REMARKABLE CASE

Grey River Argus, 8 December 1932, Page 5

REMARKABLE CASE

EX-COASTER’S ESTATE Claim Against it Succeeds ADOPTED DAUGHTER S HARDSHIP. (Special jo ‘ ‘ Argus. ’ ’ NELSON, December 7. Names familiar to the West Coast. wer ( . heard in the Supreme Court here yesterday, when Mrs M. M. Sepio sued tl-.' Perpetual Trustees and Agency Coy.. as executors of the estate of the late Mr John Joseph Halpin, who al. tim? was a well-known (farmer at lota. a Plat, for alleged breach of contract. and daman-' jo furniture, as well as board and lodging. Mr Justice Blair was on the Bench The plaintiff was represented by Mr P. J. O’Regan (Wellington), whil • Mr R. .1. Loughnan (Christchurch) appear cd for the defendants, (onnsvl for th* 1 plaintiff, in the course of ;l lengthy opening, said that the <a>e present <1 several novel fcatu'es. in that the plaintiff. Mrs JSepie, had always l»'‘en represented )>v the late Mr Halpin ami his wife as their daughter, ami in Ifact, th.; mother had one,, shown her baptismal certificate, and the father on hj s death bed. had referred her to it. N overt holes.'}. it was beyond question that she had been adopted by the |;.Je Mrs Halpin, her husband not having joined in the adopti'm; ami a> (hr mother died in J9PJ. th" plaintiff was, in Jaw. a stranger to her reputed lather. The relations between (h - parties, however, had been singularly cordial ;«nd happy, and on th* jdaintilf’s marriage, in J 927. them late Mr Halpin had conveyed a fur nished house prnpcslx at Addington (< hristchurch) as a wedding present to h'r. and later had resided there. Business reasons had subsequently •neeeasb tafc I Mrs Scj»ie’> removal to Nelson,

ami subsequently, the late Mr Halpin had remove.l Jp-j-e also He had objected Io lheir living in a rented house, and had persuaded th<- plaintiff to transfer her Addington propertv to him, Ju- undertaking to purchase a properly not less valuable in Nelson. Accordingly, Air Halpin purchased the section ami a house in Brougham Street for £l7OO in the plaintiff’s name He paid £BOO cash, and, leaving £9OO on moil gage, he undertook to pay the interest on the mortgage, and to pay it oil when (he Addington property was sold. This wa s in July, 1930, and a few mouths later Mr Halpin suddenly developed a bitter and uncalled ifor hatred of the plaintiff’s husband, and after causing 'flu intolerable situation in the household, ho one day took a hammer and proceeded to smash- the furnit uro On February 24tli, 1931, lie was committed to the St ok" Mental Hospital, and after remaining therefor a few weeks, he was placed o n pro bat ion, and he went to Nazareth lloijso lin (.’hristchurch. He di f, d in Lewisham Hospital in March last. He had re. fusi'd to carry out his undertaking to pay the interest, but he had disposed of the property at Addington. Accordingly, said Air O’Regan, the position now was that the plaintiff had been virtually robbed of her house there and she found herself saddled with lhe expensive house in Nelson, which she did not want. Accordingly, she sued the Estate for the amount of 1 the mortgage and interest, £1008; damage to furniture, £47 ss; and for board and lodging for the period within the statute of limitations. I’ounsrl adde’d that his client had had to endure « great deal of subterranean slander, some of the offenders being people, who should have known better; but she bad been cruelly wronged in that she had been brought from opu lance to penury Ly the actions of a j>a ranoie. The plaintiff gave lengthy evidence, on the Hne.s of counsel’s opening, ami ' at times she was obviously distressed, though, on th> whole, she told ;i very convincing story Her husband’gav c corroborative evi den re. Mr ('. R. Fell, solicitor, w;i s the onlv olh'T witness. On the <-’o?-r o'f the plaintiff’s <as<‘, His Hommr opened discussion on that part, of the claim referring to board and lodging, and counsel intimated that, in deference to the view expressed by the Judge, he would ‘‘lighten shij»” by abandoning tlvit part o'f Ihe claim. Mr Loughnan argu-d that there "' ;iH not sufficient corroboration for plaintiff T story, and ho called evidence to show that the deceased had treated the Sepie family as his debtors. The hearing of the case was resumed this morning. Ilis Honour intimated that since the plaintiff’s counsel had abandoned the claim for board, he had no hesitation in finding as a fact, that the plaintiff had established her case. Accordingly there would be a declaration that the estate was liable for the mortgage and interest, as well as the amount claimed for the damage to the furniture. Costs would be allowed as on a thousand pounds claim, with an allowance of five, guineas for the second dav, ami disbursements.

JUDGE’S COMMENTS (Per Press Association). NELSON, December 7. ' Mr Justice Blair gave judgment? in the. cas c of Margaret M. Sepio v. perpetual Trustees, Co., Ltd., awarding tno plaintiff £47 damages for injuries to her furniture inflicted by the late John Joseph Halpin, the testator, and also allowing her claim for £9OO. the ajmount required to pay off tho mortgage on her house, the testator having presented her with an equity in the same. He previously presented her with a house in Addington, but resumed ownership of the latter in exchange for the house in Nelson, upon which he had paid hail’ the purchase money- as a deposit

by way of gift to her. The late Air Halpin’s wife had adopted Mrs Sepio, but Mr Halpin had not been joined in the adoption proceedings, jmd. it was not. until these proceedings were begun that she discovered that she was not his daughter. j The Judge commented on the action of the Perpetual Trustees k Coy., in defending the claim, remarking that it was the duty of the company to act as it did