Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY JANUARY 14, 1890. STATE DISCOURUGEMNNT OF PRUDENT MARRIAGES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 14 January 1890, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY JANUARY 14, 1890. STATE DISCOURUGEMNNT OF PRUDENT MARRIAGES.

The connection between the commercial Bill of Sale and' M ai'riage aippear at fivst sight far apart, but in reality they have become most 'inconveniently interwoven. Unless «mr legislators have decided' the knotty - ).ojiit .'ls marriage; j a, failure ?" in the nmrmative, w l e can-' not understand the altevatiua they have mado in the acts of the colony relating to marriage -settlements, and we desire to drnw the attention of the public most oloai'ly to it, a^ ignorance on the point may cause most serious diivioulties in the future. Formerly frauds were foquently committed"' upon creditors by secret bill* (if salo Whilst a person Avas in possession of property, he might assign it by n hill of sal 1 , and afterwards he might, he allowed o remain in po- session of it so that the change of ownership wan not apparent. Thu* h« was eiiaMed t<» keep up appearmcrs of hcitig in good circumstances and possessed of property, although the holder of the bill of sale had the power of taking possession to t)i" exclusion of the rest df t!ie cr diror* In 1854 an English Act. was passed, lequiring such a bill of sale to bo registered within a limited number of days after being executed,- by filing a .copy at the office of Registration, where it was open to inspection by the public. 'Jhe principle of this act was adopted in e.w Zealand,. It was found however that a bill, of sale, after being registered ; fov some years, became overlooked by oredi t.ors,,Bn(i hi IH7B an English act was passed, the principle of which was adopted in New Zealand In " Tlie Chattels Securities 'et TBBO " requiring bills of sale to be .re-regis-tered every five years In 1882, the law relating to bills or sale was further a • ondod by an Eug'ish Act, the principle of. whid i wns adopted in New Zealand. in ''The 'huttelrt 'f?e ; airitießActlßSß"T6<jiiiviuJs «• kill of sale to have attached to .it -an inventory of th<> p'-oporty comprised in it, and ,to truly m .i'ortJi tho emisid.or ttipn ..for whivli tiu> hill of sale is given. Through' all tb.tse.chn litres 0110 principle has Wen i;ocogni.<(*,l both in England and New Zealand, nain.olv, that innrriiige sottleiunntw, (hut is, settio'ii' uts .aido boforr. and in consideration .of m'avviago. shoujd be excluded from the opor\ ioiLof the laws rahting to bills of- sal? : and a man about to marry was. able to secure to his wife ft h.o.mfl. why-h would not be subject to reverses in business, by sett i g his householl furniture for the use of his wife and children. This act was single and final, and the right of the donor passed irrevocably beyond recaU It is undoubtly the duty and polfcy of a well governed sfcate. to promote prudent marriages amongst its people, and it was a direct encouragement to a man, and a strong inducement to a woman to contract marriage, when the man was enabled to settle his furniture upon his intended wife, wi'hout exposing himself to the iridiguity of having his name in the Bill's of Sale list in a Trade Circular. It may be a foolish and unreasonable objection, but it is a fact, that a business man will avoid, at almost my cost, allowing his name to be in a bill of sn\6 list, and if, by settling his furniture upon his intended wife, he rendered' himselfHable to having his name ap-_ j pearing iri such a list, it is very certain he "would decline to. make such a settlement, even at the risk of 1 leaving his wife exposed to the chance of being deprived, by a reverse in business, of the comforts of ; a home. An Act was passed last session by the New Zealand Parliament purporting to consolidate the law relating to Chattels securities. By this Aot, which came into force on the first day of the New Year, a marriage settlement ceases to have any exceptional privilege, and must , be treated as any ordinary bill of sale, and be registered as such, and re-registered every fire years. .The important difference between the past and present becomes very apparent, as the wife is subjected to all the vicissitudes that affecte her husband's business ; .and runs the risk that owing to oversight on the part of her husband, or her trustees, the registration needed maybe over 1 looked, and that on the d >i»th of her. husband, the settlement might b • .come subject to theolairas of his oreditors Such an alteiati n ontai's considerable increased expense . as reregistratiou. means pajmdnt f some amount, and the repair of an oversight in so doing, requires the

alinctio'i of a Judge of fitte SttpfflW^ CoUrt wliick k alaO costly. . .We hold 1 that Such up. dlteratidn sHbtilfl. ncit tfrtvi? l>e^n ,>ftHßttt ajferiitf fit* ' teution k iviiig ; be^it di ; d\tri id lt| Hnd \ not unless there hfid toen a tiau ; made by the public for it It seems '. to have passed both Houses o£ Par* " 1 iament without comment, and the Prose ihqs not-rnqticed the Blt€*ation. ;' We consider thit Now Zea'and sliould give every .encouragement .tfl. .. tlie young men of the colony to coiiijL'act- prudent marriages, and as thete basVbeeil np.alter'atioii 6ltho law in England, t or in any of the British dominions, . .we think that tlie policy which the Chattels eurfties Act 1889 .has inaugurated is a distinctly retrogressive step, and one which we' trust. niay he reversed next session.