INQUIRERS' CORNER

NZ Truth, Issue 1215, 14 March 1929, Page 9

INQUIRERS' CORNER

by "INTERPRETER.

Answers will be published as early as possible after receipt of questions and so far as possible m order o<- rotation of receipt. ," ers must be written m ink and be addressed "Interpreter, c/o "Truth," Manners Street, Wellington. While we take no responsibility for any answer given m these columns, every endeavcr will be made to see that they are absolutely correct. Answers to legal queries must be accepted merely as a fluide as to whether or not it is worth while going to the expense of placing matters inquired about m the hands of a solicitor for further action. No replies can 'be made by post. No anonymous inquiries will be answered, and inquiries of this nature will not be pre- - served. Frivolities and questions not of general Interest will not be answered.

•WAGES AND PENSIONS. ■ Q.: I am s divorced widow, my husband having died since I was divorced. I now have an illegitimate child. Can I claim the widow's pension? — "Constant Reader" ( ). A.: No. You are not a widow and illegitimate children are not recognised. Besides, it would be objected that you are not of good moral character. COMPENSATION. Q.: (1) Are heads of Government departments exempt from prosecution for accidents which happen on jobs through negligence m not providing safeguards to protect limb and life of workmen under their charge? (2) In the event of a dam bursting or breaking and life and property being lost and destroyed, what action and against whom could be taken? (3) Who is responsible for correct decision and action m matters of this kind? — '"Perplexed" (Johnsonville). A.: (1) If personally responsible they would be- liable. (2) The person having the control of the dam when it burst. (3) The ordinary courts. WILLS. Q.: My brother, a bachelor, died, leaving no will. What portion of his estate should I receive, being the only brother left living. Can deceased's other brothers' children claim ' anything?—" Waiting" .(Christchurch). A.: If both his parents are dead the estate will be divided equally amongst .his brothers, the children of deceased brothers to take their parent's share. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. Q.: My wife and I are South African born and married m Capetown, antenuptial contracts being drawn up and signed by both parties before a solicitor according to the Roman-Dutch law. We have been resident m New Zealand six year's and my wife has left presumably for a holiday m South Africa, taking' the ' child with her, but now writes that she has no intention of returning. Will the New Zealand courts uphold the ante-nuptial Contracts? If adultery can be proved m Capetown can my parents petition there on my behalf? — "Spectemur Agendo" (North Auckland.) A.: As you are now a domiciled New Zealander the only courts that have jurisdiction to. grunt you a divorce are thoso m New Zealand. If you have grounds you will be granted a decree with custody of the child, although so far as the child is 'concerned you may have to take proceedings m South Africa to enforce the decree. It is impossible to say within what time you could obtain a decree. Affidavits proving misconduct would have to be obtained from South Africa. The New Zealand courts would not be bound by the ante-nuptial contracts. 0.: I obtained a separation order against my husband about three years ago. I now desire to obtain a divorce, but I have no money. How can I 'go about it? — "Deserted" (Wellington). A.: your husband will be liable for your costs. You should apply for security Zov costs from him as soon as you commence the proceedings. If he fails to obey the order your only course will be to apply for leave to proceed m forma pauperis. PROPERTY RIGHTS. ' & Q.: I have taken a lease for a term of years of a. farm through which runs the "main drain" on each side of which is a reserve half a. chain wide. Broom is growing on the i eserve which was there when I leased the farm. Can the owner- or the inspector of noxious weeds compel me to grub the broom: The reserve is, partly fenced from mj property.' — "Constant Reader" . . (-*- — ) . A.: Primarily, liability depends or occupation. Tf the freehold of the reserve is not included m your lease anc you are not occupying it you arc undoi no liability. If, however, what you cal a reserve i\v as is probable, land subjeci merely to a public right of way th< freehold will be included m your leas* and as occupier you will be liable undei the Noxious Weeds Act, 1928, the question of the division of cost as betweei yourself and , the landlord if not provided for m the lease being regulatec by section 15 of the Act.

self?— " Horace" (Ohau). A.: Ye.s. The similar arrangement 'applied by the Government to State children is only enforceable because expressly authorised by the Child Welfare' Act. : Q.: Please state if a man who was imprisoned for refusing to so to the war was allowed to vote at last eiection? — "Subscriber" (Masterton). A.: Yes. His civil rights were recently restored 'by Statute. GENERAL. Q.: I was recently confined, at the house of a woman who said she Avas a registered maternity nurse. Two days after the baby was born the woman became intoxicated and .neglected both the baby and myself, with the result that we had to spend some time m a hospital. Can I claim damages from the nurse? — "Neglected" (Palmerston North). A.; Yes. If she was not actually registered as a maternity nurse she is liable to prosecution also./ Q.: After I finished the cadet drill course, t being m the country, was | posted to the non -effective li.st and fov 18 months did not • do any military training. If f now reside m a town must I serve the full' three years m the . : Territorials? — "Argument" (Tima.ru). A.: No: you will be excused duty during the time you were on the noneffective list. Q.: An ice cream factory has commenced operations on the property adjoining mine. The plant is working 15 hours a day, Sundays included. The noise is intolerable. What is, my remedy? — "M.M." (Huntly). A.: You can take action m the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining the operation of the plant.

I This Means You I ANLY those questions to | v which the writer's name | and full address are attached | can be answered m this column. | The information is not neces- | sarijy for publication, -Jiut is | required as a token or good | faith. If you cloh't want your I name mentioned, you've, only I got to mention a norn de plume. | So don't forget to'sign. | Sporting queries and ques-' I tions relating to recipes and | fashions are not answered m | this column — the former are reI plied to on the sporting pages, I the latter on the women's pages.

an illegitimate child is paramount? Nevertheless, if she surrenders the child to the father she recognises his claim, and if a dispute as to custody arises between father and mother the court m settling it will be gruided by the welfare of the child. Q.: I am 16 years old and" am earning £1 per week. Only 2/6 per week is paid to me, the remainder being paid to 'my mother. Am I entitled to have my whole wages paid to my-

LEGAL. Q.: The local town board, which is the owner of the land adjoining my property, about two years ago planted a double row of trees alongside the fence without obtaining my consent. What is my position? — "Skim Dick" (Main Trunk). A.: You have no remedy. Section 26 of the Fencing Act provides that no person without the previous written consent of the owner of the adjoining land shall plant trees on or alongside any boundary line, and the adjoining owner may enter on the land and cut ' down any tress planted without such consent. But the Court of Appeal has held that this right of entry is only exercisable after a conviction has been obtained for planting the trees. As the trees were* planted two years ago summary proceedings for a fine are now barred. Apart from this, it may be that the trees were not "alongside" your boundary. There is no decision to show exactly what this means. As the trees were m double rows it is most likely that at least one line would be held not to be alongside your boundary. Q.: Five years ago I sold my piano to a company for £40, the £40 to be allowed off a new instrument which I then intended getting. As I cannot purchase a hew, piano can I claim the £40 allowed me on my instrument? — "Legal" (Grarilty). A.: Your best course would appear to be to sue for the £40 as on a sale of your piano, leaving it to the company to counter-claim for such damages as they have incurred by reason of your failure to complete the purchase. Q.: Has the father of an illegitimate child any claim to its custody if the mother, who is now married, has given up the child to the father, who is now maintaining it? — "Anxo" (Hamilton). A.: The mother's right to custody of