Victoria – 1896 Marriages 474/1896
George Henri RISBY to Sophie MYER

NSW – 1888 Births 1095/1888 V18881095 160
Muriel V RISBY Father: George Mother: Sophia

Queensland – 1906 Marriages 28 February 1906
George Marcus PEUT to Vera Muriel RISBY

Queensland – 1922 Deaths 1922/B/38109 23 September 1822
Vera Muriel PEUT Father: George Henry RISBY; Mother: Sophie MYER

Victoria – 1898 Deaths 4322/1898 George Henri RISBY Father: Samuel RISBY Mother: Delilah BAILEY died in Parhan District at age 57

 

The Argus 7 June 1898

ANOTHER DISPUTED WILL
THE RISBY CASE

Another disputed will case was comcommenced before Mr. Justice Hood, in Third Civil Court, yesterday. The will in question is that of the late George Henri RISBY, of Wellington street, Windsor. Mr. J. L. Purves with Mr. W. Lewers (instructed by Messrs. Rogers and Rogers) appeared for the propounder of the will, Mrs. Risby; and Mr. H. E. Stark (instructed by Messrs. Smart and Walker) for the caveatrix, Miss Eleanor Risby, one of the daughters of the testator by his first marriage, who desired to upset the will, on the grounds of testsmentary incapacity.

Mr. Purves in opening the case stated that the testator was a mill and barge owner, first of Narandera, and afterwards of Mildura. Many years ago he was married to his first wife, by whom he had five children—one son four daughter–all of whom were now grown up. Thirteen years ago he separated from his wife, she having the custody of the children, and he allowing her £400. After the separation he lived with Miss Sophie Myer, by whom he had two children. In 1892 Mrs Risby died, and Risby then proposed that he should marry Miss Myer, but the ceremony was put off for the time being. In 1893 the testator, who had up to that time conducted his large business with marked keenness. was stricken down with the malady known as locomotor ataxia. He was then obliged to relinquish the active diretion of his business, and came to Melbourne, leaving his nephew, Mr Sam. Risby, to manage the business at Mildura. He however, contiuued to direct the business by letter with all his accustomed shrewdness. In 1894 he made a will providing for Miss Myer, her two children, and the children of his deceased wife. On January 17, 1896 he married Miss Myer, and a second will whereby he left her the interest on £5,000, their two children £1,000 each, the Milildura buisness to his nephew, Sam. Risby, his Narandera business lo Messrs Graham, Bland, and Stowe. £100 each to the two single daughters of his first marriage, and the residue of his estate to the husbands of his two married daughters of the same marriage, The son by the first marriage was cut out of the second will presumably on account of a quarrel which the father and son had had, after the making of the first will, and before the preparation of the last.

Cryil Frederick James, a solicitor, practicing in Mildura, and he had known the late Mr. Risby for between six and seven years, having acted as his solicitor for some time. He was a very capable and keen business man, and took nothing from anyone on trust. Witness had prepared the will now sought to be propounded from testators's instructions. They went through the first will together, and witness made marginal notes on the document as to the alterations required by Risby. Deceased told witness at the time that he wanted that he wanted young witnesses to the will, as there was a possibility of trouble after his death. His reason for this, as stated at the time, was that there would be no doubt of their outliving him. Witness then detailed the conversation which he had with the testator when the draft of the will was read over to him. He was present when the testator married to Miss Myer, and also when he signed the will a few minutes afterwards. Testator's mental condition was then as clear and keen as usual.

