SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1914, 13 April 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI FRIUS. Thbsdat, Apbil 13. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The sitting of the Court was resumed at 10 a.m. MOBBIS V. SHAVI.BE. In this case Edward Morris was plaintiff and Emma Shayler defendant. The plaintiff is possessed of considerable landed and house property in the City of Christchurch, and the defendant, who was his niece, resided with him for some time. The plaintiff married again, and on September 20tb, 1879, prior to his marriage he executed to the defendant a deed of gift of 1 acre 34 perches in the City of Christchurch and also of 20 perches of land in the City of Christchurch, transferring it to the defendant for her sole and separate use, reserving a life interest to himself in the 20 perches, and charging it with a payment of 20s per month to his wife after his death. The plaintiff, it is alleged, thought that the deeds he was signing were simply his will, although they were read over to him. Shortly after the marriage, the defendant having left the residence of the plaintiff, gave notice to the plaintiff and hia wife to leave the house in which they resided, forming as it did part of the property which had been conveyed to the defendant. The plaintiff having consulted an independent solicitor, was advised to have a consultation with the solicitor for.,the defendant, which was done, and there was some arrangement entered into for the payment of £4 2s 6d per week to the plaintiff. The arrangement, however, fell through, and the plaintiff now came to the Court to ask the intervention of it to order that the deeds so executed might be cancelled. A special jury was empannelled, of whom Mr G. L. Lee was chosen foreman.

Mr George Harper appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Spackman, with him Mr Deacon, for the defendant.

After Mr Harper had opened his case to the jury. Mr Spackman pointed out that the defenfant had always, and was still ready and willing to make the allowance of £4 2s 6d per week spoken of to the plaint ff. His Honor suggested that in this case it would perhaps be as well for an arrangement to be come to between counsel, so as to put an end to litigation between the parties. After a short consultation between the parties, Mr George Harper said than an arrangement had been made by which the plaintiff was to receive £4 5s per weak for his life, and the carrying out of the covenant whereby the house and £1 per month were settled on the plaintiff’s wife. Ho also desired to say that there was not the slightest imputation of any unprofessional conduct on the part of the solicitors for defendant.

It was agreed that tho record should be withdrawn by consent. The record having been withdrawn, the case concluded.

The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday next.