THE PROBERT CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2745, 1 December 1894, Page 4

THE PROBERT CASE.

lu consequence of the discussion that has taken place regarding the suicide of W, G. Probert at Auckland, and the will of his brother, J. Probert, who died some years previously, the trustees have published a statement setting forth the facts. From this it appears that John Probert left property valued as follows: Personal estate, £10,806 5a lid; real property, £11,210; total, £22,016 5s lid. By his will he directed that £3900 should be set aside to provide an annuity for his widow, and gave the following iu legacies ; —His brother, W. G. Probert, £100; his sister in England, £500; a neice in England, £IOO ; three daughters and four sons of W. G. Probert (each £600), £3500; Y.M.C.A., £500; Mrs Probert’s three nephews (£SOO each), £1500; three trustees (£25 each), £75 —total, £6275; —and left the residue to the Wesleyan Church in trust to pay £IOOO to the Australasian mission to New Guinea, and £IOOO to the Wesleyan home mission in Auckland province, and the balance for the endowment and support of a Wesleyan Theological College in Auckland province. The statement continues : It is readily seen that the realisable estate —that is, tho personalty and the income from real property —was absorbed by these payments, leaving £2OOO yet to be paid to the iSew Guinea and home missions out of tho real estate before a penny could be available for the theological institution. So far from the Wesleyan Church having benefited to tha extent of tho sums stated at fro m £20,000 to £3O 000 h'l that remains is land and cottages valued ful* property tax purposes at £12,418, aud the architect who was employed by ihe trustees (a man of large eXperiouco iu property) to report ou the properties, stated that he did not consider the whole to be worth £10 ; 090. The legatees all received cash, while the residue left for the institution depends on tho realisation of the land and the house property, and it is well known that propertytax valuations are seldom realised. The late Mr Probert was a man who began with nothing, Aud labored in the early days, and by dint of frugality gradually accumulated cousiderabl o property. He had no family. His brother, W, G. Probert, was then living in England, sn,4 we are informed and believe Mr Probert provided him with passage and outfit for his wife aud family to New Zealand, thinking there would be » better chance in a new country. Mr Probert then put them on a farm at Mount Roskill and on which they resided for many years. Not being satisfied he was paid by Mr Probert to give it up. He then removed to a farm in the north, which, we are informed, had been conveyed to him by Mr Probert. Besides this, Mr Probert frequently helped him and his children with money, as is well known to many of Probert’s intimate friends. Probert himself stated to an intimate old friend of his that his brother had cost him over £2OOO over aud above what he had given to his brother’s children. Not long before he died he conveyed by deed to his nephews aud Mrs Probort’s grandnephews property which iu the aggregate

was valued for property tax purposes at £9600, and ou this sum stamp duty was paid by him, and he also gave to each of Mrs Probert’s nephews a house and land. All this was in addition to the legacies referred to. We say unhesitatingly, and without fear of contradiction, that the will was entirely Probert’s own conception, and insinuations of influence used by the Church, or by anyone, are not only entirely without foundation, but are baseless calumnies. The will was made and signed, not on his death bed, but more than a month before he died, and while he was in the full enjoyment of his faculties, and was daily in Queen street attending to his affairs. We would only add that Mr W. G. Probert’s sons and daughters are all in a position, and, we believe, were perfectly willing, to have assisted their father if necessary, and that it was upon them he should naturally have depended and not upon a brother, whose reputed acts of kindness and generosity received poor recognition, or upon the funds of a Church of which he was not even a member.