BISHOP NEVILL'S CASE. AN APPEAL UTHELD.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 36, 12 February 1908, Page 7

BISHOP NEVILL'S CASE. AN APPEAL UTHELD.

j JUDGMENT FOR THE BISHOP. Bj Telflgraph.— Prrss Association — Cop~ngbt LONDON, Llth February. The Court of Appeal has reversed Mr. Justice Granthom's decision in the caso Penny v. the Bishop of Dunedin (Dr. Nevill), and entered judgment for defendant. . HISTORY. OF THE CASE. In May last, in the King's Bench Division, Mr. Justico Grantham, sitting without a jury, Heard tho case of Penny V. Aovill, in whkh the Right Rev. Samuel Tarratt Nevill, of Dunedin, was sued under a bond for £10,000 by tho ■ executors of his first wife's father. The plaintilfg were , the Rev. John David Evans, clerk in holy orders, of Wal- | mersloy, near Bury, and au\ Francis Edward Roberts, a solicitor, of Chester, the, executors .of tho will of the late Mr. Jamas Parker l'enny, whose daugh- , ter Mary Sus.annah-bhe bishop married. She is now dead, as well as father. It 'was alleged that under the bond, dated 9th July, 1870, defendant had bound himself to p\ty to James Parkei Penny ( £10,000, with interest, within six months from the decease of the bishop's wifo. Her death took place m December, 1905. The bishop pleaded that he did mot understand the bond or the effect of it. | - Mr. Dickens, K.C., in opening, said 'it was suggested that tho bond was. ruado in consequence of a conspiracy entered into by -\lr. Roberts and Mr. Pennj. Mr. Roberts would be 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 1862, and his father; and grandfathei befoie him, and throughout the whole of tho transactions out oi which this bond arose he never had any interest or ad ..vantage of any sort or Jcind. Husband and wife made ,mut>ial provision for their respective parents in case of the death of either husband or wife or both. There was money on the part of Mrs. Nevill, which camo 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 wus to make provision for his par; ents, and in the caso ot the death of the wifo the husband 'was to make provision for her parents. Ec went on to state that in ths case all the money which went practically speaking to the defendaut came from his wife. Mr. Roberts was a nephew to Mr. James Parker Penny, and cousin to Mary Susannah Penny, who became the wife of the defendant, Mr. Novill. Mr. Roberts was the person who acted for a)l the parties. Miss Penny was married to .the defendant in 1862, and at that time was. entitled to £20,000, and also to something under the Whittaker estate, which brought in about £1500 a year. 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 partios to provide for their parents, it was no use depending upon wills, and it was then agreed that the bond should bo mado. The bishop now suggested that the only object' of the bond was to meet tho case of both husband and wife dying on tho journey to New Zealand by shipwreck, and that it was ne\cr intended to be permanent. The reason the defendant now wished to get rid of his obligation was obvious — as, his wifo having died in 1905, he, ten months afterwards, married his wife's companion, and al' interest in his first wife's family had gone, Mr. Eldon Bankes said that was not so. The defendant's caso wa3 that Mr. Roberts had entirely misconceived his position, his duty being to act as an independent solicitor. The defendant's case was also that Mr. Roberts was engaged in Correspondence with Mr. Pcnnv to ascertain the best way of influencing tho bishop in order to get him to make -a disposition in the father's favour, a thing he had no right to do. If he (counsel) could establish that, ifc would bo sufficient to set aside the bond. Mr. Dickens observed that Mr. Roberts had no moro interust in the matter than anyone else. The whole value of the estate was £35,000. After evidence had been given, Mr. Bankes contended that it was quite plain that the bishop never undersood the purpoit of "the bond. The bishop's evidence,' taken on commission before he returned to his diocese, was then read. He .stated thnt he "had never instructed Mr. Roberts to make any irre/ocible bond for him, and he never intended to do so. Mr. Justice Grantham gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £10,000. Hif, Lordship found that tho bond was never given to be held subject to the 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 irtendud to be a binding and operative bond. Mr. Justice Grantham added that he should suspend the operation or bis judgment until tho bishop was in a position to meet the bond. j tJishop Kcvill was given fourteen days to consider whether or not he would appeal against this judgment.