Emily Maria Edwards v Alice Maud Edwards [1918] HCA 2

312 HIGH COURT

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

EMILY MARIA EDWARDS 0 DEFENDANT,

AND

ALICE MAUD EDWARDS 'i . . . Respro: DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA.

H.C. or A, Deed—interpretation—Ambiguity—Falsa demonstratio—Extrinsic evidence.

Hone By a deed of conveyance executed in 1886 expressed to be made betwe ates the grantor of Circular Head, of the one part, and "John Edwards of th Feb. 18, 19. same place gentleman," of the other part, the grantor purported, in consi tion of the natural affection which she had "for her nephew the said Jo Cao Edwards" and of five shillings paid to her by "the said John Edwards," ee any convey certain land " to the said John Edwards " for life with remainder

the benefit of his widow and children, if any. 'The deed was expressed to been executed by " the parties to these presents" and to have been "sigt sealed and delivered" by the grantor and "the said John Edwards,"

name was the brother of the grantor, and he had a son named John E Edwards, who was then eight years of age. The word " nephew " was over a careful erasure, but the alteration was not initialed by the pa the witness. The presence of the word " nephew" in the deed was not covered until the death of John Ernest Edwards in 1915.

Held, that there was an ambiguity on the face of the deed as to the to whom the life estate was given, that extrinsic evidence was admissible explain the ambiguity, and that on the evidence that person was the brot of the grantor.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania reversed,

LR. OF AUSTRALIA.

from the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

s taken out by Charles Edwards, the trustee of an indenture of weyance and declaration of trust dated 4th October 1886, regis- in the Registry of Deeds at Hobart on 29th October 1886, the determination of the question: Who is presently entitled o the benefit of the trusts by the said deed declared of and con- the lands and hereditaments thereby assured ?