A WILL CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 February 1922, Page 4

A WILL CASE.

EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCEAUCKLAND, February 6. The hearing of an extraordinary will case commenced at the Supreme Court to-day. It was an action Ito “propound in solemn form” the will of John Hartley, an old man of no known relatives, who died at Pukekohe, leaving property valued at about £6OOO to Clyde P. Ludwig, the parties being Clycle Powell Ludwig v. tlie Public Trustee.

Counsel for plaintiff said deceased lived alone and did all his own worji. His age was unknown, but he was probably over 70. Oil January 9th., 1921, he was found lying on the verandah, apparently ill, and neighbours attended him and a doctor was c alled. William Burdon Carter, a farmer, crave evidence that, while waiting outside with Ludwig and McGann, the former remarked that he was to receive all Hartley’s property. Witness heard the doctor asking Hartley if he had any wife or other relatives, but could not hear the reply The doctor asked witness to try and find out from Hartley whether he had any relatives. Witness questioned Hartley. Hartley said he had no wife, sister, or children. When the doctor returned later he said to Hartley, “Let’s get this will business fixed up,” arid asked if he had! ai wife or a sister to which Hartley replied “No.” At one atage Hartley also replied “Not a soul.” The doctor said “If I make out a statement will you sign it?” Hartley did riot reply, but reached out his hand and took a p e n from the doctor and tried to write on a scrap of paper, hut without success.. Th'e doctor then asked him to make a mark on the paper, which lie did with the doctor’s assistance. The paper was then handed to witness for his signature, but witness saw it was blank. He handed it back, drawing attention to the fact that it was blank. The doctor said, “Well, tear it up.” Witness got a writing pad and the doctor took a Blue form ' from his bag’ arid .copied from it to the writing pad, and after reiildirig over what he hid written, asked Hartley to .sign it. Hartley did

so without remark, the doctor steadying his wrist. ■ \Vitness and the doctor j then signed the document also. Ihe i document (produced) was the one that was signed. The doctor took the will { with him. j To his Honour: Witness did not r ead over the document which he signed, but from what the doctor read, lie gathered that plaintiff was to receive the whole of the property, and the doctor was to he the executor. To Mr Ostler: Witness thought that Hartley was quite conscious of what the doctor read to him. To Dr. Fitchett (who appeared for the defendant): Witness did not know what happened to the first blank paper signed. A ne doctor said the hide paper taken from his box was a copy of a will form. Hartley’s mark was put to 1 the document after it had been read to Hartley. Witness had never said to anyone that lie was satisfied that Hartley did not understand the will; D r Campbell Smith, of Pukekohe, said when he first attended Hartley lie found the ol'd man in a very low condition. He asked if he had made a will, and ho replied that he had riot. Witness asked him if' he Would like to make his will, arid he said “Yes.” 1 Someone had told witness tliaf Hartley had a wife in Australia, so witness questioned him several tinies in ah endeavour to learn the truth. Hartley said lie had no wife, and had not had one for about 20 years. Hartley then piit his hand (in plaintiff’s neck, and said “that was the boy who was to » get all Ins property.” Hartley repeat- , od the latter statement several times. f Plaintiff was present on one occasion, l when this statement was made. Wit- , ness returned later the saine day, and found Hartley still weak, hut conscious. Since Hartley had expressed a desire to leave his property to plaintiff witness asked him, if a will wore made [ out to that effect would he sign it, and t Hartley reached out to sign, lint no ’ document had then been made out, s)o witness handed him a blank paper on 1 which he placed a mark and then others I in the room placed their signatures also. This was purely an experiment, , and need not have been signed by the : witnesses. He admitted that it was

stupidity. He could not offer any reason for witnesses sighing this paper. Several experiments were made on small pieces of paper, all of- which were torn up with the exception of one signed by Carter. When he pulled up at the chemist’s shop in Tuahau, two people asked him if Hartley had made a will and he replied "Yes,” and pulled out of his pocket a piece of paper containing Hartley's mark and Carter’s signature. The men remarked that it was blank, and witness, suddenly realising that he had no right to display the real will, replied, "I’Ve got the lest in my head,” and. did nbt/ show them the proper document. When making out the final document, witness copied from a will form which he always carried. Witness read the document and handed Hartley a. pencil, and assisted him to make his mark on it. Carter and witness then signed the document, whicn witness put into his pocket. The will was afterwards handed to Mr Mason, solicitor of Pukekohe, and it was at the instruction of the clerk there that the marginal note was made.

To Dr Fitchett: Hartley did not mention Ludwig’s name, but after an individual had been indicated, witness was told his name, and inserted it in the will. The case is not finished. .