NAME CHANGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 151, 27 June 1936, Page 16

NAME CHANGED.

PROOF OF IDENTITY. FATHER'S, LEGACY TO SON. CLAIM BY ELDEELY MAN. ... ■ (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) DUNEDIN, Friday. The difficulty of a man living in Western Australia in proving that he was a legatee under the will of his father, who died in Dunedin in 1923, owing to the father having changed his name unknown to the son, lent unusual interest to a case heard in the Supreme Court this morning, before Justice Kennedy. The matter came before the Court in the form of an application under the Trustee Act, for an order for payment to John Murphy, of Pertly Western Australia, of moneys at present lying in Court in the deceased estate of Michael McKey. The amount concerned ■ was £1124 12/8. Mr. Ward, for petitioner, said that the petition before the Court concerned the life and last will of Michael McKey, a former well-known liotelkeeper of South Dunedin, who died in Dunedin in 1923, aged 94 ,years. He left a will made some six years prior to his death, and probate was granted to the Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Company.

The first two legacies mentioned in that will were gifts of £1000 each to his son, Jolin McKev, and to his daughter, MaVy Ann McGreadv. The will made provision for his. other children, and a considerable sum was also left to charities. Five years passed, and the trustee company, by affidavit of its manager, in 1928, recorded that it could find no trace either of John McKey or of Mary Ann McGready, and that the other children of deceased could give no information concerning tliem, beyond, a statement that they left New Zealand 40 or 50 yetirs ago, and had not since been heard of.

Each legacy, then increased by interest to, £1124 12/S, was paid into Court iii terms of the Trustee Act to await an established claim by John McKey and •Mary Ann McGready. Thus, for the last eight years, the sum of £2249 5/4 had lain in what might be termed "Chancery." . . .i; . Name Changed. There was ' living at Perth, West Australia, in 1933, a man . named John Murphy, aged 70 years. On September 12, 1933/ he wrote to the registrar at Dunedin inquiring whether his father was dead. In reply, the registrar sent him a copy of the death certificate, and this certificate, dated October 3, 1933, was now before the Court. Murphy then wrote back to the registrar asking howhe could'discover if the deceased left a will. The registrar directed him to the Supreme Court at Dunedin. Murphy wrote to the Supreme Court, and on January 17, 1934, was' sent a copy of the will and codicil of deceased. An affidavit of search showed that, on August 15, 1882, there was lodged in the Dunedin office of the Court a 'deed-poll whereby Michael McKey, of Dunedin, settler, recorded that prior to his arrival in New' Zealand he bore the name' of JMichael Murpliy, and that,/per .medium -of a deed-poil,' x lie formally renounced the- name of Mur.phy and ''assumed ; that of McKey. - 'J In the deed he recorded ' that his father, was Arthur Murphy, of County |Dowu, Itelahd, and his mother, Rose &iin/ Murphy,, formerly! McKey. John .Murphy'f birth certificate, fijed r in Court, showed that he was born in Newry, Ireland... and was a son of 'Michael and Elizabeth Murphy. Evidence Not Complete. ? His Honor said that the evidence by petitioner was not in one respect quite as complete as it might be. Vlt had been established that petitioner was probably John Murphy, but it should'not be difficult to furnish,further evidence to enable the Court to satisfy itself definitely that petitioner was John Murphy

Identification rested ultimately on the affidavits of petitioner and his wife, that was' to the extent that petitioner and his wife identified themselves. It should be easy to furnish definite and independent proof of identity. There should, foi;- example, be; independent evidence of identification of photographs of someone who knew John Murphy. The; matter was adjourned until July 17, his Honor said, to enable petitioner to furnish further evidence of the nature iijjlicated. The question of costs would be reserved. o <