It is true that, if he had not supposed he would have a charge, he would not have taken the debentures; but, if he also relied on the mis-statement in the prospectus, his loss none the less resulted from that mis-statement. So the law is laid down in Clarke v. Dickson (2) and that is the law which we have now to apply. Therefore I think that the statement is material, and that the plaintiff would be unlike the rest of his race if he was not influenced by the statement of the objects for which the loan was required. Edgington v fitzmaurice. It is clear that their object in raising the money was to meet their pressing liabilities. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. Defendants appealed. In this first requirement, puffing does not constitute a statement. State of Mind Fact or Fancy - Cornell University It is true that it is very difficult to prove what the state of a man's mind at a particular time is, but if it can be ascertained it is as much a fact as anything else. 0000002156 00000 n Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. But the balance of my judgment is weighed down by the probability of the case. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Nicola Jackson. Access to the full content requires a subscription, Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend. Court of Appeal Citations: (1885) 29 Ch D 459. 0000003687 00000 n He has sworn that it did, and the learned judge who tried the action has believed him. 1Bowen, L.J., in Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, L. R. 29 Ch. But it is not necessary to give any decision respecting these statements, because, giving credit to the defendants for having made them fairly, there are other statements which follow, which in my opinion cannot be justified. 459) were entirely different. Defendant stated that the money was to be used to complete the alterations and additions to the buildings, to purchases horses and vans, and to develop the supply of fish. Those statements were impeached because: (1) they were framed to lead a person to believe that the debentures would be a charge on the property of the company; (2) it failed to mention a second mortgage on the property; (3) it failed to state that the entire 21,500 pound mortgage was due in full on April 5, 1884; and, (4) that the real object of the debentures was to pay off present company liabilities and that the company could not complete its pl As it was not true, there was a false statement of fact. 0000001829 00000 n * In order to sustain an action for deceit, Plaintiff must first prove that there was a statement as to facts where was false; and secondly, that it was false to the knowledge of Defendants, or that they made it not caring whether it was true or false. On this basis, the directors were found liable for an action of deceit, despite the fact that the plaintiff had also been influenced by his own mistake regarding the debentures. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. The point on which I rely is the mis-statement as to the objects of the loan in which the defendants all joined, and for which they are equally responsible. The last company asserted that the claim was . This decision lays down. There must be a mis-statement of an existing fact; but the state of a man's mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion. The director signing the bills sought to avoid personal liability, saying it was the Act of the company. 0000006780 00000 n Plaintiff advanced 1500 pounds for debentures of a society of which Defendants were the directors and officers. It is also clear that it is wholly immaterial with what object the lie is told. A misstatement of fact could be actionable at the suit of the plaintiffs.Fry LJ said: The prospectus was intended to influence the mind of the reader. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms. The plaintiff forwarded money for the debentures that had been offered having relied upon the statements contained in the prospectus. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 - ResearchGate They owed 5,000 pounds to their bankers, and 5,000 pounds to Hores and Pattisson. Edgington brought suit against Fitzmaurice for fraud on the grounds that the loan agreement made with him failed to include a second mortgage taken out against the property, that the entire balance of the first mortgage could come due at any time, and that the real reason for the loan of 1,500 pounds was to pay off pressing liabilities of the co. .if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_8',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[336,280],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_6',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.182803. The defendants had signed a sponsorship agreement, but now resisted payment saying that one of the five, Geri, had given notice to leave the group, substantially changing what had been . ch the loan was wanted, the Court did not say knowing, but so recklessly as to be fraudulent in the eye of the law. By then, the company had gone insolvent. 0000006606 00000 n Edgington v Fitzmaurice | Spectroom Suspicion of or possession of information which could reveal a lie is not enough to stop an action for misrep Court of Appeal The directors of a company issued a prospectus inviting subscriptions for debentures, and stating that the objects of the issue of debentures were '1.To enable the society to complete the present alterations and additions to the buildings and to purchase their own horses and vans, whereby a large saving will be effected in the cost of . It holds that a statement of present intentions can count as an actionable misrepresentation and that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract so long as it is an influence. He contended that the plaintiff admits that he would not have taken the debentures unless he had thought they would give him a charge on the property, and therefore he was induced to take them by his own mistake, and the mis-statement in the circular was not material. I think there was such an implied allegation, but I think it is not brought home to the defendants that it was made dishonestly; accordingly, although the plaintiff may have been damnified by the weight which he gave to the allegation, he cannot rely on it in this action, for in an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove dishonesty. A prospectus of a company inviting subscriptions for debentures stated