SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1621, 24 April 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BAKCO.

BOND V. WITHKRVORD.

This case the nature of which we gave in our last issue, was argued yesterday afternoon by Messrs "Whitaker and Hesketh representing respectively the plaintiff and the defendant.

The following are the attendant facts disclosed in the two counsels addresses :—Mr Bond, the plaintiff, is a gardener in Victoriastreet. In 1874 he made an assignment to his wife of a piece of ground in section 23, City of Auckland. Mrs Bond died on the 18th May last year, and a will executed by her two years ago left the land above-mentioned to the defendant, Clement Witheford, a tinsmith in Parnell, and to Arthur Lovett as trustees to realize the estate and apply the proceeds to the education, etc., of her youngest child, and in the event of that child dying, to the education, etc. of the next youngest. On the strength of this will defendant has taken possession of the title deeds, and the present suit is brought by Mr Bond to recover them and £100 damages. By the English Common law the facts are plainly indicative of the right of the plaintiff to the property, as in England no married woman can make a will in her husband's life-time, except under very clearly defined conditions. On the other hand the "Conveyancing Orders" somewhat modified the English law as applied to colonial practice. The question was whether the husband in deeding the land to the wife had done it in such a way as to convey a separate estate. Mr He9keth contended that the wording of the deed implied this intention and effect. Mr Whitaker argued that it was necessary for the wording to be fuller and more explicit before such a meaning could be gathered. He maintained on behalf of the plaintiff that the wife had no power to make such a will, and that the property reverted to the heir-at-law, subject to the tenancy of the husband by "courtesy." After hearing the case fully argued his Honor def rred judgment.