DREAM IN COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 734, 5 February 1910, Page 6

DREAM IN COURT.

A WELLINGTON WILL,

LEGACY LEFT LONG UNTOUCHED,

PERSONATION MENTIONED., ; . "The .Court; presumes that he is dead." These words, uttered in the Supreme Court yesterday by, Mr.' Justice Cooper, brought' to ' a .conclusion the case of in re.: Tuckwell, which., has been before: the Court on different occasions during the; past five ■ years; : ', - ;\

The"Public'Trustee, • Joseph Willjasn Poynton, repeated, his application for the Court's. direction' as to the: .disposal of money ...placed in his .hands ,on behalf of George Tuckwell; eldest son of Richard, Tuckwell,: deceased, storekeeper, of Tiiiakori -Road:,' The amount due to George Tuckwell on September, 30, 1905,

';MAJORITIES F.ROM 1832 iTO 1910.' . :"The \Swing of . the -Pendulum," the phrase so. frequently used with reference to.;politics, is' indicated by the following figures, showing' the,precise.majorities obtained at general ellitions in the United Kingdom between 183Vand 1906. L.sigrii-. lies Liberals (including' Labour and Nationalists), C. -means Conservatives, and— since' 1886— U. stands for Unionists (Conservatives ; and Liberal-Unionists) :-r-.. 300 (L.) . ..1874 ■■..„.„'-, 52 (C.) 1835'.'........ 108 (L.).', 1880.'. 176 (L.) ,1837.: . 4fl (L. - 1885 ......... 170 (L.)' 1841 ...._.. 79 (a) 1886......... 118 (Dj: 1847 ,-__/ ML.) ~..'.1892'..'.'_.'.. '40 (L.) 1852..„._,.- 8 (C.)' , 1895 .........152,(0.) 'i 1857. 92 ! (L.j, - 1900......... 131 M: 1859'..-.W— 40'(L.) ". 1906' i;.'._; 356(14 1865 v ._.;.~ '"60 (L.), ; :i9lO/:;J~.V 125 y * '-.- ,1868 ..„„.; 100: (L.).;';,,;':'■/■:' - : ''.;" The above; diagram is adapted from brie published (by'permission of "The''rimes" .'.book':Club) in the "Daily Mail." •■ /. ; .* Three'returns still to come. .-. under the will, of his.--father,, -was 135./10 d... .Stephen .Lancaster:-had- been trustee; originally, but:the, affairs,!of. the estate ,were handed/.bver to ! the'Publio' Trustee on/August-19, 1898. ; In- Decern'; ber, 1905,:. when, the,.case came 'before■ the Court, an: order was made. that: George Tuckwell's share of v. the estate, should remain- in , the .hands ','., of .'the;\.Public, Trustee; until ;th'e, Court, ..directed.-.other; wiso: ■ r Theijudgb >also' gave' instructions that.. advertisements* should '.'-be -inserted in.Australian.papcrsLwith a.:,view : ,to..as; certaining the. whereabouts of. the 'missing J ,-''.":''"" -./'■f.';.^:-':;-iv .-.;,/':-;•:- ■ There/" had/been 1 -no.response.Uo ? these advertisements, and,',as the: family "had | not heard from 'the elder, brother since' 1 188$, this- .new "application- /was'' made. Mr., P..E. -Petherick appeared on behalf ■of- the .family, and' Mr.. Stafford repre--sented the-Publio Trustee. ' /....,.,

:- First, Phase; Legatee Disappears; : ~; - The. papers and-;affidavits .which had accumulated, in connection, with the case tell: fan unusual story.' ' George Tuok-. well, the-eldest son of a. family.'of nine, had,left for:-Australia shortly before'.,the death of his father .; on June : 14, .1882. He returned to Wellington too late' to'be present at his father's funeral, learned of his;rights iinder the. will, and, went baok-to'Australia.-' Harold Ernest Tuck:well, a .'brother,-.residing, at Carlton,: N.S;W;, reported that 1 .'■ ie: .had heard regularly'from the elder brother ..up till"1882; but 'not: since' then,': his last address; being "Post Office; Goulburn." :Archer :.; -Earl Tuckwell, •'' the" second son;'who' was.'a saddler,at Hawera (New. Zealand), : ;'-intimat'ed-' that „he had ' seen, •his-brother,'George, .in'; Sydney,- in 1883. He'was"' 1 then: going .under"the name:of George Keed. .'.-The, explanation' was that working' men, whose, .names'.were uncommon or easily .mis-spelt,, would often.as-. Eume a-i simple name '.when.' mixing with illiterate people;;' His' brother George had assisted their father in the. store.

