SIR G. HUNTER’S WILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 429, 21 November 1930, Page 3

SIR G. HUNTER’S WILL

DISPUTE TAKEN TO COURT EXECUTORS ASK FOR DECREE [Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 19. Two executors of the will of the late Sir George Hunter, Messrs Cyril Paul Hunter and Thomas Percy Hunter, in the Supreme Court to-day asked for a decree of probate, Lady Hunter and her seven-year-old child being named as defendants. Lady Hunt&r is the third executor.

The defence is that the will and codicils propounded by plaintiffs were not duly executed according to the provisions of the statute, that, deceased, at the time they purported to have been executed, was not ’of sound mind, memory and understanding, and that at all times from September 26, 1929, until the time of his death he was so impaired physically and mentally by illness that he was unable to manage his affairs or form a rational opinion as to or to originate ideas as to the extent of his property or the claims of others upon his bounty, and did not understand the nature of the dispositions of the will and codicils, or their effect. As a counter-claim, Lady Hunter claims that Sir George Hunter duly executed his last true will on August 21, 1924, and the court was asked to pronounce for this will and codicil of the same date in solemn form. Mr Gray, for plaintiffs, said he was at a loss to understand if it was suggested that there was any unfairness about Sir George Hunter’s bequest. He said that Lady Hunter took an active part in the discussions. Handsome provision had been made for relatives, and particularly his wife and daughter; but for the making of the codicils counsel claimed that the proceedings would never have been brought. It was most unfortunate, to say the least, that his generous treatment of his wife and children should be challenged, and any reflection cast upon his testamentary capacity.

Signing of Will. Mr Alexander Dunn, barrister, of Wellington, said he was the sole owner of the business of Bethune and Hunter, which had acted as agents for Sir George at least since 1910. Sir George’s estate was sworn at £175,000. Witness gave details of the instructions received from Sir George concerning his bequests. Sir George volunteered everything, and was as clear as ever he had been. He was ill physically, but knew what he was talking about. Although witness had no doubt about Sir George’s testamentary ability, he suggested to Lady Hunter, and she agreed, that Sir George should be medically tested. The will was read to Sir George on October 13. Doctors Steele and McDonald were present. Dr. Steele asked Sir George if he knew that he was signing his will and if he knew the contents. Sir George said he did. Witness saw Sir George about twice a week. At no time had he seen any sign of mental weakness. He always appeared alert and keen when talking about his business affairs.

Dr. McDonald this evening gave evidence of witnessing the signature of the will. He considered Sir George to be in possession of all his faculties. In reply to his Honour he said that had he realised the possible significance of witnessing the signature he would have made a closer investigation of Sir George’s mentality. When he arrived at the house he gathered that those concerned had been waiting for the first day that Sir George could sign the will. Sir George had been asked by Dr. Steele whether ho knew he was signing his will and whether he comprehended the contents. Sir George signified assent. Alexander Dunn, solicitor, was again, cross-examined. He detailed various discussions that had taken place, as a result of which the codicils to will had been drawn up. Throughout one of these discussions Sir George had been very undecided but not through any mental disability. Later Lady Hunter pointed out, said witness, that the income from the run had been very little recently and Sir George had agreed to increase her annuity to £2500. Next day witness was told that £lOO,OOO was to be divided between Mrs Cox (sister of Lady Hunter) and Sir George’s three children, while at this interview also he was told that two more legatees had been added. Soon after this Sir George said he was tired of all the discussions and urged that the whole thing should be brought to finality. Witness prepared a new will and it was executed, Dr. Steele acting as a witness. He was confident the testator understood everything that had been said in the discussions and was fully aware of provisions of the will. DUNN CROSS-EXAMINED [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Nov. 20. Dunn was further cross-examined by Mr Watsou in the Hunter will case to->lay. He said that the reading of the will to Sir George Hunter and the subsequent explanation of the various clauses might have taken 20 minutes or half an hour. ‘.‘Was he very tired before you started to read.this document?” “No, I didn’t understand that he was particularly tired. He was propped on pillows in bed with cold water packs un his body to reduce pressure and temperature. I didn’t notice that, but it may have been so.” Counsel then asked: “Do you think this man, aged 72, in 14 days after an apopoletie stroke, was capable of following your reading of the will?” “Of course, I don’t know how he was applying himself while I was reading it, but if he had taken the trouble he was perfectly capable of understanding the whole thing.” “Do you think he did fully understand what you were reading?” ‘‘ 1 do. ” Further cross-examined, Dunn said that all of the important clauses of the will down to the machinery clauses were read to Sir George Hunter. Mr Watson: “So three pages of the will were never read to him at all?”

Witness said that Sir Goerge Hunter demurred. He informed. Sir George Hunter that the remaining clauses were the same as in the previous will. Mr Watson: “In the 1924 will Betty got a much larger residue than under your second will. She got everything in the estate by way of residue.”

Witness: “She would get larger residue because the legacies were less, and the £lO,OOO legacy to the stepchildren is not in it.”

To Mr Perry (for Betty), witness said that under the 1924 will Betty would be living entirely on her

mother ’s bounty except in the case of the mother’s death or re-marriage, but ultimately she would obtain an income from the whole of the residue of the estate after the payment of annuities. There was no provision in the next will of October 12, 1929, for the maintenance and advantages of the child, but in the will of November and the codicils one of the bequests to the child was the Dixon Street property when she reached 21. To a further question of Air Perry’s, witness said that it was estimated that death duties would be £40,000, assuming the value of the estate at £175,000. That would leave £135,000. His Honour: “AVhich will do you say suits you best?” Mr Perry. “I am trying to ascertain. I am on the horns of a dilemma between the two wills.” At this stage ‘he luncheon adjournment was taken.