HUNTER WILL CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 19 December 1930, Page 5

HUNTER WILL CASE

FURTHER EVIDENCE.

[By Telegraph, Per Press Association.]

WELLINGTON, December 18

In the Hunter will case, Dr. Tliwigg said that, providing his affairs were not too intricate and providing that lie bad some assistance, it was possible that ,f>ir George Hunter could have made bis will within two weeks of his stroke. There were no definite tests for testamentary capacity laid down as far as witness knew. One judged cases on general lines, and it was usual to satisfy oneself as to a patient’s soundness of mind. Where there was extensive paralysis due to apoplexy, there was usually general mental impairment, but not always. It was quite possible to have a paralysis ease that had nothing to do with tlie brain. There had been nothing in tlie history of Sir George’s case that gave him the impression that til© stroke had been severe.

This concluded the plaintiff’s case. Mr Watson, in his opening address, said Lady Hunter had only decided to lodge the caveat that had caused the present action after full enquiries had been made from people who were thought to be competent to say Sir George had had no testamentary capacity—Drs Steele and Giesen, attending doctor and consulting doctor, respectively—as the result of a long interview with them, and the evidence would show that at the time both Dr. Steele and Dr. Giesen were emphatic that Sir George at no time before his departure to Rotorua had had any testamentary capacity. Included in Dr. Giesen’s evidence would he certain evidence dealing with what were Dr. Steele’s previous actions and utterances, as to Sir George’s testamentary capacity. Lady Hunter, as the result of evidence gained at this conference, had decided to contest the granting of probate. Lady. Hunter’s attitude in contesting the wills did not arise from any complaint of her treatment. She had taken action for the interest and benefit of her child, Betty. His Honour: But the child takes nothing under the 1924 will. Mr Watson: Ultimately she will take everything. She lias a reversionarv interest.

His Honour: She gets nothing in the meantime. Lady Hunter is a young woman, and the girl takes no interest till her death, or her remarriage. It’s a very different position under the last will. Mr Watson said Lady Hunter was trying to ensure that the wishes of Sir George, made known Before his illness, would he given effect to. She had had nothing to do with the October will counsel said, and, had entirely disapproved of the will-making at that time. Ilis Honour: Can you point out any unfairness in the October Will? Mr Watson : In its unexplained and sudden cutting down of tile child's interests. Mr Watson proceeded to compare the provisions made for the child in the three wills, and went on to say that it was suggested that the estate was not worth the value it was said 'to he until all the annuities had come hack into tlie estate on the deaths of tlie people to whom they were paid, thus making an annuity fund available for the estate. If it was a fact that there would be no income from the estate until the annuities and other charges had fallen hack in residue, then, counsel contended, the child was not a whit better off under the 1929 will than under the 1924 will, on which Lady Hunter asked for the Court’s })renouncement. WELLINGTON, December 19.

Continuing his address for the defence in the Hunter will case, Mr Watson said in addition to the funds mentioned yesterday, £5,500 would be required to pay the debts and amounts owing by Sir G. Hunter. Another reason 'for Lady Hunter’s objection to the November will was that there was no provision for a home for the child, until she was twenty-one. Evidence for defence would show that Sir G. Hunter was notJonly inordinately fond of the child but repeatedly stated a desire that he should carry on Sir G. Hunter’s name in the Hunter home, and she was brought up in close contact with country life. When Lady Hunter heard of Hunter’s desire to make a will in October 1929, she had expostulated with him and even communicated with her solicitors to see if something could be done. After the will was made she urged him to make another to undo what she believed to be wrong. Lady' Hunter’s attitude was to benefit the child even at her own expense. She would not deny that she influenced and dominated Sir George in making a second will, in order to undo the harm done the child in the earlier one. Evidence would he given that after the wills had been signed Sir George was mentally and phvsieially exhausted. Also that lie had no testamentary capacity from the time of the apoplectic seizure, until possibly some time after returning from En torn a.

Mr Watson then read the evidence of Hr. J. I). 0. Duncan, who attended Hunter at Rotorua and which was taken before a Magistrate -there. Dr. Duncan said the apoplectic seizure was a severe one which bad caused considerable mental impairment, and lie was of the opinion that Sir G. Hunter did not have a testamentary capacity.