-This: member 'of the family, in 'hie affidavit, stated ( that' while in 'Sydney in 1901, Robert Gillespie, eon of . Charles Gillespie, deceased,, of. Tinakori Eoad,: called on' him and made, full inquiries regarding George, who at that time had not been.'heard of ; for about. 18 years. All questions' were answered, and Mr. Tuckwell had no, .suspicions regarding Gillespie, who had known the family well' in' Wellington. The Gillespie, family,. said Mr., Tuckwell, had had opportunity of 'familiarising themselves with the: hand-writing of ..George Tuckwell, who had signed all documents: connected with, the store. .: '.'.:..

Second Phase: A Claimant The Public Trustee reported, in his affidavit, -that he had received a letter dated April 8, 1901, from a man at Cobar, K.S.W., purporting', to be George Tuckwell. ' The writer' stated that he was about .to take steps to prove his identity, and was rcommg to Wellington. , In August, 1903, the Public Trustee, wrote'.- to George Tuckwell,". Cobar, pointing .'out that no proofs' had arrived as to,-his identity. ■■•"■■ .- In June, 1905,: Harold; Tuckwell, ,of Sydney, reported that-22 years previously he had advertised for- his brother; without result. - The -missing man used to gamble a good .'deal, .and. his: brother: feared that,there had been foul play. Another brother,: Archer Earl Tuckwell, expressed the opinion that George '•; had dicd'in 1883..

In an affidavit (Francis Edward Petherick. stated' the results of police inquiries. On May 20,' 1901, a': man named George: Tuckwell" was; reported to have been employed at the Occidental Gold Mine .and other, placos >near'■ Cobar,--N.S.W.- The police officer at CobaT stated that Tuckwell had gone to Le'rong; via Wagga Wagga, and that no power of attorney had been drawn up by any solicitor in Cobar for him...Hp had told .several people about Cobar that he intended'to authorise Robert Gray (Gillespie) to go to New Zealand to obtain money bequeathed to him by a relative there. Tuckwell-had no wife or family with Mm at-: Cobar, and there was little doubt, in the opinion of the police officer, that tiis' man was-identical with the • George Tuckwell inquired for. On June 9,' 1901; ; the police inspector at Wagga-: Wagga. reported that, in 1893, George Coleman.' solicitor,: had taken;'a declaration, as a notary, by a man .purporting to be George -Tnckwell, but had not heard of tho man> since.

Third Phase: (ilaimarrt Sets to Work. Two: letters, attached to the report of Detective Broberi;, purported to be written by Robert Gilletpie to his mother in Wellington. The I .first,' which''was undated, was as. follows:—"Can you let rae know how the Tuckwell estate wound up? Did George Tuckwell lose his share, that is, was the' property divided; among those who wore in Now Zealand, or dkl Charge's

share go.in;ChanceryP I can placo my hand on George Tuckwell' now. He is sitting beside me. He does not know who I ani. We have had a conversation re New Zealand affairs, and he tells mo he received nothing out of the estate, and expects it is divided among the rest. Ho did not make inquiries, as he considered they deserved it more than he. Kindly write as '. soon as possible." The second letter read as follows:—

-'''Hotcl.Chesney, Cobar, April 8,1901. My dear mother,—Tour welcome letter came duly to hand. The information regarding the Tuckwell estate,, was most valuable to me. I -had arranged to come to New Zealand, and Mr. George Tuckwell has placed the affair in my hands. : l am getting" his papers of identification. ■: There will bo no trouble in proving him the right; man. He has done business there as well- as in connection with some property at Kaiwarra. 'He also holds a policy in the New Zealand Government Life.lnsurance'. I expect to be -in Wellington, within, two months—Yours, etc., Bob." '■'

