ACTION AGAINST BISHOP NEVILLE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 15 June 1907, Page 3

ACTION AGAINST BISHOP NEVILLE.

THE £IO,OOO BOND. -VLLliClUlj CONSPIRACY AGAINST 111 11. London, May 3. In the Kings Bench Division of the I .aw Courts the day before yesterday ■lie hearing of u very peculiar and unusual action against the Host Reverend the JViniate of New Zealand, bishop Neull, of Dunedin, was begun before Mr ■Justice Grantham, sitting without a jury. According to the official statement of the case, the Wight Kev. Samuel lairatt Nevill, Bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand, was sued under a bond for CIO.(KII) by the executors of his Ih-st wiles father, Mr. .James Parker Penny. The plaintiffs were the Rev. John David Hvans, clerk in Holy Orders, of Wabnerslcy, near liury, and Mr Francis Edward Roberts, a solicitor, of Chester, the execnt ors.

T ae action was brought upon a bond made by Bishop Nevill, dated July I), 1870, by which he bound himself to pay to James Parker Penny £IO,OOO, with interest, within six months from the decease of the Bishop's wife. Iler death took place, in December, 1005. The Bishop pleads that he did not understand the bond, or the effect of it.

Mr Dickens, K.C., and Mr Chester Jones appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Eldon Bankes, K.C., and Mr C. M. Pitman (instructed by Messrs , Carlcton Holmes, Son, and Pell) represented the defendant.

Mr. Dickens, in opening, said the case was most .lomplicated; a great many documents would have to be used, and the defence was voluminous. It was suggested that the bond was made in consequence of a conspiracy entered into by Mr Roberts and Mr Penny. Mr Roberts would lie able to satisfy the learned judge that his conduct had been beyond question. Mr. Roberts was a solicitor. who had carried on a practice in Chester since 1802, and his father and grandfather before him, and throughout the whole of the transactions out of which this bond arose he never had any sort or kind. Husband and wife made mutual provision for their respective parents in case of the death of cither husband or wife or both. There money on the part of Mrs Nevill, which came to her not from her own family, but from another source, and the provision made was that, in the case of the death of her husband, she was to make provision for his parents, and in the case of the death of the wife the husband was to make provision for her parents. . Mr Justic( ' Grantham: This is.revers,n * tl,e 1131,1,1 order of things, ns provision is generally made by parents for thi' emldren.

Mr. Dickens said that was so. He went on to state that in this case all the money which wont, practically speaking to the defendant, came- from his wile. Mr Roberts was a nephew to Mr. ,fames I'arker Penny. Mr. Roberts was the person-who acted for all the parties. Delendant not only knew and understood the nature of the. transaction, but be made suggestions as to the way in which it should be carried out. Miss Penny was married to the defendant in 18(12, and at lhat time was entitled to £20,(100, and also to something under the Whittaker estate, which brought in about £ISOO a yoar. After her marriage she made a Will, leaving all her property to her husband. Mr. Roberts pointed out that to carry out the wishes of the parties to provide for their parents, it was no use depending „ |Km wills. an( l it waß then agreed lliat the bond should be made. T he Bishop now suggested that the only object of the bond was to meet the ease of both husband and wife dying on their journey to New Zealand by shipwreck, and that it was never intended to be permanent. Rut the bond was thoroughly explained to the defendant by Ilr. Roberts from all points of view, nnd the defendant thoroughly understood it. The reason the defendant now wished to get rid of his obligations was obvlous-R. bis wife having died in 1005, he. IA months afterward, married his wife's companion, and all interest In his first Wife's family had gone, Mr. Kldon Bankcs said that was not so. The defendant's case was that Mr Roberts had entirely misconceived his j position, his (July being to act as an independent solicitor. The defendant's! case was also that Mr. Roberts was engaged in correspondence with Mr. Penny (0 ascertain the best way of influencing the Bi-hop in order to get him to make a disposition in the father's favor, a thing he had no right to do. If he (counsel) could establish that it would lie snf, fioicnt to set aside the bond. Mr. Dickens observed that Mr. Roberts bad no more interest in the matter than anyone else. The whole value of the estate was £3.),0ft0.

Mr. Francis lid wards Roberts, one of the plaintiffs, gave evidence in accordance with his counsel's opening. l n cross-examination he said that the Bishop gave a legacy of f](l,000 to Mr. Penny, which according to his view, was absolutely irrevocable if he (tho Bishop) survived his wife.

Mr. TSankes; Did yon call the Bishop's attention to the fact that he might be -ailed, upon to pay both under his will 'lid the bond?— You are asking me ™Vmt details of a conversation which oc'•irml 10 years ago. Everybody else is •I'.hl. It's a wonder I'm not. (daughter.) Witness, continuing said Mr Pennv j" IHB4, and left a will in which no mention was made of this bond. Wit-"l'-w drew the will and was himself one >l the executors under the late Mr Pen■'.v's will. I„ rendering accounts to Somerset House he did not refer to tho bond. The Bishop's wife died in No-

vcnber, 100,5, but between 1872 and August of 1900 ho did not mention this tn 'in.vbod.v for a very good reason. Had tin- trustees had any intimation of ' l,O of tlm will the gift would have been invaliated. lie caused'the writ to be issued in (his action on November 0. I'HJii, after Mrs Novill's death and after consulting his fnilow-executor. He understood tlmt lira Nevill made a will in New Zealand by which she left i large proportion of her property away from her husband. He was solicitor for Mrs Nevill before ever'lie saw lier hu»'•"id, but 1,,. lnust (|f ]lia i "'"s fw>m 'ho KiKliop, as his wife was 'a mere child in his hands." |

He-examined: In acting for nil the parlies hi! had no idea of driving (ho llishoj). This concluded the case of rtlie plaintilfs. Mr Ualikes contended that it was rpiile plain lhat the llishop never understood Hie purport of the bond. The Bishop's evidence, taken on commission before he returned to his diocese, was then read. Ifc stated that he had never Instructed Mr Huberts to make any irrevocable bond for him, and he never intended to do so. Copies of the wills of the Bishop and his wife were put in, Mr Hanks contending that, they proved the llishop was right in saying that they treated these bonds as at .an end when thev arrived in New Zealand. There were three point; he wished to make: First, that the bond was expected as an escrow. The second point was that this arrangement was a fraud, and, therefore, could not be enforced. The third point was that the conduct of Mr Roberts was such that

anyone aware of that conduct could not seek to take advantage of It. The ease concluded at a late hour this afternoon, when judgment for £IO,OOO was given by Mr. Justice Urantham for tin! (iluiutilt's and against the Primate of New Zealand. His Lordship found that the bond was never given to bo hold subject to tlie death of both husband and wife simultaneously, but it was given with the intention of providing for the family of .Mrs Nevill in case her husband survived her and that it was intended to be a binding and operative bond. Mr Justice Grantham added that he should suspend the operation of his judgment until the Bishop was in a position to meet the bond.

Bishop Nevill lias been given 14 day# to consider whether or not he will appeal against this judgment. It appears to he genci ally understood here that there will be such an appeal.

(Ihis Bishop has since given notice ol his intention to appeal.)