AN IMPORTANT WILL CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8144, 15 April 1887, Page 5

AN IMPORTANT WILL CASE.

[Per Press Association.]

DUNEDIN, April 14,

Mr Justice Williams to-day delivered a long and important judgment in the case of Isaac and others v. Mills and others, in which the plaintiffs wore interested under the residuary devise of the will of the late John Jones. The object of the suit was, said His Honor, originally to amend Mr Jones’ will by including in a devise to Mrs Isaac land which had been devised to her sister’s grandchild, on the ground that the testator had by mistake devised it to the wrong person. As, however, the impossibility of obtaining such relief was obvious, the object of the suit now was to obtain a declaration that the land was not devised to the grandchild, and to.amend the probate so that the land might fall into the residue, in which case half of it would go to the Isaacs. The testator died in March and his will was proved in April, 1869. At that time Mr Isaac knew of the alleged mistake, but nevertheless he, as one of the executors, obtained probate, and as one of the trustees administered the estate. Having done this he lay by till March, 1886, 17 years, and then commenced these proceedings. Mrs Isaac also, who might be fairly presumed to have known all her husband knew, had also been contented to wait all this long period and see the income which she now claimed appropriated to another. What was sought to be done now was to impeach by parole evidence 18 years old, a written ii.strument of the most solemn kind, the execution of which was hedged round by law with rigid formalities, which bad been duly observed. Where it was sought to impeach such an instrument it was the plain duty of the person moving to come promptly, while the memory of the facta were fresh in the minds of all parties. Such delay as had occurred certainly placed the parties who defended the suit in an exceedingly unfair position, but apart from the l&ches of the plaintiffs he did not think they were entitled to succeed. The evidence was not clear, and if a man who had nursed his case for 18 years was incapable of stating his grievance with accuracy, how could his accuracy be depended on in the witnessbox ? In a case like the present freedom from the slightest suspicion of inaccuracy was essential. On the whole his Honor was satisfied that the evidence was not of such a character as to enable the plaintiffs to succeed. Judgment would be for the defendants with costs.