CONTRACT BREACH

Hokitika Guardian, 8 December 1932, Page 5

CONTRACT BREACH

REMARKABLE CASE

* CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE WINS.

(Per Press Association — Copyright.)

NELSON, December 7. Names familiar to the West.-Coast were heard in the ‘Supreme -Goprt. here yesterday, when Mrs M. M. >;epie sued the Perpetual Trustees and;:Agency Coy., as executors of the estate of the late Mr John Joseph Halpin, who at one- time was a well-known farmer at Totara Flat, for alleged breach of contract and damage to furniture, as well as board and lodging.

Mr Justice Biair awarded the plaintiff £47 damages for injuries to her furniture inflicted by the late John Joseph Halpin, the testator, and also allowing her claim for £903, the amount required to pay off the mortgage on her house, the testator having presented her with an equity in the same. He previously presented her with a house in (Addington, but resumed ownership of the 1 latter in exchange for the house in Nelson, upon which he had paid half the purchase money as a deposit by way of gilt to her. The late Mr Halpin’s wife had adopted Mrs -Sepie, but Mr Halpin had not been joined in the adoption proceedings, atid it was not until these proceedings were begun that she discovered that she was not his daughter.

The Judge commented on the action of the Perpetual Trustees Coy., in defending the claim, remarking that it wa 3 the duty of the company to act as it did.

The plaintiff was represented by Mr P. J. O’Regan '(Wellington), while Mr R. J. Loughnan (Christchurch) appeared for the defendants.

Counsel for th e plaintiff, in the c<?ur6e of a lengthy opening, said that the case presented several novel feature, in that the plaintiff, Mr s Sepie, had always be e n represented by the late Mr Halpin and his wife as their daughter, and, in fact, the mother ha-d once shown her baptismal certificate, and the father on bis death bed, had referred her to it. Nevertheless, it was beyond question that she had been adopted by the late Mrs Halpin, her husband not having joined in the adoption; and a s the mother died in 1919, the plaintiff was, in law, a stranger to her reputed father. The relations between the parties, however, bad been singularly cordial and happy, and on the plaintiff’s marriage, in 1927, the late Mr Halpin / had conveyed a furnished house property at Addington i(ohristcliurch) 5 as r a r ' we<ldi rig present" to,' her, and later had resided there. Bugi* nes s reasons had subsequently necessitated Mrs Sepie’s removal to Nelson, and subsequently, the late Mr Halpin ■had removed there also. He had objected to their living in a rented bouse, and bad persuaded the plaintiff to transfer her Addington property to him, undertaking to purchase a property not less valuable in Nelson. Accordingly, Mr Halpin purchased the section and a housg in Brougham Street for £I7OO in the plaintiff’s name. He paid £BOO cash, and, leaving £9OO oh mortgage, lie undertook to pay the interest on the mortgage, and to pay it off when the Addington property was sold. This was in July, 1930, and a few months later Mr Halpin suddenly developed a bitter and uncalled for hatred of th e plaintiff’s husband, 'and after causing an intolerable situation in the household he one day took a hammer and proceeded to smash the furniture. On February 24th, 1931, he was committed to the Stoke Mental Hospital, and after remaining there for a few weeks, he was placed on p lo> bation, and he went to Nazareth Horge in Christchurch. H e died in Lewisham Hospital in March last. He had refused to carry'but his undertaking to pay the interest, but he had disposed of the property at Addington. Accordingly, said Mr O’Regan the position now was, that the plaintiff had been virtually robbed of her house there and sh e found herself saddled with the expensive house in Nelson, which .she did not want. Accordingly s n* sued the Estate for the Amount of Z mortgage and interest, AM08; dama,e to furniture, £47 ss; and for board and lodging for the period within the statute of limitations. , , , Counsel added that his client had liad to endure a great deal of subterranean slander, some of the, offenders bo,ng people who should have known better ; but she had been cruelly wronged in that she, had been brought from opulance to penury by the actions of a paranoic. . The plaintiff gav e - lengthy evidence on the lines of counsel’s nt times she wa s obviously, distreAd’r^ thounh, on the whole, sli e told a veryconvincing story. Her husband gave corroborative ev>-

R. Fell, solicitor, wa s the only other witness. On th o "close of tim' plaintiff’s onje Hi« Honour opened discussion on ha_ part of the claim referring to board find Jodoin", and coimsel intimated that 'in reference to the view expressed by the Judge. he would “lighten shin” by abandoning that part, of the claim. ~ i Mr T/omrhnnn argued that there was not sufficient corroboration for plaintiff’s story, and he cnlWl ♦" chow that the deceased had treated the Sopio fnniil'- as his debtors. PTi s Honour intimated that sirtce the plaintiffs counsel had abandoned the claim for board, he had no-hesitation in finding as a fact, that the pWiff had established her case.. Accordingly tjhero would be u declaration that the

was liable for the mortgage and interest, a s well a s the amount claimed for the damage to the furniture. Costs would be allowed as on a thousand pounds claim, with an allowance of five guineas for ’the second day, ayd disbursements.