BISHOP NEVILLE'S CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 50, 18 February 1908, Page 3

BISHOP NEVILLE'S CASE.

JUSTICE GRANTHAM'S DECISION. The cables on Wednesday stated that the Court of Appeal reversed Mr. Justice Grantham's decision in the case »f Penny versun the Bishop oi' Dunedin. Before Mr. Justice Grantham, of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, action was recently taken by the executors iu the estate uf the late Mr. d'enny, of New Zealand, against Bishop Nevill, of Dunedin, for the recovery of £IO,OOO under a bund signed in 1870 on his marriage to Miss l'enny. A verdict was given for the executors. The judgment made Jiishop Nevill liable to the extent of the amount left at his disposal by his wife's will and codicil up to £IO,OOO.

Mr. Justice (Jraiiihani, in giving judgment in the Lower Court, mu>l Miss Penny hud inherited a considerable sum of money from her grandmother, anil being au honourable ami high-minded young lady she did not forget the duty which she owed to her lather, and gave him an annuity of £SOO. and it was creditable to the defendant that he also realised the duty which his wife owed to her parents., and approved the transaction into which she entered. By her will Mrs. Xevill made a perfectly valid appointment ut her property to her husband, and when she and her husband were about to sail for New Zealand in 1870 it was clear that the defendant intended to make some provision for his wife's father in the event of his wife predeceasing him, bcc-ause he wrote a letter in which he said, "The c|Uestion is whether any bequest from me to Mr. Penny or his family would be valid in case of anything happening to us.'' The original negotiations at that time no doubt related to the contingency of the defendant and his wife losing their lives by shipwreck or other means on their jonrnev to New Zealand; but is time developed they realised that they ought to make provision for other contingencies, and it was clear that the bond which was eventually made never depended solely on their loss of life by shipwreck, as the defendant now contended. lie (the learned judge) was glad to know that the defendant realised that he owed everything to his wife, anil that he wanted to do what an honourable man should do. The defendant on his part said that lie should like something to go to his family ill the event of his wife surviving him, and for that purpose it was arranged that his wife should execute a bond for £SOO ill favour of his family, and secure, whatever happened, the -urn of £IO,OOO ' should go to Mr. Penny or his representative-. It was i|uile clear that the bond was not a mere temporary arrangement, but was executed with the object of the sum mentioned therein going to the Penny family, because it was just and right that it should do so. With regard to the contention that the bond was nothing more than an escrow, in hi- opinion the bond was not given ill order to lie held "object to the simultaneous deaths of the defendant and hiwife. but was given for the purpose of providing for the wife'- family if her hii-band survived her. and was intend-

ell to be a binding :ind operative bond. In lii- letter of Juno 21, IRifl. the defendant said that liis wife would prcf;T tliat the sum of ClO.nnn should 1»' given Id her fattier ami hi- heirs ami assigns absolutely, in lion of the annuity of t5lll) which slip was making him, which showed that it was the defendant's ilc>ire above everything to protect Mr. I'enuv ami his family—Mr. ChesterI .[ones'. (11l liehalf of the plaintilVs, saiil he liad agreed with Mr. Pitman as io the form of judgment—namely, that there should lie a declaration that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff.under tlic finnd >ued upon in the extent of tlic amount of the property left to the defendant at hi* absolute disposal by his late wife'- will and codicil, not exceeding the amount of £10.01)0 paraide linder the bond, judgment for such Mini to lie stayed until further order. Judgment was entered in accordance with the terms agreed upon.