Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

20 articles on this Page

DISPUTED WILL OF A LADY. »…

News
Cite
Share

DISPUTED WILL OF A LADY. » ■— HUSBANDS CLAIM FOR REVOCATION. "UNDUE INFLUENCE" ALLEGED. DOCTOR AND SOLICITOR AS DEFENDANTS. In the Probate Court on Wednesday a will suit presenting some remarkable features came before the president (Sir J. Bigham) and a special jury. It was the suit of Rawnsley v. Dunn and another, and related to the testa- mentary dispositions of Mrs. Elsie Rawnsley, tho wife of Surgeon-Major Gerald Thomas Rawnsley, who, as the plaintiff in the suit, claimed the revocation of a will of the 28th of September, 1906, and a grant of adminis- tration of his wife's estate. The plaintiff alleged that the deceased did not know and approve of the contents of the will; that she was not of sound mind at the time; and that the execution was procured by undue influ- ence on the part of the defendants in the suit, Dr. William Dunn and Mr. Francis Montagu Spencer Lewin, a solicitor, of Lon- don. These allegations were denied, and the defendants claimed probate of the will in question or, alternatively, a will of April 1906. Mr. Hume Williams, K.C. (with whom was Mr. Clark Hall), in opening- the case for the defendants in support of the will, said the defendants were executors of the deceased, who died in 1907. Dr. Dunn was a gentle- man of position, practising at Uppingham, .and Mr. Lewin wag a solicitor practising in London. Strictly, the allegation which the plaintiff had made was that the deceased, Mrs.Rawnsley, was a habitual drunkard, that Dr. Dunn and Mr. Lewin conspired together to influence the deceased to make a will in their favour, and that for a considerable period preceding the date at which the will was executed they purposely kept her in a condition of intoxication in order that she ■night be more amenable to the improper fnfluence which they were alleged to be bringing to bear upon her, and might make t will in their favour instead of her rela- tions. In the particulars" it was even Alleged that on one occasion when the lady was intoxicated Mr. Lewin was also drunk. These allegations were absolutely and utterly without foundation. UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE. Mrs. Rawnsley and her husband were mar- ried on the 4th of August, 1885. Their child, Ruby, who was born in 1891 and was origi- nally one of the plaintiffs, had died. From I the first the married life had been unhappy, and in 1897 there was a deed of separation, since which they had not lived together. The deed provided that the husband was to pay his wife £180 a year, and that if she died before her husband he should have no in- terest in her estate. However, as the repre- sentative of his daughter Ruby, who had died, he succeeded to her rights. In the autumn of 1905 Mrs. Rawnsley wae living in |London alone very poor, in an underground Vat, and she wae undoubtedly giving way to Wink. She was ill and called in Dr. Dunn, who moYed with sympathy that the wife of a medical man should he in such a position, interested himself in her, lent her money, and inquired about her relations. He com- municated with her sister, a Mrs. Everitt, at Tunbridge Wells, and she went to live with Mrs. Everitt till that lady died. Mrs. Everitt left her about £10,000, and it was with refe- rence to that sum that this trouble had arisen. Dr. Dnnn tried to get a nurse to live with her, but owing to her drinking habits she and the nurse did not get on to- gether. Dr. Dunn then took her into his I' house to live with him and his wife as a paying patient. She remained for about six weeks. While there she wished to consult a solicitor Dr. Dunn named two—a Mr. Field and Mr. Lewin. A toss was made as to wh:ch should be consulted, and the toss fell in favour of Mr. Lewin. To Mr. Lewiu she gave instructions for the will of the 25th of Apnl, < 1906, which provided that her husband should receive a legacy of £1.000, her daughter Ruby £ 1,000 and her jewellery and house at Tun- bridge Wells, £500 to a Mr. Dryden, £ 500 to the Children's Hospital, and the remainder of the estate, approximately £6,000, was divided between Dr. Dunn and Mr. Lewin. Under that will Dr. Dunn took about £ 4,000, including a legacy of £ 1,000, and Mr. Lewin £ 3,000. Mr. Lewin, on receiving these instruc- tions, advised her to get an independent soli- citor, and two other solicitors were called in and the will was duly executed. DR. DUNN AND THE WILL. In May, 1906, her husband, who was in West Africa, wrote to her suggesting that as she now had means of her own she did not stand in need of