Wilson v Jones and Holliday [1911] HCA 11

394 HIGH COURT : ie:

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

CHARLES ABRAHAM WILSON . : . APPELL DEFENDANT,

AND

FREDERICK CHARLES JONES anp GEORGE HUBERT STANFIELD . REsPo: HOLLIDAY

PLAINTIFFS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. or A. qyin Suit for probate — Costs — Testamentary capacity — Caveat — Reason

1911. grounds for opposing grant of probate. ee) 4 SypNey, The appellant filed a caveat against the grant of probate of a will and {

'May 8,9,10. codicils to the respondents, upon the ground that their testatrix possessed of testamentary capacity.

Griffith C.. O'Connor 3). Ina suit brought by the respondents for probate, Street J. found th testatrix was of testamentary capacity, and ordered the appellant to pa

costs of the suit.

Held, that the finding as to testamentary capacity was fully justified evidence, that the appellant could not have reasonably entertained a1 as to the testatrix's capacity up to the date of the second codicil, and he had a doubt as to her capacity to make the third codicil, as substant ially whole of the costs were incurred in establishing the validity of th codicil, he was properly ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

Decision of Street J., 5th September 1910, affirmed.

Apprat by the defendant from the decision of Street J. The plaintiffs were the executors of the will and three

of Sarah Wilson who died on 28th December 1909. The

was brought for probate of the will and codicils, against

OF AUSTRALIA.

the defendant, who was a son of the testatrix, had filed a caveat. H- ©. or A.

A similar suit was also brought by the same plaintiffs against Francis Hannah Hawker, and Lucy Rose Adelaide Mastin, who had also filed a caveat subsequently to the institution of the first-mentioned suit. Both suits were heard together, probate of the will and codicils was granted to the plaintiffs, and the defend- ants were ordered to pay the costs of their respective suits. The defendants in the second suit did not appeal. The appellant appealed from the decision in the first-mentioned suit upon the grounds :—(1) that his Honor was in error in holding that the testatrix at the time of the execution of the will and codicils was possessed of testamentary capacity. (2) That his Honor should have directed the appellant's costs to be paid out of the estate, or should have made no order as to costs.