Damages And Nervous Shock
| Date | 01 May 1960 |
| Published date | 01 May 1960 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00606.x |
| Author | G. Dworkin |
MAY
1960
NOTES
OF
CASES
317
to the evidence of the attesting witness, the presumption applied
that sheets bound together and constituting the will as found were
so
bound together at the time of execution and attestation.” Here
the fact that the will was found fastened together in proper order
at the deceased’s death distinguished the case from those like
Re
Arnos,l1
in which the deceased’s signature and those of the attesting
witnesses were found in the midst of a disordered bundle of papers.
(c)
If,
on the other hand, the sheets were
not
fastened at the time
of
execution, the fact that the deceased held them together with
his left hand throughout the relevant time constituted
a
sufficient
nexus to constitute them one testamentary document.12 (d)
It
was
irrelevant that the last sheet was
on
top of the others at the time
of execution since “whatever place
a
sheet of paper may have in
a given bundle at a given time,
if
it
is intended to be in effect the
last sheet, then the law
so
regards
it.”
l3
The second question which arose was
as
to the inference to be
drawn from the evidence that the signatures of the deceased and
the attesting witnesses were written following two-thirds of a blank
sheet of paper. This evidence was accepted, with the result that
the holograph dispositions which appeared
on
the fifth sheet of the
will as found were held invalid as having be- inserted after
execution. The court was then invited to draw the inference that
since the testator deliberately left space for further dispositions he
intended to make after the document had been executed, he did
not intend the document to have any effect until after he had made
the intended additions. Fortified by the provision in the Wills Act
Amendment Act, 1852,
s.
1,l4
which makes
it
clear that a will is
not invalidated by the existence of
a
blank space between the dis-
positive provisions and the signature, and by previous authority,15
Sachs
J.
refused to draw any such inference, but pronounced in
favour of the will without the holograph dispositions
on
the fifth
page,
or
a
small holograph amendment on the second page.
0.
M.
STONE.
DAMAGES
AND
NERVOUS
SHOCK
IN
Schneider
V.
Eisovitch,l the plaintiff and her husband and the
defendant and his wife were all travelling together,
on
holiday in
lo
As
in
Rees
v.
Rees
(1873)
L.R.
3
P.
&
D.
86.
l1
[1954]
2
D.L.R.
574,
a case from Ontario, in which there were other compli-
cating factors.
l2
As
in
Lewis
v.
Lewis
[1908]
P.
1, where the two pages
of
the will were
held
between the testator’s finger
and
thumb when he acknowledged
his
signature
to the witnesses.
13
[1960] 1 All
E.R.
at
p.
391.
l4
“.
.
.
no such will shall be affected
. . .
bv
the circumstance that
a
blank
space shall intervene between the concludibe words
of
the will and the
signature.
. .
.I’
L.R.
2
P.
&
D.
273.
-
l5
GregoTy
v.
Queen’s
Proctor
(1816)
4
Notes
of
Cases,
620;
Re
Arthw
(1871)
I
[1960]
2
W.L.R.
169; [1960]
1
All
E.R.
169.
To continue reading
Request your trial