Singapore Tombstones Epigraphic Materials 新加坡墓碑铭集录

NOTICE.

Low Tuan Neo, my wife, having absented herself from my house situated at Upper Nankin Street, Singapore, under circumstances that exempt me from liability to pay for any necessaries or goods she may obtain, or to perform any engagement she may enter into, I hereby give notice that any person who may trust her with any necessaries, goods, or money will do so at his peril, and I am not nor will be liable in any respect to pay for or repay the same, or to perform any engagement of the said Low Tuan Neo.

Singapore, this 6th day of June, 1884.

OHEONG CHU GHIN.

The Straits Times, 2 June 1926, Page 10

A will in which a Chinese testator left property valued at $45,000 to his mother-in-law and $100 to his son was the subject of litigation that came before Mr. Justice Deane this morning.

The plaintiff, Seow Lek Kee, alleged undue influence on the part of the mother-in-law, Low Tuan Neo. Mr. H. R. S. Zehnder was also joined as a defendant as a trustee of the estate. Mr. J. G. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. C. Johannes for the defendant.

Mrs. Campbell stated that the first defendant was granted probate in 1922, and in 1925 the plaintiff moved the court for this order to be revoked and a receiver appointed. The order on that motion was that pleadings should be filed.

Plaintiff’s Pleadings

In the pleadings, the plaintiff stated that the testator, his father, had been suffering from diabetes since 1913 and had suffered a slight paralytic stroke in 1914. Since that time he had been more or less a confirmed invalid. He ceased to attend to business in 1922, and the first defendant took advantage of his weak condition and, knowing that his mental powers were greatly impaired, induced him to make this will.

The influence of the first defendant was so complete that he was not a free agent, and the will was not made of his own volition.

Allegations Denied

The defendant denied these allegations, particularly the statements that the testator was a confirmed invalid and that his mental powers were impaired. The defendant said she never knew of the existence of the will until after the deceased’s death.

Mr. Campbell said that in the will, the testator bequeathed to the plaintiff the sum of $100, “to be paid one year after my death, but without interest.” The testator also bequeathed $2,000 to each of his other sons and daughters and left the remainder of his property to his mother-in-law.

The case is proceeding.

The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 9 June 1926, Page 9

ction Over Towkay’s Will. Doctors Give Evidence.

Sir David Galloway and Dr. E. A. Elder were witnesses in the action before Mr. Justice Deane yesterday in which Seow Lel Kee sued his maternal grandmother, Low Tuan Neo, and Mr. H. R. S. Zehnder, executors under his father’s will, seeking to have revoked the probate granted to Low Tuan Neo of a will of his father, Seow Ewe Lin, under which the bulk of the estate passed to Low Tuan Neo, on the ground that at the time he made the will, his father was unduly influenced by his mother‑in‑law.

Sir David Galloway, replying to Mr. J. G. Campbell, for the plaintiff, said that he had been practicing in Singapore for twenty years. He stated that he had known the deceased, Seow Ewe Lin, as a doctor and a friend since he was a boy. In 1915, Sir David said the towkay was suffering from diabetes, and he instructed him to diet. When he found that he had made no progress, he questioned him, and Ewe Lin admitted that he had not been dieting, as his mother‑in‑law had been urging him to eat and drink and to do so. Even when he explained the gravity of the matter, Sir David said Low Tuan Neo was not influenced at all, and Ewe Lin himself gave no indication that his mother‑in‑law’s wish was final.

In speaking of the mother‑in‑law ruling the household, Sir David Galloway stated that in 1920 Ewe Lin developed phthisis and tuberculosis. In 1921 he was going steadily downhill. In February 1922, when the will was stated to have been made, the witness said he considered the deceased a worn‑out man. The deceased was a most careful and attentive father, Sir David stated, and his relations with Seow Le Kee seemed to be particularly close and affectionate. He practically did, he said, as he was told by Low Tuan Neo, who ruled the whole house.

