Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Fiji Law Reports |
SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
Civil Jurisdiction
Action No. 53, 1920
THIS PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF FIJI
v
EDWARD SANDAY, CHARLES HENRY SANDAY, LILY ALAMEDA PEARSON, JONATHAN BYRNES AND STEPHEN SANDAY.
1921, June 6.
Will construction of - person intended - error of demonstration.
Sir CHARLES DAVSON, C.J. Testator named, as a beneficiary under his will, "my son Charles Henry Sanday of Ebenezar, Hawkesbury, New South Wales," and the question is whether the person intended was his son Stephen Sanday of Hornsby, New South Wales or his brother Charles Henry Sanday of Ebenezar, Hawkesbury.
We have here a demonstration, a name and an address. The demonstration points to the son and not to the brother, the name and the address both point to the brother and not to the son.
The maxim that a name shall prevail against an error of demonstration (veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis) will apply, but I can only give effect to it if I find that there has been an error of demonstration. (Drake v. Drake, S H.T.C. 172, 11 Eng. Rep. 392).
The evidence contained in the affidavits and the diary leads me, after some hesitation, to the conclusion that there has been an error of demonstration, and I order the share of the estate in question to be paid to testator's brother Charles Henry Sanday.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FijiLawRp/1921/2.html