Mr Lewers.—Do you remember any remarks made by the testator about the officiating clergyman?
Witness.—Yes.
What were they?—They were in regard to the marriage fee.
What did he say?—He asked the clergyman what his charge was. The clergyman replied. "Three guineas," and the testator objected, saying it was extortinate. After the minister left he said to me, "You know, James, I don't object to your fee, because you have worked for it; but that fellow hasn't." (Laughter)

Henry Maudsley, legally qualified medical practitioner, sad he had atteneded the testator from July, 1895 to the time of his death for locomotor ataxia. His mental capacity was not in the least affected by the disease. The drugs which were adminsitered to him to alleviate his pain, did not unbalance him mind in any way. He had seen testator a few days before and after the date of the signature of the will, when he was undoubtedly of a sound mind. The opinion witness formed of the mental capacity of the testator was that he was a remarkably clear-headed man of business.

W. Atkinson Wood, legally qualified medical practitioner, who also attendeding testator, gave similar evidence of Mr. Risby's keen business capabilities. He described him as a shrewd, long-headed business man, whom it would be very hard to get at.

J. J. T. Lever, a fruitgrower, living at Mildura, deposed that he knew Risby well for five or six years. He was a sharp business man, even after he was seized with the disease. In September, 1896, he had seen the testator in Melbourne. He was then as mentally capable and clear as ever he had been. Witness and he had frequent conversations in regard to Mildura affairs, and witness had written several of the letters produced at his dictation. On one occasion the testator regretted that his son by the first marriage was not as good a business man as his nephew Sam. Risby. He then remarked, "If he (meaning his son) had stood by me I would have stood by him."

The Court adjourned until half past 10 o'clock this morning.

 

Albury Banner and Wodonga Express 10 June 1898

STRONG COMMENTS BY MR. JUSTICE HOOD. CAVEATRIX ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS.

The hearing of the Risby will case was concluded by Mr. Justice Hood in the Supreme Court, Melbourne, on Tuesday. The testator, George Henri Risby, who was formerly a saw mill and barge owner at Narandera and Mildura, separated from his first wifeabeut 13 years ago, and the five children born of the marriage– four aaugntera and a son – remained in the wife's custody. In 1892 Mrs. Risby died, and some time ? afterwards testator married his housekeeper, Sophy Myer. He died in January last, and by his will and codicil bequeathed the annual income from £5000 to his widow, and gave legacies of £1000 each to his two children by his second wife. He left £100 each to his two single daughters by the first wife, and considerable property to the husbands of the other two daughters by her. He left nothing to his son who was born of the first marriage. The estate is valued at about £15,000. On the executors applying for probate, Eleanor, one of the unmarried daughters by the first marriage, lodged a caveat, and the case came before the court on an order nisi, calling upon her to show cause why probate should not be granted.

Mr. Purves, Q.C., and Mr. Lowers, in- structed by Messrs. Rogers rnd Rogers, appeared for the executors; and Mr. Starke, instructed by Messrs. Smart ond Walker, for the caveatrix.

Julia Caulder, companion to Mrs. Risby, was giving evidence as to the testator's shrewdness, when

Mr. Justice Hood, addressing Mr. Starke, said: I saw a statement in the press this morning to the effect that you do not intend to call any witnesses. If that is so, this is a dreary farce.

Mr. Starke : I don't kno.w where the press got its information, but I might take this opportunity of explaining my position here. My position here is on behalf of the children of the first marriage, who have been excluded, to see that the will now sought to be propounded has been properly prepared and executed, and that the testator was of testamentary capacity when he made it.

Mr. Justice Hood: Well, probably someone will have to pay the costs of it all. At present it is a dreary farce and a waste of time and money.

Mr. Starke : I think we are entitled to do what we are doing.

Mr. Justice Hood : Very well : proceed, please.

William Warrington Rodgers solioitor gave evidence that he had acted as testator's legal adviser for some years. The deceased was a particularly shrewd and clever man. When receiving instructions to prepare a codicil to the will, witness told Risby that he was not treating his children by his first wife properly, Risby replied that witness did not know all the facts, and therefore could not judge. He said they had not acted as well as they should have done towards him. – Witness told him that at all events he ought to do something for his son, but Risby replied that he would never forgive his son for something he had done some years previously. The testator added, "If Jesus Christ asked me to do something for him I wouldn't do it."

