A Singular Case.

Manawatu Times, Volume X, Issue 1177, 16 February 1884, Page 2

A Singular Case.

At the Bulls R.M. Conrt ,on Thursday last, as reported m the Advocate, D, Scott and Alex. Higgle sued Phillip Jenkins, — claim £45. Mr Fitzherbert for plaintiffs, Mr Baker for defendant. Mr Fitzherbert said the-aetion-was- brought tor recover the sum of £45, a claim on a certain deed of covenant. The matter, unfortunately, was connected with the paternity of a certain child. The deed, executed by defendant, would be put m, by which defendant bound himself to pay the sum of £20 per year to Mr Higgie and Mr Scoit for the. T purpose mentioned therein^ The birth' of "the child, he thought would not be contested— at any rate he had the cer oificaie of iis birth. He proposed to put Mr Higgie m the box to prove that the deed was executed by Jenkins, and that no money had been paid. 'Then he Should call the mother of the child (Elizabeth *3cott) tiO prcrvc fcliat ik© -child referred to m the deed was the one referred to m. the certificate.— Alex. Higgie deposed that' he saw defendant sign the instrument" (the deed of covenant)! 'The deed "■ was made ?at : the! commencement of > 1881, and set forth that m view of the birth of a child to Elizabeth .^cptt, of which defendant acknowledged 'the paternity, he bound himself and his heirs to pay thejsum of £20 a-ye'a'r to i 'Messr i s I D. ; Scott and A. Higgie and their heirs m trust for : Elizabeth ' Scott 'during her lifetime, and her child; and their' iieiis. — Mr Fitzherbert" aaid ; it was not necessary to call the attesting; witness to the deed. — Mr raised an objection, and thought that at ljeast the other plamtiff~ should havb. been (present and examined. ®e was ! proceeding; to address <the court on the unfortunate* relevatiois which would haye: to/ cQme.jPUui:%Jien-r-fMir Fitzherbert,said the. witness /wa.s j m the box for cross-examination on the : evidence he, .had given, n and ,tb.e time, had not arrived for Ikfr Baker to address the Court. — Mr Baker sought to show, that it would be necessary to give parallel evidence as the deed displayed •' latent ambiguity."— Mr Fitzherberi objected ''to ; ■ siicti -proceedure, and said the court - had '• ho power to discuss the terms of the deed. — Witness, _m answer to^ Mr Fitzherbert, said He was present v^hen^ the deed was signed by Scott, Jenkins and himself, m the presence s of Mr Chapman. He had received no money from Jenkins, nor had Mr Scott. The; child was born 17th June, j 1881, and died five months afterwards. — Mr Baker again sought to show that the wa& • 'latent ambiguity m. the wording of the deed, and ar;gued that the conit . ought jfco hear parallel evidence as to the intention of the parties whep.; the deed, was" signed"— His Worship v ruledithat he could not allow any parallel evidence to be —given to question .the validity „ of - the ; - deed — -Air* Fitzhei'beri; 1 said, he" relied on the evidence based on, .the jieed;r If that i deed was to be set aside, it could only; be done 1 m the Supreme -Court of the colony, not by His Worship.— Mr Baker replied, and contended that the Object of the • deed was to make a provision for the chjld only, and not for the mother.. It cojild not mean, as the deed would imply, that' the defendant and his heirs bound thernselvesto the plaintiffs and their heirs ad infinitum^ to pay th\s money for ever. — His Worship gave judgment 'for £10, being -two 'quarters at £20a-year; costs 14s ; and counsel's fee, £1 Is.- „