Mrs. Barbara Brown, Mr. Charles Brown and Mr. George Brown (“the Claimants”) submitted a claim on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate of John Augustus Alexander Virgil.
The Claimants allege that approximately seven (7) acres of land divided between an area described as the northern and southern portions of Spring Benny Road, Spring Benny Drive and Spring Benny Lane had been owned by the Virgil family since 1885. Regarding the southern portion, the Claimants do not agree that the purchaser, Eric Arthur Jones, family friend and family lawyer, purchased a portion from John Augustus Alexander Virgil (the testator). They claim Eric Jones unlawfully acquired the land by undue influence as no evidence exists to confirm a sale or transfer of the property on 24th January, 1962. Regarding land in the northern portion, comprising approximately four (4) of the seven (7) acres, they allege that a fraudulent scheme was engineered and facilitated by major players who conspired to dispossess John Augustus Alexander Virgil and his beneficiaries. One of the conclusions drawn by the Claimants is that the 1962 transaction for the southern portion (Eric Jones) and the 1969 transaction for the northern portion (John Swan) are both rooted in fraudulent and illegal actions, consequently all related transactions thereafter lack legal credibility and do not meet the legal standard for a property transaction. Additionally, they conclude that Eric A. Jones, the Virgil’s family lawyer, conspired with cousin, John Alfred Virgil, and Robert Motyer from Appleby to defraud John Augustus Alexander Virgil of his 4 acres of land in Spring Benny. The Claimants submit that it was a “scheme to take advantage of an unsuspecting client that owned land”. The Claimants argue that money, muscle and power dictated the outcome of the Virgil family being dispossessed of their land.
The Claimants on behalf of the beneficiaries reject claims of ownership to the eight (8) lots in the northern section, in spite of possession and title being vested in the occupants, in some cases as much as fifty years ago. They ground their claim on the basis that they are still in physical possession of the original deeds to the land in the northern portion in question. Most importantly, the Claimants submit that there is no reliable documentation to support a legal transfer of any land from John Augustus Alexander Virgil during this timeline.
The beneficiaries through the Claimants argue that they are entitled to justice and compensation for being victims of this scheme.