A SINGULAR WILL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 88, 15 April 1887, Page 4

A SINGULAR WILL CASE.

(BY TELEGKAI'H— PRKSS ASSOCIATION.) •" H Duijedin', Thursday. ! j Mr Justice Williams to-day delivered <liM long and important judgment in the-case off:. Isaac, and others v. Mills and others, ia.II which the plaintiffs were interested under-B the residuary devise of the will of the la.tt>'H John Jones. His Honor pointed out thai: under the will certain land was devised to Mrs Isaacs's sister's grandchildren, and tha suit was originally to put aside this devisfll and enable Mrs Isaacs to become possesspr. of the land on the ground that the testate*, by mistake, devised to the wrong person. The testator died in March, and his will was proved in April, 1869. At that time' Mrs Isaacs knew of the. alleged nus-j take, but, nevertheless, she,' as one of the executors, obtained probate, and,j as one of the trustees, administered tKe; estates. Having done this, she lay fey till; March, 1887—seventeen years—and thenjH commenced the proceedings. ■ Mrs Isaacta also might be fairly . presumed to have M known all her husband knew, who had aliaS been contented to wait all this long peripilg and see the income which she now claimed!! appropriated by . another. What • v&m sought to be done was, His Honor said, ttjß impeach by parole evidence, eighteen^ years old, a written instrument •«■ the most solemn kind, the executioajH of which was hedged round by laVjH with rigid formalities, which had, heWR duly observed. When it, was Bought mh impeach such an instrument, it was tmm plain duty of the persons inoving to cw?*jj§ '. promptly while the n»mory of the i was'fresh in the minds or all parties. . Saaß delay as had occurred certainly_ put .tMjl ' parties who defended the ;suit ,".iij.. «*■ exceedingly unfair position } . but,; ap^S from the laches of the plaintiff,- M|B did not think they were entitled to B)i*M < ceed. The evidence was not clear,, j^ndaß a man who had nursed his ease for 18 ye»tf H was incapable.of stating His grievance ■wi»B accuracy, how could his' accuracy be^di-jB pended on in the witness-box? In.; acajftm like the present, freedom from the snialle»|a Buspicionof inaccuracy was essential. On t»fl whole, lie (His Honor) was satisfied thatwra evidence was not of such.a P^*I"*?*l^]^^ entitle the plaintiffs to succeed. Jud&BSWI would be for tie,defendant withIcosts.' .£.*■