Morris v.

The following judgments were delivered:-

SAWREY-COOKSON, J.

This was a claim against the Administrator of the Estate of one Johh Weatu (deceased) to recover a debt alleged to be due by the deceased, and the only question the learned trial Judge found himself called upon to decide was whether or not the plaintiff had contributed money for the erection of a certain building by the deceased, and if so whether a claim for any such sum could be maintained against the Administrator

All that llf~ed here be stated as to the material facts of the case is that the deceased John Weatu and the plaintiff-respondent had lived in concubinage for many years in Sekondi, and there is nothing to show that their relationship during that period was not of a perfectly cordial character. Both were from Liberia and of the Kroo tribe.

The learned Judge (Mr. Justice Howes) found that the plaintiff had contributed a sum of £94 towards the erection of that building and gave judgment in her favour for such sum to be paid by the Administrator out of deceased's estate, and from that judgment this appeal is now brought.

The learned Judge held that whether the deceased and plaintiff were actually married or not did not affect the issue, because it was not disputed that the plaintiff had lived with John Weatu as his wife; but he found that the case presented some difficulty owing to the fact that the principal person concerned, viz., John Weatu, died intestate; and it is precisely that same difficulty which has led us to disagree with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. In other words, it is because the claim is against the estate of a dead man that the question arises whether she could have maintained the claim during his life time.

The difficulty is not in deciding whether the second of the three Morris grounds of appeal fails or not, viz. that the judgment was against Monrovia the weight of evidence, for it is clear there was ample evidence ­upon which the learned Judge was entitled to base his finding awey- J that the Plaintiff had contributed towards the cost of the building 00 son, • and consequently this Court will not disturb that finding of fact.

It is only when we have to consider (as just stated) whether or not,

in view of the relationship existing between the parties during

these many years the woman could have recovered the sum she

had contributed during John Weatu's life time, that we are of

0P!nion that the judgment is wrong, and for the following reaso