PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S POWERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1630, 23 December 1912, Page 6

PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S POWERS.

INTESTATE ESTATES. Powers of tho Public Trustee in regard to churning (under the Administration Act, lilObj the administration of intestate estates have bseii defined by tho Court of Appeal in a reserved judgment delivered in a test case on Saturday. Tho Judges I'or tho hearing were the Chirf Justice (Mir Robert Stout), llr. Justice Williams, Air. Justice Demiiston, Mr. Justice lidwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. The estate concerned in the caso bciore the Court was that of William James Adolphus Dickens, enginedriver, late of Peione. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. J. \V. Jlacdonald, appeared for the Public Trustee, while Mr. M. Myers, with him llr. I l '. E. Petherick, appeared for Jirs. Dickens, tho widow. Tlie Law Society was represented in tho matter by Mr. A. Gray, K.C. When opening tho case last month, Sir John Findlay explained that the Public Trustee did' not como to the Court asking for something- to which ho .was not entitled. Ho simply wished to have the Court's decision as to whether, under Section U, he had, or had not, a prior right to administration. If he had tho right, he did not propose to exercise it otherwise than had been the practice in the past. Tho trustee was of opinion that the Section, as he read it, imposed not only a right but a correlative duty. In giving judgment, the- Chief Jut-tice expressed tho opinion that the Public Trustee had not a prior right, but was on a level with the next of kin, and whoever first applied would be entitled to administration. If both applied at the same time, then tho Court would have to exorcise its discretion in dealing with the matter. In the case under note, his Honour held that administration should bo granted to tho widow, and that the costs of Mia. hearing should be paid by tho Public Trustee. Mr. Justico Williams differed from the Chief Justice in so far as to express the opinion that the Public Trustee not only had no prior right, but'must como after the next of kin. Mr. Justico Deaniston agreed with the Chief Justice. ■ Mr. Justice Edwards said he could see no reason from departing from tho opinion previously expressed by him in the case of in re Craig, that the' next of kin should have prior right of administration. Jfr. Justice Cooper was of the same opinion as Mr. Justice Williams and llr. Justice Edwards. Jtr Justice■ Chapman dissented. He thought the Public Trustee had a prior right of administration. ■The effect of tho judgment is that the rule nisi is made absolute, giving, tho widow administration. It had been arranged that tho Public. Trustee should pay costs. • '