FAMILIES AT LAW

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22584, 24 November 1936, Page 13

FAMILIES AT LAW

SHAKES IN AN ESTATE DURHAM STREET SECTION EARLY AUCKLAND RECORDS Whether both branches of a family or only one are entitled to participate in an early Auckland estate, which includes a section with a 19-foot frontnge to Durham Street, was at issue in legal proceedings brought before Mr. Justice I'air in the Supreme Court yesterday. Questions about a marriage here in lb-12 and a will made in March, 1847, were also involved. I lie action was brought by three brothers, Michael Henry Murphy, of Wanganui, retired concrete worker, Theodore Murphy, of Auckland, retired tinsmith, and Thomas Aquinas Murphy, of Palmerston North, engineer, against Helen Mudford, formerly Murphy, of Auckland, widow, and the public trustee. Mr. Ziman appeared for the pUintifTs, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Winter for the defendant, Airs. Mudford, and Mr. Cocker for the public trustee. .1 he estate was the subject of an action in tho Supremo Court last year, when the Court was asked to decide whether this piece of land in Durham Street was held by Mrs. Mary Ann Murphy, nee Davis, in fee simple, or only as a life tenant. She received it under a will of her father, Thomas Davis, made in 1817, and she died in 1910. Mr. Justice Callan hold that she possessed tho fee simple of tho land. The whole estate is valued at about £2OOO. *• Marriage in 1842 Claimed The plaintiffs claimed that Mary Ann Davis was married to John Ryan in 1842, and that they were her descendants. It appeared that about 1852 Ryan left his wife and she formed in 1855 an alliance with Edward William Murphy, by whom she had seven children. One of these is the defendant, Helen Mudford. The defendant contended that Alary Ann Davis was not married to Ryan and that, therefore, tho Murphy descendants shared equally in the estate with tho Ryan descendants. If it was established that she was married to Ryan, then only tho Ryan descendants would participate. The plaintiffs asked a declaration of tho Court that Mary Ann Davis and John Ryan were duly married, and asked the Court to determine who are the persons now entitled to share in the estate left by Airs. Alary Ann Alurpliy. His Honor inquired what right tho three plaintiffs had to represent all who were interested in the estate of Alary Ann Alurpliy and what steps had been taken to join all these parties. After hearing argument and taking an adjournment His Honor agreed to let the case go on. In answer to His Honor Air. Cocker said the property was valued at £I7OO in the last Government valuation and there was about £3OO of accumulated profits. The number of persons involved on the Ryan side was about 22. Deciding Next of Kin

Mr. Cocker said the action was to determine the next of kin of Mary Ann Davis, whose father died in 1854 leaving her certain property which she held until her death in -1910. She died intestate. The deceased had two families, one by John Ryan and one by Edward William Murphy, and the contest was between these two families. The second family clearly was illegimate, as the parents were married only in 1875 after the birth of all the children. In the certificate of that marriage the bride was described as "spinster," but a record kept at St. Patrick's Cathedral, where the marriage took place, showed her as "widow." A clerk in tho office of the Public Trustee produced the records and correspondence to which Mr. Cocker had referred. No record could be found, he said, of a marriage between Marv Ann Davis and John Evan between 1841 and 1853. Bishop Pompallier's Servant Mr. Ziman said that Mary Ann Davis had been living with her father at Hokianga in 1838. two years before the Treaty of Waitangi. Ryan was a servant in the employ of Bishop Pompallier, who visited Auckland in 1841 and had an extensive mission in the far north. It was admitted that Mary Ann Davis and Ryan lived together from 1842 to 1852. No record of a marriage between them could be found bv the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, continued Mr. Ziman, but the records of that period were admittedly incomplete. She became known as Mrs. Ryan and her children were known as Rvan. She described herself in the church register in 1875 as "Mary Ann Ryan, widow." Her death certificate stated that she had been married to John Rvan at Auckland. 'The plaintiff, Michael Henry Murphv, said he was a grandson of Marv Ann Murphy and was born in .June. 1870. She used to point to a portrait of Bishop Pom pall ior as the man who had married her to John Rvan. „ , \ grand-daughter of Mary Ann Murphy, Mrs. Laura May Murphy also said her grandmother used to speak of her marriage to Ryan by Bishop PomThe hearing was adjourned until this morning. ______