From the Wicklow People, 12 November 1932, we find pioneering Irish woman barrister Averil Deverell BL appearing in this family property dispute about ownership of the Laurels, Greenpark Road, Bray, County Wicklow.

The legal owner of the Laurels, Mary Josephine Barry, had died without a will, and under the rules of intestacy then in force at that time, subsequently changed by the Succession Act 1965, all her property went to her nephew, Philip Barry.    

However, the judge found that Helen Barry, who lived with her sister, had contributed equally to the purchase price of the Laurels, which, under the law applicable at that time, and still applicable today, meant that under the rules of Equity, the sisters held the property under a form of co-ownership known as a joint tenancy, with the survivor (in this case) becoming wholly entitled to the entire property, so that it did not pass to Philip on intestacy.    

Cases involving Averil, the second woman barrister to be called to the Irish Bar, and the first to practice in this jurisdiction, regularly featured in the Wicklow People.  Despite its (to some) dry subject matter, this one may also prove interesting to those studying the history of women barristers, as it contains some interesting references to both Averil’s and the plaintiff’s gender, while also illustrating her characteristic willingness to fight as hard as she could on behalf of her client.

“Bray Lady’s Estate

Heir-at-Law Loses Property

In an application to administer the real and personal estate of the late Mary Josephine Barry, The Laurels, Greenpark Road, Little Bray, at Wicklow Circuit Court, on Tuesday before Judge Devitt, the sister of the deceased, Helen M Barry, was plaintiff and Philip Barry, Waterford, nephew and heir-at-law, was defendant.

Mr Tobias, BL (instructed by Messrs. Harris and Greene, solicitors, for the applicant); and Miss Deverell B.L., instructed by Mr J.M. Magee, solicitor, for the defendant.

Mr Tobias said the lady died on 14^th June 1931, spinster and intestate, administration being granted on 24^th July, 1931.  Plaintiff was the personal representative, sister of the deceased, and the defendant was the only son of a deceased elder brother.  The principal property was the house, The Laurels, Bray, which had been purchased by the sisters, but the conveyance was in the name in the deceased lady only though they contributed jointly to its purchase.  Mary Josephine and Helen Mary Barry lived together for more than 20 years, running jointly the one establishment.  They had had £700 in National Loan in their joint names, and they withdrew this sum to purchase the house, Messrs. Harris and Greene, solicitors, completing the purchase.  He hoped to satisfy his lordship that this was a joint tenancy and was not part of the estate.  He would show that part of the money was not lent by his client.  They had decided to bring the case to the court for his lordship to decide the point at issue, as by some error the heir-at-law was drawing the rent and accepting the house as his property.

The plaintiff being sworn, his Lordship asked whose money was in the National Loan.  Witness said that was money left to them both.

Mr Tobias said they wanted to be perfectly clear about this point – was she perfectly clear it was their joint names?  Witness – I am perfectly certain.  She added that while the two of them lived together they had a common purse for all household purposes.  Replying to Miss Deverell, who asked how much of her own money went into the purchase of the house, she said she expected it was equal shares. 

Miss Deverell – Don’t you know?  Can you prove it? 

Witness – Yes; I can prove it. 

How?  I want you to prove that your sister did not put in £400 and you £300?

Witness – I suppose we know anything we are certain of.

Miss Deverell – That is not an answer.  This was a business transaction and we want to find out what you did.

How do you know?  That is a woman’s answer and that is no answer at all (laughter).

Mr Tobias – Don’t run down your sex.

Miss Deverell – I am sexless, for the moment (laughter).

Replying further the witness said that their nephew was heir-at-law and except for two months got the rent of the house.

His Lordship – Where am I now?  The house was bought with the money of your sister and yourself, where does Philip come in?

Miss Deverell – Philip is the heir at law, and it went to him as intestacy.

His Lordship said if she was joint tenant she was entitled to it, and if in common she was entitled to half a share.  He wished to know where he stood.  It must be either a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common; if joint she had all, if in common she had a share, but Philip was not entitled to take the whole of it.

Miss Deverell said it was handed over to him as heir-at-law and then there were letters to persuade him to sign a deed conveying the premises to the plaintiff, and he was advised to consult a solicitor before singing that document.

His Lordship expressed an anxiety to find a modus vivandi for those people.  Did anyone rely on a joint tenancy?

Mr Tobias – I do.  My client had no evidence that this was a joint tenancy, and the conveyance was made in the name of the one sister only, and she died intestate.

His Lordship said undoubtedly they were jointly in the purchase and plaintiff did not make a present of the money – he could not get away from that.

Miss Deverell said if were not advanced equally there was not a joint tenancy.

His Lordship asked if there was any difficulty in splitting this?

Mr Tobias said he would like to have done that originally.  For three years they tried to get the young man to carry out his promises.

Replying to Mr Tobias, the witness said that the deceased and herself had no other property only those shares which her brother negotiated for them jointly.

Miss Deverell – How does she prove that?

Mr Tobias – Miss Deverell is still sceptical.  Every stock and share you held you held jointly; you ran the house jointly and shared everything?

Witness – Yes.

Mr Tobias – A really pastoral, almost apostolic, state of affairs.

Miss Deverell said that the solicitors’ letter mentioned that Philip was the sole heir at law.

His Lordship – At law, but not necessarily in equity.

Philip Barry, Manager, Munster and Leinster Bank, Tallow, Waterford, stated he negotiated for his sisters their investments and all transactions were jointly.  They had equal shares in the house and no will was made because Josephine knew that it would all revert to Helen.

Cross-examined – He did not regard the house as being handed over to Philip, his nephew, and strongly objected to it.  He had advised his sister to object all along and took a strong standpoint on it.

Miss Deverell – You do not think it ill to try to do your nephew out of his house?

Witness – I do not, but I thought it very ill of them to try to do my sister out of her property.

Miss Deverell – Didn’t you know he was poor?

Witness – We were all very poor at one time.

Miss Deverell said she did not bring her client up from Waterford because he could ill afford it. 

His Lordship – I cannot be influenced by that, though it is hard lines.

Giving judgment, his Lordship held [Mary and Helen] had jointly invested their money, and Miss Helen said it was equal shares in a legacy.  Miss Mary died intestate, and under common law the estate went to the heir-at-law, but in equity there was the peculiar rule of joint tenancy and tenancy in common.  He could not help drawing the inference that the shares were equal, and after the evidence of the plaintiff and Philip Barry he must hold that when the two sisters bought the house for £700 they left it as a joint tenancy in equity, the deceased sister left the plaintiff personal representative trustees of the premises and he was satisfied she owned the property and became the owner by survival and gave a decree accordingly.  Costs to be paid out of the estate.”

Image Credit