A DISPUTED WILL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1107, 2 November 1883, Page 2

A DISPUTED WILL.

An interesting case was heard at the Supremo Court, Wanganui, on Wednesday before His Honor Chief Justice Prmdorgnst. The case in question was that of McGregor v. Boyd, in which tiie plaintiffs are Mr John McGregor of Cherry Bank, near Wanganui, and Mr Daniel McGregor, Normanby, and -the defendant Miss Christina Boyd, Mr Fitzherbert appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Travers for defendant.

The action was brought to set aside two deeds of gift and a power of attorney made in favour of defendant by the late Mr John McGregor on the ground of the latter’s insanity, nn d of the undue influence the defendant exercised over him.

Counsel for the plaintiffs in Ids opeiir ing address said that this case was originally brought in the name qf Daniel McGregor alone, but as it was alleged that there formerly existed a will which mainly devised the property to John McGregor, he also was made a co-plaintiff. The deftmcc alleged a will in favour of the defendant executed on the 271h April, 1882, and the plaintiffs claimed that the will ns well ns the deeds was made under the defendant’s undue influence and while testator was of unsound mind.

The following witnesses were, called by Mr Fitzherbert : Isabella McGregor who stated' that she was the widow of the deceased John McGregor. Was married in 1841. After IB years of married life, separated. Remembered deceased’s fall from a horse, and his fit of apoplexy. After the fit deceased sent for witness. Witness enumerated several occasions on which she had endeavoured to visit tjie deceased but in which she alleged, she had been either excluded from his presence, or prevented from having any conversation with him by the defendant. A bon t si x weeks-b ( JorehLsjlen I hj de fen - dant told witness that Mr McGregorhnd made all his property over to her. Daniel McGregor stated he was a hotelkeeper at Normanhy and that the late Mr McGregor was his half brother. Came ont at deceased’s request in 1849 and assisted him in farming at Cherry Bank. ■ Deceased told him he sometimes fell the effect of an accident to his head through the lulling of a block. About 6 months before deceased died witness called at his house ami had an interview with him. Deceased’s memory was then very weak. At the funeral witness had some conversation with Miss Boyd who said there was no will but Mr Hutchison would give all information about the property. Mr Hutchison said there was a deed of gift which was being registered at Wellington bat on its return he would send witness a copy, hut he.never did so. He said the will was destroyed. John McGregor, one of the plaintiffs, stated he was not related to the deceased. He first became acquainted with him in 1868, and married deceased’s adopted daughter, Christina McGregor in 1871. Witness took a lease of Cherry Bank from deceased for 99 years at £6OO during deceased’s lifetime, and £3OO after. Witness also bought a property from deceased called Aberfeldie. Witness was on intimate terms with deceased before and after the marriage, and witness and his wife were treated by deceased ns hts adopted son and daughter. The defendant came to live with deceased on her sister’s marriage. The sister had been deceased’s housekeeper. Deceased left to visit Scotland in 1876, and left witness a power of attorney, which he acted under. Deceased returned in 1877, and witness was on as friendly terms with him ns before. On Dec, 1879, deceased had a fall from his horse, and on Tuesday, 7th February, 1882, he had a stroke of apoplexy. Two days previously he told witness to call on him the following Wednesday to arrange matters in connection with the lease of a properly called “(he Island” adjoining Aherfoldie. Ho then talked of the defendant annoying him. Witness called and saw the deceased immediately after the stroke. At first he did not know witness, though he afterwards rallied a little. Witness remained all night, Miss Boyd and Miss Carr watching with him. During the night Miss Boyd upbraided deceased for not leaving her anything. Witness continued nursing deceased off and,on until 3rd of April. Daring that lime Miss Boyd frequently (old deceased she was ill-treated, and said to witness “ If yon don’t do your duly by me after he’s dead, I’ll prove that the old, man was out of his mind when ho sold yon Aberfeldie.” She told deceased he should look after his papers, as witness was not doing right by him. He was unfit for business at this time, and sometimes raved and chased people about with chairs and sticks. He wanted a knife or an axe to destroy himself or make away with those about him, particularly witness. Sometimes they could not understand his conversation, and often he did not know any of them. After the stroke his speech was affected as if bis tongue were tied. He could not speak at all at times. He wanted to soil certain houses up the river, and Nixon’s propel which he bad no