", -The insurance policy,. Hr. • Petherick added, in" ; tho'. course, of his affidavit, had lapsed on : May 15,. 1889;. The impression which the. deponent gathered from ap'eru'r sal of the papers"was' that the personalleged to -oe..George Tuokw'ell was in reality' Robert Gillespie.'- , . .''• ■ Claimant's Claim Suspected,'./,': Manuel Septimus Tuckwell, tailor, of Lamb ton Quay, stated in an affidavit that his' brother, George, wont to Australia with another brother Archibald. .Housed to write constantly to other members'-of the .family; including-' the deponent,' but the'.letters.' ceased suddenly about 1885. In. 1893, deponent received a letter from a' man- purporting to be George Tuckwell, as also: did two of his brothers,'-all the letters" being'; in ■ the', 'same: .'words.. - ; The writer asked the brothers .to send, 'him. their--photographs. ; 'Deponent's two brothers.: declared Jthat.'the letters!.'were not; written by .the missing "one,..and refused, to reply. 'Deponent himself wrote, and 6ent. a photograph, but received no answer. The man was not heard of until Mr. Quickj.solicitor, of, Wellington',: later in-, the..year/received .a /letter.- from': a man purporting, to be George - Tuckwell. Several- of .the,- family: saw the,, letters received by Mr.:Quick,.but they did not believe that -their brother had;-written. them. In the previous.year, 'Andrew- Gillespie;, of • Wellington,' had :imade in-, quiries.; from .//the .deponent regarding George Tuckwell's share'.of 'the estate. i' The. Ciaimaht" Gives'' Up. ! tetters .from' Eobert '.-Gillespie .. were shown to the 1 deponent, who then,suspected, a ,trick,.;and:considered that the. handwriting,was the samo:as that of the hotter tbithe Public Trustee of rApril 8; 1901,' purporting to:have come;from George Tuckwell. ; Deponent thereupon warned the Publio Trustee against "paying, out the money without :fulT evidence of identity. In. 1901,- Eobert. Gillespie returned -to Wellington, and. deponent /' informed him- that the. family were suspicious, - and would insist, upon.-a:'full investigation. From that date 'no' more was heard of the • person • alleging himself to be George .TuokwelU:: In: consequence' of 'inquiries made by:, deponent, the Gillespie' family suddenly ceased to give him N information*'. '

Last Phase':■.'."Legally Dead.", '•„ . After.. listening ;to these statements. as traversed, by; counsel, his .'Honour/stated that .it was clear .that' the ..insurance policy, came,:into,,the possession of '< Gil:lespie.. There could be-ho doubt that; 'the person who had possession '■ of. it in ! 1893, :> and. who sent it.to, Mr. Quick, was ithe personrwho -had signed the convey- ', ance. of, George Tuckwoll's, private ':, property. This indicated.that : a fraud.bad been,successfully-, committed in. 1893 by some person - who', was then , personating : •George-Tuckwell.' 'There' might -bis somo explanation,; however; and. anything: his ' 'Honour' said' must.., not'prejudice /this person.in- his' claim.',; Undoubtedly ;Gilles- ! pie had been personating him or daiming .'to.--.abt_. for"•;him ''in 1901, andMhe.Vevi- . dance:. indicated' that these - two: were : one :and, the .same man.,' The..missing man had not communicated with' anybody for ■20 years. It was unlikely that, had he been living, he would have dropped the correspondence, there having been 'no discord in tho family, although it was said,, .that' George Tuckwell occasionally gave way. to■',drink. . Where a' man'had , not'communicated with his people for 20 years,, and where another person had-been personating him, the inference was that, the man was dead, and that this other person knew something about, him, and was endeavouring'to 'get into possession of the funds: in the hands of the. Publio;.Traste&, 'His Honour considered that he ought, to presume George Tuckwell to be dead. An order would be- made that the Court presumed the' death' of George Tuckwell, and that he died, unmarried and intestate; prior to - the coining of age of Valentine Tuckwell,-his brother. The Court presumed that his death':occurred-within seven years after 1884.'.- Unless an application was' made 'within six months, to rescind the 'order,, the public Trustee would pay the fund over" to the parties- endued to it on- , George TuolcweU's., death.'. . " -.'