R D SETHNA Vs. GRACE EDITH HEMMINGWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Charles Andrew Wakeford, an European inhabitant of Bombay, died there on the 18th October 1912 at the age of 82 or 84, unmarried He left him surviving as his next-of-kin ten grand-nephews and nieces : four-the children of his predeceased niece Jane Elizabeth Williams: and six-the children of his predeceased nephew Edmund Charles Harrison. The plaintiff, one of the daughters of the above-mentioned Jane Elizabeth Williams, applied to this Court for letters of administration; but before they were granted she filed this suit against the defendant Wilmot Harrison, the son of the abovementioned Edmund Charles Harrison, for a declaration that a sum of Rs. 10,000 deposited at the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank formed part of the estate of the deceased, and for such other reliefs as might enable her to get in the said amount.

(2.) The deceased was a Government pensioner and in addition to his pension was the owner of the deposit of Rs. 10,500 at the Hongkong Bank which fell due on the 7th of August 1912. previous to that date he mislaid the receipt and on the 24th of July he went to the Bank with the defendant to inquire what formalities should be followed in order to enable him to recover the money deposited. He was given a form of indemnity to sign, which he took away with him; but on the 4th of August the missing receipt was found. He had been taken ill about the 2nd of August and there can be no doubt from the medical evidence that on the 3rd and 4th of August his state of health was very poor. On the 7th of August he signed his name on the back of the receipt and gave it to the defendant with a letter addressed to the bank directing them to transfer the amount to the defendant. The defendant took these two documents to the Bank but he was informed that as he had not been identified by the deceased the amount could not be dealt with. The defendant returned to the Esoof Building where the deceased was living and wrote out at the dictation of the deceased Ex. 3, which was signed by the deceased, and after the signature deceased identified the signature of the defendant. The letter runs as follows:- Sir, I hereby state that I have found my Bank receipt, Herewith I am forwarding the same for the interest now due. I wish it to be handed over to my nephew. I also wish you to hand over the amount of Its. 10,500 which is in fixed deposit to my nephew Wilmot Charles Harrison to his account.

(3.) The defendant obtained from the Bank Rs. 420, the interest due on the deposit and also Rs. 500 out of the principal and obtained a deposit receipt of Rs. 10,000 in his own name for the balance. The deceased died on the 18th of October and after the funeral the plaintiff was told for the first time by the defendant what the deceased had done. The plaintiff wrote through her solicitors on the 21st of November 1912, claiming that the deceased had left a will and Rs. 10,000 deposited in the Hongkong Bank, and calling upon the defendant to prove the will. The defendant s solicitors replied on the 27th of November 1912, and wrote again 04} the 28th of December (sic) defendant was continuously visiting the deceased, and from the 3rd of August, when the deceased was very ill, the defendant took privilege leave and stopped with the deceased. His wife also was visiting the deceased daily from that time.