Person Page - 349

Newspaper-Articles

• 25 May 1933: WIDOW'S TWO WILLS. MRS. BUTLER'S ESTATE. A DOCTOR'S EVIDENCE.
  Mr. Justice Lowe, in the Third Civil Court yesterday, continued the hearing Of the case to determine which of two wills made by the late Mrs. Lily Maud Butler, formerly of The Grange, South-road, Brighton Beach, but late of the Queen Alexandra Memorial Hospital, La Calade, Marseilles, France, widow, should be admitted to probate. The two wills were made on the 15th and 23rd September, 1931. Mrs. Butler died on 20th October, 1931, leaving estate valued at £12,000.
  Geoffrey William Henry Butler, a son of testatrix, is contesting the will of 23rd September on the ground that his mother lacked testamentary capacity, and he seeks letters of administration with the will of 15th September annexed. William Donald McIndoe, of Queen-street, Melbourne, a co-executor, with Geoffrey Butler to the second will, lodged a caveat against the grant of letters of administration to Butler.
  Dr. Anthony T. Andreasen, who was resident medical officer at the Queen Alexandra Memorial Hospital, Marseilles, in September, 1931, when Mrs. Butler was a patient in that institution, said Mrs. Butler was admitted in August. She had three bad nights preceding the 15th September. On the latter day she asked witness whether it was likely that she would recover. She said she wanted the truth. Witness said that in the circumstances he felt he had to tell her she would not recover. She replied, "Very well; now I know. Mrs. Butler said she wanted to make her will, and at her dictation he wrote the will of 15th September. After he had read it over to her she said it was correct, and she signed it in the presence of himself and Mollison. Mrs. Butler requested him to send the will to Mr. Mclndoe in Melbourne. In his opinion she was then perfectly rational. She became calmer after the will was made, and seemed pleased with affairs. Later she had a conversation over the telephone with her son and her daughter-in-law in Melbourne. This upset her, and she became excited and confused. On the two days preceding 23rd September Mrs. Butler had a number of visitors, and witness had an impression that these produced new ideas, and set her mind working at a rate far beyond its power. At 6 a.m. on the latter date, when he was called to Mrs. Butler's bedside, she did not know him. When told by the nurse who he was, Mrs. Butler said she had made her will, and asked him to sign it. She handed him a piece of paper with writing on both sides. Mollison had signed it. Witness explained to her that it was not a will, and that she had already made her will. After a conversation with Mollison the latter suggested calling in Le Messurier, and witness said Mollison could do as he liked about that. When Mrs. Butler on this occasion asked him to make a will he refused to do so because she had already made a will, and he did not consider, she was in a fit state to make another will. On 15th September Mrs. Butler was very calm and determined, and on 23rd September she was excited and definitely confused in her speech.
  The hearing will be continued to-day.¹⁰
• 30 May 1933: WIDOW'S TWO WILLS. Mrs Henry Butler's Estate. FIRST DOCUMENT VALID.
  Mr. Justice Lowe, in the Third Civil Court yesterday, concluded the hearing of the case to determine which of two wills made by Mrs. Lily Maud Butler, formerly of The Grange, South-road, Brighton Beach, but late of Queen Alexandra Memorial Hospital, La Calade, Marseilles, France, widow, should be admitted to probate. Mrs. Butler, who was the widow of the late Mr. Henry Butler, a partner in the firm of Sargood, Butler and Ewen, died on 20th October, 1931, leaving estate of the value of £12,000. Mrs. Butler made her wills on 15th and 23rd September, 1931. By the first will she bequeathed her estate to her son and daughter, subject to gifts of £2500 to Mrs. Geoffrey Butler, her son's wife; £1000 to her grandson, John Quayle, and a gift to St. Leonard's Church, Brighton Beach. By her second will the bequests amounted to £11,600, including £2000 to John Quayle, £1000 to Mrs. Geoffrey Butler, £1000 to the Brighton Beach Presbyterian Church, and various sums ranging up to £1000 to nurses and friends in England and Melbourne, and £500 to establish a memorial scholarship to her son John at the Church of England Grammar School.
  A caveat against the grant of probate of her second will, chiefly on the grounds that his mother lacked testamentary capacity shortly before and at the time the will was made in hospital, was lodged by Geoffrey Butler. He applied for letters of administration, with the will annexed, in respect of the first document.
  William Donald Mclndoe, of Queen-street, Melbourne, estate agent, and a co-executor with Geoffrey Butler of the will of 23rd September, lodged a caveat against the grant of letters of administration, with the will annexed, in respect of the first will, to Butler. Both Butler and Mclndoe then obtained orders nisi calling upon each other to show cause why probate should not be granted to each will.
  His Honor, in giving his judgment, said the way in which Mrs. Butler disposed of her property in the second will was in striking contrast to the dispositions in her first will, and was a very definite departure from the intention which she had expressed in the first will, when she said that owing to the financial crisis in Australia she was not dividing her estate into smaller bequests. In the face of that it was difficult to understand why she did divide her property into smaller gifts.
  Though she was desperately ill, she had evidently made a sincere and courageous attempt to dispose of her estate as she thought proper. The departure which she had made in the second will, such as the legacies to the nurses and to those from whom she had heard just previously, or whose personal needs had been brought to her notice, suggested that she had in some why been influenced in making the gifts. She had been without sleep for two days before making the second will, and in his opinion the dispositions in this document would not have been made, if she had been clear in her mind. At this date she was very impressionable, and he accepted the medical evidence that she was likely to be influenced by those around her. He discharged the order nisi asking for probate of the second will, and made absolute the order nisi for the first will. He ordered that the costs of all parties be paid out of the estate.
  The result of the case is that the first will is valid.¹¹