that the money was required to purchase horses and vans, etc,, and to develop the business of the company, whereas it was wanted to pay off pressing liabilities. With respect to the defendant Clench we are not called on to express an opinion on the points in which his case differs from that of the other directors. The directors statements as to their future intentions was a statement of fact as to their present state of mind. The loss which the plaintiff sustained is not disputed. .Cited Keays v Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler QBD 1-Jul-2003 The claimant asserted defamation by the defendant. It holds that a statement of present intentions can count as an actionable misrepresentation and that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract so long as it is an influence. Plaintiff sued Defendant for deceit. Lastly, when you have proved that the statement was false, you must further show that the statement was wither the sole cause of Plaintiffs act, or materially contributed to his so acting. 0000003136 00000 n A misrepresentation as to the state of a man's mind is, therefore, a misstatement of fact. In order to sustain his action he must first prove that there was a statement as to facts which was false; and secondly, that it was false to the knowledge of the Defendants, or that they made it not caring whether it was true or false. Issue. Are Defendants liable to Plaintiff for deceit? The prospectus claimed that the purpose of the debentures was to purchase and renovate company property and develop its trade. I have felt some difficulty about the pleadings, because in the statement of claim this point is not clearly put forward, and I had some doubt whether this contention as to the third mis-statement was not an after. 0000009081 00000 n The company having become insolvent Edgington brought an action against the directors of the company asking for the repayment by them of a sum of 1500 advanced by him on debentures of the company, on the ground that he was induced to advance the money by the fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendants. A misrepresentation need not have been the only matter upon which a representee relied for sufficient reliance to be demonstrated. Given the opportunity to test the accuracy of the statement. Cotton LJ held that the statement of purpose was a fraudulent misrepresentation and Mr Edgington had relied on that despite his admission of mistake over charges. Mistakenly believing he would get a first charge on company property, Mr Edgington bought bonds. a company deliberately misrepresented the purpose for which the investor's money would be used. It was said, how could those who advanced the money have relied on this statement as material? .Cited Oliver v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England CA 1902 Sterling LJ said: It has often been held in actions for misrepresentation that where a misrepresentation is proved and is shown to have been relied upon, that is enough, although the person who enters into the transaction on the faith of the . It is not necessary to show that the mis-statement was the sole cause of his acting as he did. Contract Law revision Flashcards | Quizlet But when we come to the third alleged mis-statement, I feel that the plaintiff's case is made out. To enable the society to complete the present alterations and additions to the buildings and to purchase their own horses and vans, whereby a large saving will be effected in the cost of transport; and 2. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . xZK5_1[y`\uR@{gfdn]pJg')?4F?oUG{N1`8(8#__q891o. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. The question remains. This standard incorporates those false statements intentionally made and those false statements that are negligently made. He contended that the Plaintiff admits that he would not have taken the debentures unless he had thought they would give him a charge on the property, and therefore he was induced to take them by his own mistake, and the misstatement in the circular was not material. Bowen LJ agreed, stating that it was only necessary for the misrepresentation to be actively present in the claimants mind at the time, making it part of the cause. What is the fact? Edgington v. Fitzmaurice | Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs Discover Unrivalled Success with Oxbridge Notes' Superior Contract Law Reference Materials. Misrepresentation Flashcards | Quizlet I am of the same opinion. Having applied as careful consideration to the evidence as I could, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the true objects of the Defendants in raising the money were not those stated in the circular. 0000035341 00000 n Really though, the purpose was to pay off liabilities, because the company was in trouble. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) - If it can be ascertained, [the state of a man's mind] is as much as fact as anything else. Then this question has been raised. The company became insolvent. Redgrave v Hurd: where a misrepresentation is made and the misrepresentee is given the opportunity to test the accuracy of the statement but . Through the OpenLaw Project BAILII seeks, with the assistance of law lecturers, to identify cases from the past and to make these freely and openly available on the internet to support legal education. The estate included three parcels of land called Bull Hassocks Farm, Creyke's Hundreds and Mi The judgment must be affirmed. Secondly, it is said that the prospectus contained an implied allegation that there was no other mortgage affecting the property except the mortgage stated. But when we come to the third alleged misstatement I feel that the Plaintiff's case is made out. Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that . Defendants sought funding for a property and Plaintiff advanced Defendants 1500 pounds. At start of the movie the main character Evey . The company prospectus stated the shares were being offered in order to raise money to expand the company. The link was not copied. On the strength of the prospectus (and also on his own mistaken belief that the debentures would give him a charge on the company) Edgington bought shares in the company. It holds that a statement of present intentions can count as an actionable misrepresentation and that a misrepresentation need not be the sole cause of entering a contract so long as it is an influence. Although I should not, as I have said, have held the defendants liable merely for not referring to the second mortgage in the prospectus, yet the existence of that mortgage was strong evidence of their financial difficulties, and, considering all the other evidence and the admissions of the defendants in their cross-examination, I cannot doubt that the real object of the issue of debentures was to meet the pressing liabilities of the company and not to improve the property or develop the business of the company. This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 - ResearchGate Defendant falsely stated how the money was to be spent. Bowen LJ: a misstatement is material if it was actively present in his mind when he decided to pay the money. 0000050331 00000 n Judgement for the case Edgington v Fitzmaurice [1885] 29 Ch D 459 If he acted on that misstatement, though he was also influenced by an erroneous supposition, the defendants will still be liable.. He sought his release. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. I mean the statement of the object for which the money was to be raised. It is what is called an action of deceit, the plaintiff alleging that statements were made by the defendants which were untrue, and that he had acted on the faith of these statements so as to incur damage for which the defendants are liable. Was the statement true in fact? That in so acting, Plaintiff relied on Defendants false statement. Facts The defendants were the directors of a company. It is also clear that it is wholly immaterial with what object the lie is told. Esso v mardon. 0000004589 00000 n (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
. But, lastly, when you have proved that the statement was false, you must further show that the plaintiff has acted upon it, and has sustained damage by so doing; you must show that the statement was either the sole cause of the plaintiff's act or materially contributed to his so acting. They had merely made a statement of their future intentions. 0000003414 00000 n Kleinwort benson v malaysian mining. School Bahauddin Zakaria University, Multan Course Title ENGLISH 101 Uploaded By MRCJWC Pages 14 Ratings 100% (1) Ocr alevel law paper 3 contract law misrepresentation Flashcards Dimmock v Hallett (186667) LR 2 Ch App 21 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. The Local Government Act 1972 reformed the structure of local government in England and Wales. The learned judge in the court below came to the conclusion that the mis-statement did influence him, and I think he came to a right conclusion. The directors stated that the debentures were in order to enable the business to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to develop trade and to purchase vans and horses. This case sets out the prima facie elements for an action in deceit. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. Edgington v Fitzmaurice 1885 - YouTube Mr Edgington sought to recover money for deceit. The directors of a company issued a prospectus inviting subscriptions for debentures, and stating that the objects of the issue of debentures were '1. Looking for a flexible role? Deelip Singh Alias Dilip Kumar v. State Of Bihar . 0000031702 00000 n The directors stated that the debentures were in order to enable the business to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to develop . However, it was later discovered that the real reason for issuing the debentures was for the directors to pay off other liabilities. In fact, the directors intended to use the money to pay off the companys debts. Defendants sought funding for a property and Plaintiff advanced Defendants 1500 pounds. Edgington v. Fitzmaurice Brief Fact Summary. The defendant wine merchant circulated a catalogue which contained a price list for its products. There was nothing in the prospectus to lead him to such a conclusion. But such misstatement was material if it was actively present to his mind when he decided to advance his money. 0000003954 00000 n It was a statement of intention, but it is nevertheless a statement of fact, and if it could not be fairly said that the objects of the issue of the debentures were those which were stated in the prospectus the Defendants were stating a fact which was not true To fulfil the requirement that Mr Edgington relied on the statement, it is not necessary to show the misstatement was the sole cause of acting, so long as there was an influence. edgington+fitzmaurice | Indian Case Law | Law | CaseMine I will not say knowingly, but so recklessly as to be fraudulent in the eye of the law. Oxbridge Notes is operated by Break Even LLC. Nor is there any . Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. .Cited Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Seaways Maritime Ltd, SGS United Kingdom Ltd, Oakprime International Ltd, Arvind Mehra (No 2) CA 27-Jul-2000 Where a deceit was established leading to an award of damages, that award of damages was not capable of being reduced under the 1949 Act through a contribution to the loss occasioned by the claimants own behaviour, where that behaviour did not fall . Edgington v Fitzmaurice: CA 7 Mar 1885 - swarb.co.uk 0000001737 00000 n Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 The plaintiff shareholder received a circular issued by the directors requesting loans to the amount of 25,000 with interest. But the statement in the prospectus was that a large sum of money had been already expended in improving the building (and that included the greater part of the advance by Hores and Pattisson) and that the directors intended to apply the money raised by the debentures in further improving the buildings. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459. Following Edgington V Fitzmaurice : there can be reliance where the misrepresentation was not the only reason inducing the claimant to contract. It resolves itself into a mere question of fact.Cotton LJ said that in a case involving misrepresentation: It is true that if he had not supposed he would have a charge he would not have taken the debentures; but if he also relied on the misstatement in the prospectus, his loss none the less resulted from that misstatement. First, it was said that prospectus contained an implied allegation that the mortgage for 21,500 pounds would not be called in at once, but was payable by installments. Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. In order to sustain such an action the plaintiff must show that the defendants intended that people should act on the statements, that the statements are untrue in fact and that the defendants knew them to be untrue, or made them under such circumstances that the court must conclude that they were careless whether they were true or not. Edgington v Fitzmaurice 1885law case notesfactsThe claimant bought some shares in the plaintiff company. .Approved St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd CA 1995 The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of inducement in the context of insurance contract. Keates v The Earl of Cadogan (silence over habitability) . Edgington v Fitzmaurice 29 Ch D 459 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. The state of a mans mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion. BAILII - BAILII OpenLaw - Contract Law Misrep-Core Flashcards | Chegg.com Having applied as careful consideration to the evidence as I could, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the true objects of the defendants in raising the money were not those stated in the circular. The statement was one of future intent which the representor had no intention to carry out: Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459. Held: The court set out the requirements for fraud, saying that fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly or without . It resolves itself into a mere question of fact. The issues before the court were firstly, whether the directors had made a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact or had merely given an opinion of how the money raised by the issue of the debentures was to be used, and, secondly, whether the fact that Edgington had misled himself meant that the directors had not induced him to enter into the contract. 0000049806 00000 n We do not provide advice. Edgington V. Fitzmaurice - Free Online Dictionary of Law Terms and It is not necessary to call attention to the evidence that the defendants knew at the time that a large proportion of the loan would have to be expended in paying pressing liabilities. 0000047058 00000 n Discussion. Cotton LJ stated that the misrepresentation does not need to be the sole cause of the claimant entering into the contract for the purposes of deceit. Printed from Oxford Law Trove. D. 459, 483 (1882). Definition of Edgington V. Fitzmaurice ( (1885), L. R. 29 Ch. It does not appear to be clear that the statement fraudulently made by Defendants. I think they must have thought that it would turn out well and that the loan could be paid back, for they had shown their confidence in the company by advancing money of their own. Then the question remains - Did this misstatement contribute to induce the Plaintiff to advance his money. The courts approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. But, lastly, when you have proved that the statement was false, you must further shew that the plaintiff has acted upon it and has sustained damage by so doing: you must shew that the statement was either the sole cause of the plaintiffs act, or materially contributed to his so acting. and there must be a misstatement of an existing fact: but the state of a mans mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion and The real question is, what was the state of the plaintiffs mind, and if his mind was disturbed by the misstatement of the defendants, and such disturbance was in part the cause of what he did, the mere fact of his also making a mistake himself could make no difference. It is therefore immaterial whether the plaintiff was induced to act as he did by that statement. They were under an obligation to pay 3,500 pounds in instalments on the mortgage for 21,500 pounds before April 1884, and they knew that if they did not pay the instalments the whole would be called in. The claimant advanced money after reading the prospectus. 0000030203 00000 n The company's prospectus said it was offering shares. Held. Expert opinions are a statement of fact. Fact Summary The directors of a business provided a prospectus which contained a range of debentures, in order to invite subscriptions. Contract Law Misrepresentation Cases - LawTeacher.net Finally Plaintiff must show causation; that the false statement was either the sole cause or a contributing cause of Plaintiffs act. But the principle laid down may have some relevance. This list was created on the 17 th of October 2006 and therefore may not include recent cases (BAILII does not . 0000004948 00000 n Was the statement as to the directors intentions for spending the money a statement of fact. It didnt matter that there was another issue (charge on the property) which was critical but it was not necessary to show that the misstatement was the sole cause of his acting as he did and it was irrelevant that he was also influenced by another factor. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Misrepresentation - Wikipedia This statement was, therefore, false. The court held that the misstatement of the reasoning behind issuing the debentures was a material misstatement of fact and that the plaintiff had been influenced by this statement. Cotton, Bowen, Fry LJJ (1885) 29 Ch D 459, (1885) 55 LJCh 650, (1885)32 WR 849, [1885] UKLawRpCh 83 Commonlii England and Wales Cited by: Re-affirmed Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others and Another and Others (Nos 2 and 4) HL 6-Nov-2002 Fraudulent Misrepresentation by Company Director Fraudulent bills of lading had been issued in order to rely upon letters of credit issued by the bank. Misrepresentation Seminar Five - Misrepresentation Edgington v Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd: 7 Sep 2010, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others and Another and Others (Nos 2 and 4), Keays v Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler, Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC), St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd, Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service Bv, Oliver v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Seaways Maritime Ltd, SGS United Kingdom Ltd, Oakprime International Ltd, Arvind Mehra (No 2), Man Nutzfahrzeuge Ag and Another v Freightliner Ltd, BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland), Regina (Williamson and Others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Waltham Forest v Roberts, AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999.
Wilkinson County News Obituaries, Articles E