexy. It did not enter witness’ head that the will had been prepared afterwards. .

Tn the course of his evidence Dr. Giescn said it was quite consistent with Sir George's mental condition that he should be able to discuss land deals and other business matters that had been part of his usual life before the illness, but he would be quite incapable of inr itiating business ideas or doing business involving complex sets of facts. Replying to Mr. Gray, witness said he had given evidence in a number, of compensation and accident eases and would not disagree with suggestions that that he had always been dogmatic. Nothing in the evidence would convince him that Sir George had testamentary capacity. Witness did not think Sir George would realise the importa. ce or significance of. any alteration suggested in the will. “My object in going to see Sir George.” said witness, “’was the one of protecting him if there was any fear of his having another stroke. I was tojd to see him and find out the earliest.day on which, he-could sign a will, and I said then that I thought that time had already come.” Witness said that he had been merely concerned in testifying that Sir George had been capable of performing the physical act of signing the will; Answering further questioning witness said that Sir George had been prone I .to suggestion after his stroke.

In reply to His Honour witness said he thought it -likely ;the gift of 300 / acres in favour of his daughter might have been the result ofsuggestion. It was equally likely that the codicil he made revoking that clause in the will had also been the result of_ suggestion. v The Court adjourned at 5.30 p.m, till to-morrow, with Dr. Giescn still in the box.