A number of other witnesses having given evidence that testator was a keen, clearheaded, shrewd man of businees, the case for the executors closed.

Mr. Starke said that as Mr. Purves had not called the widow he propssed to call her himself, for the purpose of testing the will as far as he could. She was the person who was responsible for the great hostility between the deoeased and his first family.

Sophy Riaby, a woman about 32 yeara of age, then entered the box, and, in answer to questions put by Mr. Starke, said she was the w idow of deceased. She first met him in Sydney, aboub September, 1887, and ultimately went to Narrandora.

Mr. Starke: When did you first know that he was a married man?

Mr. Justice Hood: What has that to do with it?

Mr. Starker: I want to get at the history of this case.

Mr. Justice Hood: Life is limited. We cannot go into the whole family history.

Mr. Stark: I propose to ask the question, at all events, and request your honor to note it.

After further argument the question was allowed, and witness stated that the first learned deceased was a married man shortly after she went to reside at Narandera.

Mr. Starke: Did he ever complain to you about the children — Yes, several times.

What about?

Mr. Purves objected.

Mr. Starke: The difficulty is that the children know nothing about it.

Mr. Justice Hood: The difficulty is that the solicitors instructing you come to court to fight the case without any justification whatever.

Mr. Starke: I say they are perfectly justified in coming here. It is their right to comoe here.

Mr. Justice Hood: Never mind! Go on.

Mr. Starke – What did you say about the children?— He was annoyed by their hostility to me, and he was annoyed with his son George because he insulted me. When he said he was not going to remember them in his will I said it was not fair, and that I would not like my children to be treated like that. He told me to mind my own business. I never suggested that he shouid leave his son out of the will.

Mr. Purves: Do you know whether he provided for hia late wife after the separation? $mdash; Yes, he allowed her £3 a week.

This closed the evidence.

Mr. Starke then addressed the court, and submitted that tho next of kin were entirely within their rights, according to the English practice, in coming to court to see that the will, in which they were almost entirely blotted out, although entitled to consideration, was strictly proved. They were entitled to call upon the executors to prove the will by witnesses. The practice was a reasonable one.

Mr. Justice Hood : If it is a reasonable practice the sooner the Legislature steps in and alters it the better.

Mr. Starke, after defending the action taken by the caveatrix, submitted that the application for probate muat fall, inasmuch as in the affidavit filed in support of it the full name of one of the executors was not given, and the rsidence of one of the attesting witnesses was not stated, as required by the rules.

Mr. Lewers urged that this point had already been dealt with by His Honor in a preliminary application, and leave to amend had been given. It could not be raised now.

Mr. Purves said this was a case in which wanton opposition had been shown to gratify private malice, and the law had been put in motion without the slightest reason. He submitted that it was clearly a case in which the costs should be given against the other side.

