MILITARY AIRMAN'S ROMANCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume C, Issue 15302, 23 March 1914, Page 8

MILITARY AIRMAN'S ROMANCE.

+ FORTUNE LEFT TO A GIRL OF FOURTEEN. Mr Justice Kenny heard in Dublin on February 3, an action regarding the will of Lieutenant D. L. Arthur, the military airman who was killed while flying at- Montrose on May 27 last. The action was brought by Mr Thomas George Gabbett Studdert, of Ballvhenan, County Clare, and Mr William Ropner, of Ambleside. West Hartlepool, Durham, and the defendant was Mr Charles, William Augustus Arthur, of O'Brien's Bridge. County Clare. The plamtifls sought as executors of the last will, dated July 17, 1912, of Lieutenant Arthur, to have the will established, and the-defendant, the brother and sole next-of-kin of the dead officer, had entered a caveat. The defence was that the will was not dulv executed and that the testator did not know and approve of is contents at the time. Mr Servant Sullivan, who appeared tor Mr Ropner, said that Lieutenant Arthur appeared to have formed a romantic attachment to Miss Ropner, who was fourteen years of age and the daughter of the plaintiff. When the lieutenant's body was found after the accident a miniature' of -the girl was found on it, and it appeared that he was m the habit of wearing it on his breast. By his will h e left all his estate, amounting to £12.500, to Miss Ropner but he directed that £I,OOO should be given to his brother, the defendant, ]f Miss Ropner so wished. Mr Ropner gave evidence proving the signature to the will, and added that he intended to carry out Lieutenant Arthur's request that £I.OOO should be given to his brother, but he would have to do that himself as he could not do it against- the minor. After other evidence had been given by witnesses to the- will, neither of whom recalled the circumstances, Mr Chambers, K.C., said that the defend-ant-did not desire to contest the matter any further, but it was necessary that the case should be investigated. They had been met with extreme generosity by Mr Ropner.) Mr Justice Kenny said the case was very interesting. The document puiv porting to be a will was a holograph document, every word of it—with the [exception of the witnesses' names—being m the handwriting of the testator himself. He also found as matters of tact that the two signatures which were added at the close and under the name of "Desmond L. Arthur": were the signatures of the witnesses called in the case. Since neither of these witnesses had any recollection of having been asked to sign or remembered anything in connection with the case, ho would deal with the matter as- if it were a case in which the witnesses were dead. He would decree probate in solemn form, holding tyiat the testator signed in presence of the two witnesses, ■all being present at the same time' Costs would be given out of the estate.