interest, anil offered to sell Roys'cn House for £lO. Witness left off visiting on the 3rd April, because Miss Boyd bad tamed him ngninsi witness. Ho cursed and swore nt bim and said witness wanted to rob bim. Miss Boyd was present. Prior to th“ end of February he never treated witness like this, and the-change was attributable to Miss Boyd’s manner towards witness.

After a cross-examination,part of which was deferred, Mr Hutchison who was leaving for New Plymouth the following morning was called by Mr Travers and gave evidence about his preparing a codicil to a will made by the deceased Mr McGregor in 1876, at the wish of the deceased, on the Bih February. Witness and his clerk called on (he deceased on the 27th April, when deceased said he wanted to leave all his property to his adopted daughter, Mias Christina Boyd, Mr Brechin and Mr King to be executors. Witness dictated a will in these terms to his clerk and read it over to deceased, who signed it, witness and his clerk being attesting witnesses. Mr Brechin and Miss Boyd were present. Deceased seemed in pos session of all his faculties. On the 6th June witness attended again by Appointment, and Mr McGregor instructed hint to prepare three deeds, and stated that he was dissatisfied with Mr John McGregor's conduct. Deceased had made the Same remark to witness on previous occasions. The deeds were executed. A bond was also prepared from Miss Boyd to Mr McGregor,, as a measure of precaution on his partj he suggesting it himself. Witness deemed it a proper thing to prepare a bond under the circumstances. Mr Brechin was (he attesting witness of the and fully knew their contents. Everything done was within his knowledge, and often solely upon im|rnc«ipnS conveyed by him. Mr Brechin .never offered any objection to the deeds, or during deceased’s lifetime suggested any incapacity on lits part. Witness never had any conception, ns a professional man, of any improper influence in the i«-notost degree. He prepared a power of attorney in Miss Boyd’s favour, instructions for which came conclusively through Mr Brechin, who look it away. Witness did not see it executed. There was nothing in Mr McGregor’s conversation, when witness spoke to him afterwards in the street, to indicate that he was of unsound mind.

The Court then adjourned till yesterday morning. when J. R Bommcrvillc , was- called, and stated that ho knew the deceased, Mr McGregor. Ho know Mrs John McGregor, deceased’s adopted daughter, and had often heard him snj that all his property would be left to her. Witness saw deceased in a trap the first,time he went out after his fit. Deceased looked pale and ill and there was a marked alteration in his appearance. Deceased spoke so incoherently that witness thought him not rii;ht. In'conversation-witness-told deceased that he thought Mr John McGregor’s rent of £6OO too much, hut deceased replied that hccouhl give him part of it back. John C Brechin stated he had been very intimate with the deceased, having collected Ids town rents for years. On the Bth or 9th March witness and Mr Hutchison were sent for by either deceased or Miss Boyd. A codicil was prepared by Mr Hutchison, and added to the former will. The codicil left Royston House and £SOO a year to Miss Boyd for life. Witness suggested to deceased that he should give Royston House to deceased ahso lately”, but this he refused to do. Witness was present at (he house on the 27th of April, and saw deceased sign a will, which left everything to Miss Boyd. Deceased signed two deeds of gift and a bond on the 10th of June, in witness’presence. Witness was present at Royston House on the 25th July, when deceased destroyed some documents. Deceased drew a pen across the two; wills, which were burnt in witness’s presence. He did not know their contents. Deceased always spoke of Mr John McGregor as his heir.

Mrs Christina McGregor, wife of John McGregor, one of the plaintiffs, was under examination until the adjournment of the Court.'