Pal Maciver Jr.’s will change sharply reduced Sue-Lynn Maciver’s inheritance and redirected the residue of his estate to his sister, Cressida Maciver, and his aunt, Lavinia Maciver. Made about six weeks before his death, the revision became known through Sue-Lynn’s urgent search for the document and her confrontation with his solicitor. Its terms transformed an initially vague report of an unfavorable change into a concrete dispute over what the will meant for the surviving family.

The revision and its distribution

According to Mr Herring, the solicitor who handled the matter, Palinurus Maciver Junior had visited him about six weeks earlier to change his will. After a few small bequests, the revised document left the residue of the estate to be divided between Cressida Maciver and Lavinia Maciver. The account identifies the two women as the principal beneficiaries of what remained after those smaller gifts; it does not specify the value of the estate or the amounts of the other bequests.

Sue-Lynn was not excluded altogether, but her provision was strikingly small: £50. The will attached a cryptic explanation, describing this as more than enough to pay any outstanding bill to her medical adviser for services received. That wording joined a practical sum to an insinuation whose meaning is not explained in the account. It made the bequest more than a simple statement of amount: it conveyed Palinurus’s judgment of his wife while giving no further explanation of the accusation implied by the reference to medical services.

The arrangement created a marked division between Sue-Lynn and the relatives named to receive the estate’s residue. Yet the available account establishes the will’s terms, not Palinurus’s full reasoning for them. Earlier, Laurence Waverley had heard that the will had changed to Sue-Lynn’s disadvantage, but did not know why. Sue-Lynn had also spoken of Palinurus setting a private detective to follow her; Waverley could only speculate that she might have been involved in some misconduct. That remains speculation, not a demonstrated explanation for the revision.

Discovery and confrontation

The new terms came to light during the aftermath of Palinurus’s death. Sue-Lynn went through her late husband’s papers and, as Mr Herring understood it from her account, also searched his cellar. She could not find the copy of the will she wanted. During the evening she telephoned the solicitor at home, demanded that he bring the original to Casa Alba, and insisted that he confirm its contents over the phone.

Mr Herring said he could not bring the original because he was at home with guests. He nevertheless confirmed the terms, explaining that Sue-Lynn was entitled to know them. He also described her as abusive during the call and said she threatened to come to his house unless he answered. His relief at giving the information from a distance, rather than face to face, makes the exchange feel like an extension of the conflict surrounding the will: the document was not available to Sue-Lynn, but its contents could no longer be kept from her.

The scene is presented through Novello’s inquiries rather than through Palinurus’s visit to the solicitor or Sue-Lynn’s search itself. Mr Herring’s account supplies the six-week interval, the distribution, the £50 provision, and the circumstances of disclosure. The earlier report to Waverley establishes that the widow already knew the change harmed her interests, but the solicitor’s account specifies exactly how. The reader therefore encounters the decision as a revelation assembled after the death, not as a witnessed exchange between husband and wife.

Immediate consequences and unresolved dispute

After learning the will’s contents, Sue-Lynn asked whether she could contest it. Mr Herring was confident that she would and anticipated an interesting case that might continue indefinitely. His prediction makes litigation the likely next stage of the conflict, but the account does not establish that a challenge was filed, how it was decided, or whether the will’s distribution ultimately stood.

The discrepancy between the modest provision and the estate residue also changes the stakes of Sue-Lynn’s search. She had first been unable to locate a copy and sought the solicitor’s confirmation; once he disclosed the terms, the question was no longer merely where the document was, but whether its provisions could be contested. Her grief is acknowledged in the surrounding account, but the will discussion records anger, threats, and a demand for information alongside it. The evidence does not reduce her response to either bereavement or financial interest alone.

Significance in the investigation

The change is a consequential piece of posthumous information because it establishes that Palinurus deliberately revised the distribution of his estate and left his wife a pointedly limited bequest. It also supplies a possible source of conflict among Sue-Lynn, Cressida, and Lavinia without proving that any beneficiary caused or influenced the revision. The solicitor’s recollection is specific about what was written and when the change was made, but it cannot resolve why Palinurus made it.

That distinction matters to the investigation’s account of the family. The will makes estrangement and suspicion legible in financial terms: the wife receives £50, while the sister and aunt share the residue. Its cryptic comment invites questions but does not answer them. By ending with the prospect of a potentially protracted contest rather than a verdict, the episode leaves both the legal outcome and the personal motive unsettled.