his allowance. She went to Mr. Lewin and instructed him to draw up a codicil to restore the gift of £ 1,000 to her hufiband, and eventually she gave instruc- tions for the will in dispute. By the will ,>f April, 1906. Mr. Lewin took about £3,000. half, the residue of tho estate. Under the will in dispute of the 28th of September, 1906, which Major Rawnsley asked them to believe which Major Rawnsley asked them to believe was procured by undue influence, Mr. Lewfn'e benefit in the estate was reduced to the mag- nificent sum of £50 and a diamond ring, and he Oid not get even t.he ordinary rights that were bestowed on a solicitor of making legal charges for any work that might fall upon him. So far a-s Dr. Dunn was con- cerned. by the original will he got a legacy of £1.000 and half the residue, and by the will in dispute the legacy was reduced to £ 5t0. I The President pointed out that he took the whole of the residue by the last will. Mr. Hume Williams said that was so. The President: That is not a reduction. Mr. Hume Williams: I am not putting it as a reduction. I say her one desire was to benefit Dr. Lunn. The President: He takes about £6,000. Mr Hume Williams: About that, but the amiunt I am not quite sure about, as there is provision for an annuity to. Mr. Dryden of £100 a year. Counsel said that in August. 1906, Dr. Dunn was ill and staying at Mildenhall, in Suffolk, and rooms were taken for Mrs. Rawnsley at a boarding-hcuse near. She afterwards returned to town. Dr Dunn would tell them he had done all he could to keep her from the drink, It when at his house in London she had got the laundress to brihg in spirits In April, 1907. she returned to Mil- denhall. From that time until her death Dr. Dunn saw no more of her. She was there under the care of a local doctor. There was no doubt that during that time she was drinking. On the 23th of June, 1907, she wanted to take her affairs out of the harriis of Mr. Lewin. and she instructed a local solicitor to draw up another will. which was never executed. In that document she cut out Mr. Lewin's legacy of £50. she died on the 26th of June. 1907. Major Rawns- ley attended the funeral and returned from it with Dr. Dunn. Later, in November, be was lunching at Dr. Dunn's house and asked to see his wife's papers, all of which he destroyed. Counsel concluded by saying • that there was not a tittle of foundation for the allegations which had been made against Dr. Dunn and Mr Lewin SOLICITOR'S EVIDENCE. Mr. Lewin was called, and gave evidence 'n support cf the wiU in question, probate of which had been granted. The testatrix- he said, was perfectly capable of making tho will. Cross-examined by Mr. Barnard, K.C (with whom was Mr. St. Germans), the witness denied that he knew Mra. Rawnsley was a dipsomaniac. He,had heard from Dr. Bunn that she drank. He didn't know at tha time of the April will testatrix was a habitual drunkard. He had once seen her under the influence of drink. Do you know that she drank at least a nottle of spirits a day?—No, I did not. And. in addition to that, a good deal of iort?~Not to my knowledge. Did you order wifies and spirits for her" -I did on cne or two occasions. Did you order two dozen bottles of spark- ing Moselle and a bottle of whisky?—y>s- jhe drank it under the doctor's orders Wit- ness said he ordered the wines under the doctors authority and at the request of the testatrix. He had sold to her some shared in a company which belonged to his wife Testatrix wanted an investment at a hia-h rate of interest, and he bouglt those sharwj for her, and offered to take them baok at any time at par He had borrowed £100 from Dr. Dunn. When he mentioned the daughter Rubv to the testatrix she complained that the daughter had neglected her. Witness said that he did not disclose to Dr. Dunn that, the doctor was interested in the will. He denied influencing the deceased in any way. He did not go into her room to see her before the two solicitors who finally drew up the will Raw her. If the testatrix had said, "I have made my will; theyNvouhl have me do it," that would not be correct. The further. hearing of the case was adjourned until Thursday.

c'l LIVE, LOVE."I

POLICE-OFFICER HONOURED

CARD SHARPERS AT WORK.

-ELDEST SON OF A \ BARONET.…

SOUTH WALES CONNECTIONS

SEQUEL TO AN ELOPEMENT

ENGLISH MINERS' WAGES.

,-ANOTHER RAID BYI SUFFRAGETTES.…

IN TIME OF PEACE OR WAR. ..'--

STRENGTH OF THE ARMY.

! LATE REV. DR. ROWLANDS -*

FIGHTING BOB AND¡ | HIS WIFE.I…

CASE OF lUR. NORRIS.I «

A GIRL WIFE.

Advertising

SERVIANS' CALL TO ARMS. i

"A WRETCHED STORY."

LATE LORD WINDSOR.

CHOKED AT SUPPER.