ACTION AGAINST THE PRIMATE.

Feilding Star, Volume I, Issue 291, 14 June 1907, Page 4

ACTION AGAINST THE PRIMATE.

BISHOP NBVILL'S BOND. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. London, May 3. In the King's Bench Division of the Law Courts the day before yesterday, the hearing of a very peculiar and unusual action against the Most Reverend the Primate of New Zealand—Bishop Nevill. of Dunedin — was begun before Mr Justice Grantham, sitting without a jury. According to the official statement of the case, the Right Rev. Samuel Tarratt Nevill, Bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand, was sued under a .bond for £10,000 by the executor of the estate of his first wife's father. The plain- ! tiffs were the Rev. John David j Evans, clerk in Holy Orders, of WalJ mersley, near Bury, and Mr Francis j Edward Roberts, a- solicitor, of Chesi ter, the executors of the will of the late Mr James Parker Penny, whose daughter Mary Susannah, the Bishop married. She is now dead, as well a." her father. The action was brought upon a bond made by Bishop Nevill, dated July ' 9th, 1870, by which he bound him--1 self to pay to James Parker Penny, I £'10,000 with interest, within six • months from the decease of the Bishop's wife. Her death took place lin December, 1905. The Bishop ' pleads that _ he did not understand ! the bond, or the effect of it. I Mr Dickens, K.C., and Mr Chester Jones appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Eldon Bankes, K.C., and Mr C M. Pitman (instructed by Messrs Carleton, Holmes, Son and Fell) represented the defendant. ■ Mr Dickens, in opening, said the ' case was most complicated; a great i many documents would have to be used, and the defence was voluminous. It was suggested that the bond was made in consequence of a conspiracy entered into by Mr Roberts and Mr Penny. Mr Roberts would t be able to satisfy the learned Judge 1 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 grandfather before him., and throughout the whole of the transactions, out of which this bond arose, , ; he never had any interest or advantage of any sort or kind. Husband and wife made mutual provision for their respective parents in case of the death of either husband or wife, or both. There was money on the i part of Mrs Nevill, which came 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 was ; to make provision for his parents, and in the case of the death of the | wife, the husband was to make pro- : vision fon ker parents. j Mr Justice Grantham: "This is reversing the usual order of things, as provision is gonorally made by parents for the children." Mr Dickens said that was so. He went on to state that in this case, all money which went, practically speaking, to the defendant, came . from his wife. Mr Roberts was a | nephew to Mr James Parker Penny, and cousin to Mary Susannah Penny, ; who bocamo the wife of the defend- ' ant, Mr Nevill. Mr Roberts was j the person who acted for all the parj tics. Defendant not only knew and understood the nature of the trans- ! action, but he made suggestions as i to the way it should be carried out. [ Miss Penny was married to- the defendant in 18G2, and at that time 1 was entitled to £20,000, and also to ; something under the Whittaker esi ta-to, which brought in about £1500 a year. After her marriage, she \ made a will, leaving all her property ;j to her husband. Mr Roberts pointI ed out that to carry out the wishes j of the parties to provide for their ; parents, it was no use depending upon wills, and it was then agreed that the bond should be made. The Bishop now suggested that the only object of the bond was to meet the case j of both husband and wife dying on their journey to New Zealand by shipwreck, and that it was never in- ! tended to be permanent. But the bond was thoroughly explained to the defendant by Mr Roberts from all points of view, and the defendant j thoroughly understood it. j Mr Eldon Bankes said defendant's case was 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 Penny to ascertain the best way of influencing the 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, it would be sufficient to set , aside the bond. i Mr Dickens observed that Mr Roberts had no more interest in the matter than anyone else. The whole value of the estate was £35,000. Mr Frances Edwards Roberts, one of the plaintiffs, gave evidence in accordance with his counsel's opening. In cross-examination he said, that the Bishop gave a legacy of £10,000 to Mr Penny, which, according to his view was absolutely irrevocable, if lie (the Bishop) survived his wife. > Mr Baukes: Did you call the Bishop's attention to the fact that he might be called upon to pay both under his will and the bond? — You are asking me about details of a convrrs&tiovi which occmred forty years ago. Everybody else is dead. It's a wonder I'm not. (Laughter.) Witness, continuing, said Mr Penny died in 1884, and left a will in which no mention was made of this bond. Witness drew the will and was himself one of the executors under the late Mr Penny's will. In rendering accounts to Somerset House, he did not refer to the bond. The Bishop's wife died in November, 1905, but between 1872 and August of 1906, he did not mention this bond to anybody, for a very good reason. Had the trustees had any intimation of the contents of the will, the gift would have been invalidated. He caused the writ to be issued in this action on November Pth, 1906, after Mrs NeviJl's dejth, and after consulting his fellow-executor. He understood that Mrs Novill made a will in Now Zealand by which she left a largo proportion of her property away from her husband. He was solicitor for Mrs Nevill before ever he saw her husband, but lie got most of his instructions from the Bishop. Ro-pxaminod: In acting for all tfie parties he had no idea of deceiving tho Bishop. This coiifludi'd tho ease lor the plaintiffs. Mr Bankes contended that it was quite plain that the Bishop never understood the purport of the bond. Jlio JJishop's evidence, taken on commission before he returned to his diocese was then read. He stated tflat he had never instructed Mr Roberts to make any irrevocable bond for him, and he never intended to do so. Copies of the wills of the Bishop and his wrfe were put in, Mr Bankes contending that they proved the Bishop was right in saying that they treated these bonds as at an end when they arrived in New Zealand. There were three points he wished to make •• First, that the bond was executed as an esoro. The second point was, that this arrangement was a fraud, and, therefore, could not be enforced The third point was, that the conduct of Mr Robei-ts was such that anyone aware of that conduct could not seek to take advantage of it. case concluded at a late hour this afternoon, when judgment for i-10,000 was given by Mr Justice Grantham, for the plaintiffs and against the Primate of New Zealand. His Lordship found that the 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 ease her hus- | band survived her, and that it was intended to be a binding and opera- *__• *°%}\ Mr Justice Grantham added that he should suspend the operation of his judgment until the Bishop was in a position to meet the bond. ! ™^!, nc ? this was written Bishop ! Nevill has decided to appeal.]