TELEGRAMS [PRESS ASSOCIATION.] FATHER SUES HIS DAUGHTER "A WASTE OF TIME."

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 62, 11 September 1911, Page 3

TELEGRAMS [PRESS ASSOCIATION.] FATHER SUES HIS DAUGHTER "A WASTE OF TIME."

TIMARtT, 9th September. | Mr. Justice Denniston, in the Supreme Court, has been occupied for three days with an unusual kind of civil case, in which, the plaintiff sought to rescind tile sale of a fai'fti to his daughter, on tha ground of fahe representation, and undue influence. The plaintiff, T, H, Taylor, eighty years of age, has farmed 250 acres of lafld near Orai'i for the last thirty years. Ons ol his daughters married Air. JPriddie, who occupied an adjoining farm. Towatds th* latter end of ltflO Taylor sold his farm to Mrs. i^t'iddic, reserving the house and twenty acres for life for himself add his wife. Part of the bargain was that Mrs. PrlddW was not to benefit under her father's will. It was now sought to rescind the sale, on the ground that tho price was to ha*e been £12 per acre, but £6 was iiiserued itl the agreement that he signed, though told by hia daughter that £12 was there. As to undue influence, it was asserted that she plied him with drink, and that she persuaded him to keep ibe sale a secret. The mother became GUSpicious, and diecovered the sale by a search at the Deeds Office, and by further enquiry found that the price wan only £6. Witnesses for the plaintiff valued the farm at from £11 to £12 10s per acre, while other experts for the defence placed the value at from £6 10s to £7 ss. - ._ 'It was contended that the plaintiff was Unfit to make sUGh a bargain, or to make a will, which was done in connection with the sale, as part of the bargain was that Mrs. PriddJe was not to be a beneficiary with the other descendants. In connection with the will', however (made by another solicitor than the one who carried through the transfer), it was shown that care had been taken to test Mr. Taylor's capacity, two doctors examining hint, and testifying to his competence, and both solicitors satisfying themselves of it, The Judge pointed out that the alleged price of £12 was not mentioned in the first pleadings, and that the new will disposed of the proceeds of the Bale at the Tate of £6 per acre only. The £12 must have been an afterthought. The allegation of fraud' was then abandoned. The defendant said she gave him (her father) a glass of beer when he came to her house, and that was after the transfer. His Honour ridiculed the suggestion founded on that. He held that d'efen« djtnt was quite competent to make* the bargain, and added that the case was a waste of time, and should never have come before the Court. He gave judgment, for defendant, with costs on the highest scale.