FAMILY DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16833, 8 September 1922, Page 8

FAMILY DISPUTE.

SISTERS-IN-LAW AT LAW, CLAIM ON DECEASED PERSON’S ESTATE. .V case in which intricacies of descent are involved, came before his Honor Mr Justice Adams -in the Supreme Court-to-day. The issue was a somewhat simple one, but a strangely complicated position was disclosed. Mrs Marie Newman, Christchurch, wife of H. J. Newman, sued her sis-ter-in Haw, Mrs Ada M. J. Sinclair, now of Christ church, hut formerly of Dunedin, for half the estate of the late Henry Jones, who died in Christchurch. The claim was made on an alleged assignment by Mrs Sinclair to Mrs Newman. of any interest she might have in the estate. Mrs Newman claimed that she first offered Mrs Sinclair £SO as consideration for the transfer of the interest, that that offer -was refused, and that another offer, of £IOO. was accepted, Mrs Newman promising to pay that sum. Henry .Jones’s estate is valued at about £1,876. The history of the case goes back to England in the early “ sixties. An artilleryman named John M. Newman, when lie lived at Taunton. Somerset, married Jane Ohidlev. There were two children by the marriage. Henry John Newman and Ada Maude Jane Newman. A few years after that marriage. Robert Jones, a carpenter at Taunton married Charlotte Ohidlev They had cue son. Henry Jones. Robert Jones died soon after his son. Robert Jones was born. Jane ChidJey (Mrs J. M. Newman) also died and her husband, the artilleryman, married Mrs Robert Jones, formerly Charlotte Ohidlev. At that time, it was not legal for a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister. There is no evidence, documentary or otherwise, to show that John M. Newman's first wife and .second wife were sisters. He never spoke of those matt< rs to nis children, who apparently '•i/l I,o t know even the dates of their birth or the places where they were born. He came to New Zealand in the early days with his second wife, and with the children of both wives, and he died, leaving a widow, formerly Charlotte Ohidlev and later Mrs .Jones.- a stop-son. Henry Jones. a son. 11. J Newman, a nr| a daughter, Ada .Maude Jane Newman. now Mr- Sinclair, defendant in Cm present action, who married Mr “din. The widow, with Henry Jones, her son by her first marriage lived on a farm at Bunyood. When‘she died. sh<' left everything to Henry Jones. He was unmarried and he died without making a will. When the Public Trustee administered Henry Jones’s estate, tbe question of his next-of-kin was raised. Jf John M. Newman's first wife. Jane Chidley. and his second wife. Charlotte Ohidlev. were sisters Henry John Newman find Mrs Sinclair were Henry Jones's first cousins, and failing closer kin were entitled to equal shares to his estate. The PublicTrustee employed solicitors at Taunton. and advertised in English newspapers for claims of next-of-kin. Many of them were received. They were submitted to the .Supreme Court. Wellington. but all were eliminated by the Chief Justice and finally the Public Trustee, in consequence of fresh evidence obtained in Christchurch, admitted tho claims of next-of-kin made by Henry John Newman and Mrs Sinclair. 1 i the meantime Henrv John Newman had* transferred his interest to Airs Newman. plaintiff in the present action. She seems to have been sanguine from the first of success. Air Sinclair advised Airs Sinclair that therewas nothing in it. Airs H. J. Newman now alleged that Airs Sinclair agreed to transfer her interest,, if it should be proved she had any, to Airs Newman, in consideration for an 1.0.TT. for £IOO. to come out of the funds of the estate. Airs Sinclair’s interest now is valued at £928 4s sd. The defence was that Mrs Sinclair revoked the agreement to transfer. The LO.U. was not produced in Court, and it was stateiT that it had been lost. Air A. T. Donnelly appeared for plaintiff, and Air O. T. J. Alpers, with him Air E. W. White, for defendant. It was stated that the Public Trustee, who holds the estate, would submit to tho order of .the Court. Marie Newman, plaintiff, said that Airs Sinclair had plenty of money, and had agreed to give £IOO each to witness’s six: daughters, and when Mrs Sinclair kept the 1.0. U., although she tried to cancel the transfer of her interest, witness did not ask for the return of the T.O.TL Witness had gone to a great deal of trouble and expen.se to establish the eftaim of her husband and AD'S Sinclair to be next-of-kin. (Proceeding).