Replying to his lordship, Sir David said he did not think that Ewe Lin was under the domination of his mother‑in‑law in his actual trading affairs. Relations between the plaintiff and Low Tuan Neo were strained, and he thought the relations between the plaintiff’s wife and Low Tuan Neo were very strained. The witness said he imagined that Low Tuan Neo’s domination extended throughout everything except the deceased’s actual trading.

The Son’s Debts.

In reply to Mr. M. Johannes, for the defendants, Sir David said that he believed that in February 1922 the plaintiff was hard up and that he had to meet many debts.

Mr. Johannes: Did he ever say to you, “I want to make a will leaving the property to my mother‑in‑law because my son is a spendthrift and in debt, and I do not wish to leave him anything”?

Sir David: He did not say so in those words.

Mr. Johannes: Did he mention that he had a large number of debts?

Sir David: Yes.

Mr. Johannes: Did he ever say to you, “Would you have made any provision in your will for your son when his creditors would thus take the money?”

Sir David replied that he would have paid off the creditors as the easiest way out. In reply to further questions, the witness stated that in February 1922 the deceased was quite well in his head and was capable of doing business. He believed he was quite a truthful man, and if he told Mr. Zehnder that he was making a will and that Low Tuan Neo did not know anything about it, he thought that would probably be correct.

Mr. Johannes: The position is this. He went to Mr. Zehnder and asked him to make a will in which he left practically everything to this old lady and did not leave anything to his son. When Mr. Zehnder pointed out that he was leaving nothing to his son, he replied that his son was going to be made a bankrupt, and he was not going to give the money away to his creditors, adding that Low Tuan Neo was his son’s grandmother and the children would ultimately get it. Would a resolution of that kind point to a man being an imbecile?

Sir David said there was no question of the deceased’s mental capacity. He had no doubt he was deeply influenced by his mother‑in‑law.

Plaintiff’s Evidence.

The plaintiff himself then gave evidence. He said that at one time his father was a sub-trader of the German bank and that after the war the house that his father owned was made bankrupt. After that he was employed by Curry, Forwerg, and rubber dealers. Forwerg was a German, and in 1920 he was in Java. There were negotiations then between Forwerg and his father with a view to opening up business relationships between them. Referring to a visit he paid to Java at about this time, the plaintiff denied that there was any truth in the story that he ran away to Java with an actress or that he was stranded there and Low Tuan Neo sent him money so that he could come back. After stating that the relationship between himself and his father was always very good, the plaintiff said he was on bad terms with Low Tuan Neo. He quarrelled with her because she interfered with the doctor’s orders, and she also ill-treated his wife. Even during his mother’s lifetime, his grandmother bullied her. When he was made bankrupt, his debts amounted to over ten thousand dollars, but he denied that his grandmother lent him the money with which to pay a composition to his creditors. His grandmother had no money; the German bank obtained judgment against his father, he said. His father made him a gift after she had not paid him any maintenance; he got $10,000 plainly and was expecting his father to bequeath him a nice piece of property. He said that she had exercised undue influence over his father because she told him that if she obtained probate, she would realize cash and pay a one‑sixth share to him and his brothers and sisters.

Evidence was also given by Dr. Elder, who attended Ewe Lin in 1922, and by Mr. F. W. Lyall, a rubber broker with whom the deceased and plaintiff dealt in connection with the export business of Lin Trading Co., carried on by the deceased.

Judgment for Defendants.

In giving judgment for the defendants, his lordship said there was no doubt that the deceased was fond of his children, but there was also, in his mind, no doubt that he did not trust his eldest son, the plaintiff, because although he was employed in his business, it was an adopted son who was appointed his attorney for the purpose of signing checks in connection with the business. There was also no doubt that this mother‑in‑law was the ruler of the household. He thought the position was quite clear from the evidence of one of the witnesses that everybody in the house was afraid of this old lady. It was a Chinese custom for the younger Chinese women to obey the older, and respect was paid to Low Tuan Neo in all household matters. That was a vastly different thing from saying that she, therefore, influenced this man to the extent that he had no will of his own. There was no evidence to show that she exercised any influence of any kind as regards the making of the will, nor was there the slightest evidence that at the time the deceased made the will, it did not represent what he desired.