Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ACTION AGAINST THE PRIMATE

LONDON, February 11. The Court of Appeal has reversed Mr Justice Grantham's decision in the case Penny v. the Bishop of Dunedin, and has entered judgment for the defendant. The Right Rev. Samuel Tarrait Ne\ill was sued in May last under a bond for £10,000 by the executors of his first wile s father. the plaintiffs were the Rev. John David Evans, clerk in holy orders, of \N almerslev, near Bury, and Mr Francis Edward Roberts, a solicitor, of Chester, the executors of the will of the late Mr James Parker Penny, whose daughter, Mary Susannah, the Bishop married. The action was brought upon a bond made by Bishop Nevill, dated July 9, 1870, by which he bound himself to pay to James Parker Penny £10,000. with interest, within six months from the decease of the Bishop's •wife. Her death took place in December. 1905. The Bishop's plea was that he did not understand the bond or the effect of it. Mr Dickens, in opening, said husband and wife made mutual provision for their respective parents in case of the death of either husband or wife or both. There was money on the part of Mrs Nevill, and the provision made was that in the case of the death of her husband she was to make provision for bis parents, and in the case of the death of the wife the husband was to make provision for her parents. Miss Penny was married to the defendant in 1862, and at that time was entitled to £20,000 and also to something under the Whitaker estate, which brought in about £1500 a year. After her marriage she made a will leaving all her property to her husband. Mr Roberts, •who was a nephew of Mr Penny and cousin of Mrs Nevill, pointed out that to carry out the wishes of the parties to provide for their parents it was no use depending upon wills, and it was then agreed that the bond should be made. Mr Justice Grantham held that there was no ground which would justify the bond being set aside, and accordingly he gave judgment for the plaintiffs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19080219.2.122

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 29

Word count
Tapeke kupu
362

ACTION AGAINST THE PRIMATE Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 29

ACTION AGAINST THE PRIMATE Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 29

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert