THE PAGE MILLIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8361, 22 February 1913, Page 6

THE PAGE MILLIONS

TO WHOM DO THEY BELONG? LONDON, February 20. The “Pall Mall Gazette” says a Bill is being prepared for introduction in the House of Lords to provide for an investigation as to who is entitled to the Pago millions, and who is at present enjoying their benefits. WILL OF 1825 UPHELD ROMANCE OF A GREAT ESTATE. The dispute concerning what are known as the “Pago Millions” came before Sir Samuel Evans, in the Probate Court, London, on April 24th last. The plaintiff, Mrs Charlotte Ann Tapponden, a widow, asked the court to pronounce against a will of the late Henry Page, »f Upper Norton street, Marylebone, dated November 16th, 1835, with three codicils, April 13th and 26th and June 88th. 1829. Under these documents the deceased left the whole of his property, including the Wembley Park estate, to Mr Henry Young, who was his solicitor. The plaintiff claimed that she and her sister, Mrs Theodosia Hill, were the sole surviving heiresses of the deceased Henry Page. The defendant, Francis Young, was said to bo sole surviving executor of Henry Young, who died in 1869, and who obtained probate of the documents now impeached on the grounds that they were not in regard to some of the bequests duly executed, and that Henry Young had been guilty of undue influence over the deceased man. Two relatives, Richard Page and John Page, who led an adventurous life and disappeared in Brazil in the 'sixties, have been presumed deceased, and the plaintiff is a niece of theirs. Hr Barnard. K.C., opening the case for the defendant, said the plaintiff claimed to have probate revoked of a will and certain codicils of the late Henry Page. Probate of the documents was granted in 1829, and he (counsel) proposed to prove the will and ask the court to pronounce for it in solemn form. He submitted that the documents being over thirty years old proved themselves under the law concerning documents of this description. Mr Marshall Hall. K.C., for the plain-, tiff, in detailing the circumstances of the case, pointed out that the dead man’s will was brought in for probate by Henry Young on the very day of Henry Page’s death, and that the value of the estate was sworn at .15000 and a grant obtained before his burial. The estate to which the plaintiff and her sister laid claim exceeded "the dreams of avarice” —perhaps something‘approaching ,£20,000009 or ,£30,000,000, so there was no question as to tho importance of the matter. Where the property now was nobody seemed to know for certain, but no doubt tho origin could bo ascertained to a great extent. In the year 1803 the property consisted of about 40,000 acres, valued then at .£2O an acre, which had rince been acquired for building, and iras now of enormous value. The prefKirty originally came to the Pages in the time of Henry VTTI., part of confiscated property belonging to the Mon«stery of Kilbum, and extending from tho Marble Arch on the west to Hendon, And including the whole of Kilbum and Wembley Park. . • There were two branches of the Pages, an© at Hendon and the other at Wembley, a member of the family being a fxvernor of Harrow School. One Richard age, however, married the heiress of the Wembley Pages, and the whole property became consolidated. This Richard Pago was the settler of the estate, and one of the main contentions of, the plaintiff was that tho deceased Henry Page could not dispose of the property at all. Considerable difficulty, said counsel, had been experienced owing to the condition of the old documents needed, and in not being able to obtain others from the Court of Rolls. Mr Homy Young, added counsel, was solicitor to Henry Pago. 'There was no evidence that the latter had any independent advice in making these documents, and the attesting witnesses were clerks to Hr Young, whoso office was in Essex street. Strand. The day before tho elocution of the will—November 16th, 1823 —a document was drawn up whicli purported to bo a sale of certain property which was conveyed for the nominal sum of five shillings in consideration ai love and affection which the deceased boro the widow and children of Hr Young's partner, named Fladgate, whom he desired to provide for, the residue going to Mr Young, who was son-in-law of Mr Francis Fladgate. That document, counsel contended, was invalidated, as Mr Young was acting as solicitor at the .time. There was a will mad© by one William Pago in 1813, to which Henry Young, then only about fifteen years of ago, was a witness, and described as clerk to Messrs Fladgate and Neeld, Essex street. Strand. His Lordship remarked that tho plaintiff's case was that the deceased Henry Pago had nothing to dispose of. That meant that the documents were not valid, on the ground that there was nothing to pass, and if there was nothing to pass Oxen there was nothing to pass under the wilL Mr Marshall Hall: :lf tho will stands they can shift their title under the will. In 1834 the London and Birmingham Railway, now the London and NorthWestern Railway Company, purchased a Email part of the Page estate from Mr Young and the heir to Mrs Fladgate. Since then tho London and North-Wes-tern Railway Company had acquired.an enormous quantity of land, but there had been no proper conveyance, although there was tho usual proyision for the amount of the money into court. Some of the land which had not been claimed by Mr Young the heirs had obtained possession of, but the tenants would not pay them any rent. One builder, remarked counsel, spent -6100,000 on some of tho land, but could not resell, as he had no title. In 1905 again there was a conveyance of 247 acres to tho governors of Harrow School, to which he (counsel) believed tho defendant's firm wore solicitors. The President declined to revoke a probate granted about eighty years ago, and decided in favour of tho defendant. The plaintiff’s action was accordingly dismissed, with costs.