MURDERED MAN'S ESTATE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 11, 6 October 1937, Page 7

MURDERED MAN'S ESTATE

-Prest ABBociation.)

Court Asked to Determine Legal Heir DOCTOR'rEVIDENCE

(By Telesrraph-

| "* ' AUCKLAND, Last Night. A further step in the litigation concerning the inheritance of the estats Of the late Ernest Severiu Nelson, whe Was murdefed on his farm at Waihou Valley, Okaihau, on June 9 of last year, was taken before Mr. Justiee Callan in the Supreme Coui't, The ultimate possession of the estate turns largely On the question 6f the legitimacy of a son born t6 Mta, Nelson after her husband's death. The estate was recently conservatively valued at £15,000 and the income from it at £1705 a year. The purpose of the Sitting to-day was to take the evidence of Dr, G. J. Frengley, who is shortly leaving the Dominion for about a year. Legal steps were taken last June by three brothers of deceased to have a declaration of the Court that the child born to the widow on ^fovember 10 last is hot the son of Ernest Severin Nelson deceased, who was then 55 and was married to Mrs. Nelson, then 18, at Rangiahua, on Fehruary 26, 1935. He died leaving no will. Plaintiffs ih the proCeedings are: Williani Sidfrid Nelson, farmCr, of Bay of Islands, and Neil Rudolph Nelson and Charies Oscar. Nelson, farmers, of Hawke's Bay. The defendants are the guardian ad litem of the infant, Ernest Severin Nelson, the guardian ad litem of the Widow, Jaiio Nelson, and the Public Trustee and Miss Nellie Nelson. Mr. North, for plaintiffs, Said one 0 f the allegatioUs ih this action was that deceased Nelson was sterile as the xesult of ah operation performed by Dr. Frengley. Plaintiffs were suing for a deelaratiOn of the Court that the infant, Eraest Severin Nelson, was not Nelson 's child, and, consequehtly, Was not entitled to succeed to any part of the estate. Dr. G, J. Frengley, of Kawakawa, mperintendent of the Public Hospital there for the past 12 years, .said he had first seen the late Ernest Severiii Nelson ia FebruaTy or March, 1934. He was suffering from an enlarged prostate gland, andvon April 25 witness operated and xemoved the gland. For the first 12 hours afterwatds his conditiou was serious but not at all critieah From then on he made steady and very satisfactorv progress and was discharged on May 24. The results of the operation were completely satisfactory, said witness. He would say that the Operation would have the effect of making the patient sterile but not sexually impotent. He gave reasons for his statement that sterility would result. He had done 40 or more of jfhose operations in the last 12 years. Witness said nothing of importauce had happened to Nelson that he had not inentioued. Nelson 's operation was one of the easiest of the kind he had ever had ,to do and that was why he temenibered 5t. so well. He agreed that he was not a specialist in this type of operation. He would send his cases to a specialist if they were able to travel. He could find no record of a controversy iiT the medical world as to whether sterility supervened on this operation. His expression of opinion was based partly on experience and partly on reasoning. The hearing was adjourned sine die.