London, Friday – In the Chancery Division of the London courts today, before Mr Justice Warrington, a significant legal proceeding unfolded. The case of re Linter, deceased, Hosford v. Jewell, was brought to trial. The plaintiff, Mr Edward Henry Hosford of George Street, Limerick, acting as the sole executor and surviving trustee of the will of Miss Jane Vereker of Dublin, sought legal recourse against the defendant, the representative of the estate of Miss Linter.
The nature of the action revolved around an inquiry into the ownership and possession of various articles, including furniture, pictures, and ornaments. These items, initially bequeathed to Mrs. Perrier of Twickenham, became the subject of contention following Mrs. Perrier’s death in 1906. Miss Linter inherited the articles upon Mrs. Perrier’s demise in 1909, and the defendant, Miss Jewell, subsequently took possession.
The court heard that Miss Vereker, who had suffered a serious accident in 1878, had devised her will in 1879, leaving all her real and personal estate to Mrs. Perrier as a tenant for life. The plaintiff, acting as the agent and friend of Miss Vereker, detailed the circumstances leading to the creation of the will. Miss Vereker, having experienced an episode of mental derangement, resided under the care of Dr Eustace in Dublin until her passing in 1883.
Mrs. Perrier, entrusted with the furniture and chattels by arrangement with the plaintiff, managed the estate until her death in 1906. A lack of probate for Miss Vereker’s will initially cause complications, but it was eventually proven. The plaintiff, tasked with collecting rents for Mrs. Perrier, later sought the recovery of the bequeathed items from Miss Linter after Mrs. Perrier’s demise.
The proceedings indicated that a potential resolution between the parties might have been achieved, but Miss Linter’s death in 1909 disrupted the process. The plaintiff, seeking to recover the items from Miss Jewell, the residuary legatee and legal personal representative of Miss Linter, presented a list of the various articles claimed.
Mr Hosford, the plaintiff, gave evidence as a house and estate agent in Limerick, detailing his longstanding association with Miss Vereker. He recounted the circumstances of her accident, the creation of the will, and the subsequent removal of furniture to Twickenham upon Mrs. Perrier’s caretaking role.
Under cross-examination, Mr Hosford struggled to provide details about the disputed Chelsea figures, oriental vases, and other items, emphasizing the challenge of recalling distinctive features. The defendant’s legal team requested a short adjournment as they had only recently obtained possession of the disputed articles.
The hearing was adjourned until Tuesday, allowing both parties an opportunity to present their cases fully.
This legal confrontation sheds light on the intricacies of estate matters and the complexities that can arise in the inheritance and distribution of assets, even with clear testamentary intentions. The court’s eventual decision will determine the rightful ownership of the contested items and may set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Dublin Daily Express – Saturday 18 March 1911
