UNUSUAL BEQUESTS

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1931, Page 2

UNUSUAL BEQUESTS

AID FOR DISABLED GERMANS. COURT UPHOLDS WILL. VIEWS OF BRITISH MARINER. Expressing the opinion in his will that “victorious and wealthy England is well able to provide for its soldiers disabled in the ltae war,” Mr Otway Robinson, a retired marinor, who died on February 20, 1930, made an unusual bequest. He devised his residuary estate amounting to £7OOO “to the German Government for the time being for the benefit of its soldiers disabled i' l the late war.” Air Justice Maugham in the Chancery Division recently was asked to decide the validity of this bequest, states “Observer.” In the event of its being bold to be void for uncertainty or otherwise Mr Robinson made an alternative gift of £IOOO to General Smuts personally and the remainder to him to apply "at his discretion and in such manner ns be mov think fit in for the benefit of any disabled Boers wlm have suffered through the South African Wav. The validity of this bequest was also challenged, The questions were raised by Mr Arthur Robert the sol» executor of the will, the respondents being the German Reich, General Smuts, Mr Hamilton "Dnnsev. a half-brother of th» testator, who claimed to be interested in any property as to which there was an intestacy, and the Attorney-Gen-era). Mr Fergus Morton. K.C., for Genera 1 Smuts, argued that the gift was void so far as the German Government win concerned because of uncertainty and impracticability. In an affidavit General Smuts signified bis intention of accepting the trust should it come to him. He said there were still many disabled Boers who fought in the Boer War. and organisations in the colony could be invited to assist in the administration of the fund for the benefit of those men. “Impracticable” Proposal. “If the money went, to the. German Government,” said Air Alorton, “it Would appear that by the terms of the will every one of the huge number of German soldiers who were disabled in the late war will have to receive a portion of it.. The German Government iR not given power of selection, and the scheme of distribution is impracticable.” Mr Justice Alaughnm: Tf the British Government were handed a sum of money, however large, they eonld find numerous organisations to assist them to heln disabled soldiers. Mr Morton • Tf the testator had mentioned any German charitable organisation then It might have been difficult to challenge the gift. In the cose of General Smuts there is no nmbi.guitv The testator gives the General the fullest discretion of selection, and no diffioulty presents itself in parrying out the provisions of the trust. Mr Morton also argued that- the gift to German soldiers was contrary to public policy, as it might strengthen and encourage Germany to another attack. Hie testator was of opinion that the German soldiers were not getting sufficient pensions, and he decided to restore them to health and keep them from want. Although Germany was not now an enemy country, bequests of this kind might assist that race to make another war. Mr Justice Maugham: On the same principle aid to a discharged prisoner might encourage him to commit another crime. Helping the Boers. Air Alorton: If, however, the gift goes to Boers disabled in the war of many years ago but who are now citizens of the British Empire it will help those men and do exactly what the testator desires—iiamely, endeavour to dispel any ill-feeling that might possibly remain between the two races. Air Everhend (for Air Duusey) submitted that both bequests were had. Air Roxburgh (for the German Reich) said the German Government was perfectly willing to carry out the trust. Air Stafford Crossman (for the At-torney-General) supported the proposition that the gift for the benefit of disabled German soldiers was a good charitable gift. Tt was none the less a charitable gift because the money went, out of the jurisdiction of the British courts. Mr Roxburgh observed that if the bequest was held to he valid the German Government would give an undertaking through diplomatic channels that the money w°uld he applied in accordance with the wishes of the testator, “Ridiculous” Suggestion. Air Crossman declared that the suggestion that the gift was against public policy was ridiculous. Germany was a friendly country and wo were not contemplating another war, with this bequest to enable disabled soldiers to become healthy and fight against us.( ‘ Air Justice Ataugham, giving judgment, said Mr Robinson was a bachelor who had no near relatives except Air Dansey, his half-brother. He thought the testator intended that the German Government should have a wide discretion as the trustee of th° fund to benefit such of its disabled soldiers ns required assistance. There was no uncertainty about the gift, sik4 it was not

ngainst public policy that the gilt should be made for the benefit of persons who lived in a once enemy country. “A trust for helping ex-enemy soldiers disabled in the war'is more likely to tend towards peace in the future than it is to encourage people to adopt bellicose ideas,” added Mr Justice Maugham. “T see no difficulty in holding that the fund should be handed over to the proper officer on behalf of the German Reich.” The judge ordered that the costs of all the parties should be paid out of the residue.