Mr. Justice Hood, in giving his decision, said the executors had proved beyond the possibility of donbt that the testator was a sane man of testamentary capacity at the time that he made the will and codicil. There were 11 witnesses called, including two medical men of standing in this city, and all were agreed as to the extreme shrewdness of the deceased. A very, faint attempt was made to attack these witnesses under cross-examination, and, after the first or second witness, without the slightest result. As he had said before, he failed to understand the reason of it, because every witness was examined in the same way and with the same result. In this way the case had been dragged on at great expense to some person till it had ended as it started, by leaving the conviction in the mind of every one who heard the witnesles that there was not the slightest ground to attack the testator's capHcity. He believed the deceased thoroughly understood the nature of his property, what he was doing, the claims upon him and how he was disposing of them. Some slight insinuations were made as to undue influence, but Mrs. Risby, who was called by the caveatrix, clearly disproved them. Then it was said that he should dismiss the application for probate on a technical objeotion, but there were several answers to that, including the point raised by Mr. Lewers, and he would overrule that objection. As to the question of costs, if the next of kin were entitled in every case to come forward and put an estate to the expense or proceedings like these, then the caveatrix should go free. It he had a discretion, however, he should certainly use it against her, and in his opinion he had a discretion in the matter. If the facts were unknown to the nexb of kin, or there were no reasonable means of ascertaining them, or if there were suspicious circumstances about the transaction, it might very well be that the next of kin would be justified in coming to court to have some sort of inquiry about it. But what had taken place in the present case? First of all, Dr. Wood, who had attended the deceased for months and months, told Mr. Walker, solictor to the caveatrix, that the testator was absolutely of sound mind and keen intellect. Then there was the fact that they could have got all the information they wanted, about the making of the will on paying Mr. Cyril James, solicitor, of Mildura, £3 3s. for his trouble. In addition to that, there was the fact that when an application was made by the caveatrix for a jury, all the facts were set out in affidavits. If it had been an honest attempt to see that the will was properly proved, the case would not have lasted half an hour; at all events, it would have stopped after Dr. Maudsley had given his evidence. He would, therefore, order costs against the caveatrix. He would make the order absolute granting the executors probate of the will and codicils, and give costs against the caveatrix.

Mr. Purves: We shall not be able to get a penny out of the caveatrix. Her interest under the will has been assigned.

 

Brisbane Courier 9 Jul 1906

PEUT MILLER on July 4 at the city Tabernacle, by the Rev G M RICE, George Marcus PEUT, eldes son of the late Superintendent PEUT to Vera M MILLER, daughter of Mrs MILLER of Merton Road.

 

Brisbane Courier 10 Jul 1906

PEUT—MILLER

The marriage of Mr George Marcus PEUT, eldest son of the late Superintendent PEUT, to Miss Vera M MILLER, daughter of Mr MILLER, of Merton Road, took place at the City Tabanacle on July 4, the Rev G M RICE officiating. The bride was given away by her uncle the Rev S GILBY. Misses M and W LOUGH, Ethel GILBY (cousin of the bride), L PEUT (sister of the bridegroom), and J M MILLER (sister of the Bride) acted as bridesmaids, and Messers G BALE and J SMITH attended the bridegroom. At the conclusion of the service a wedding breakfast was served in the South Brisbane Technical College Hall, and later Mr and Mrs PEUT left for Toowoomba. A special poem, composed for the occasion, was read by the Rev S GILBY, and another one by Miss TAYLOR. Many handsome presents were received. The gifts by the bridegroom to bridesmaids were broaches and rings, and to the bride a beuatiful pearl bracelet.

 

Brisbane Courier 25 September 1922

PEUT—The funeral of Vera Muriel, the wife of G. M. Peut will move from (their residence, South Brisbane Fire Station THIS (Monday) AFTERNOON, at 2.30 o'clock to the Bulimba Cemetery

CANNON & CRIPPS

 

The Week 11 June 1926

MR G M PEUT

The death took place on June 4 at Rosemount Hospital, of George Marcus PEUT, third officer of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. The deceased had been connected with the brigade since infancy, his father having been superintendent of the South Brisbane brigade for many years. Mr PEUT saw service in the South African War, and later in the Great War. It was in the latter war he contracted malaria, from which he suffered ever since his return, and which eventually caused his death. In January last, deceased, who was district officer in charge of the Douth Brisbane Fire Brigade. The late Mr PEUT's died shortly after his return from the Great War. He is survived by his mother, brother, and two sisters. Dceased was accorded an official fire brigade funeral service on Saturday afternoon, the coffin being borne to Toowong Cemetery on machine A5 the casket being draped with the Union Jack. About 50 members of the Metropolitan and suburban brigades in uniform attended the funeral. The pall bearers, proceded by SuperintendentMILNE, were Inspector BARRY, District Officers WIDMAN, GEER, and VAUGHAN. Acting District Officer WACKER, and Foremen NEWELL, PARKINGSON, and HOODRELL.