Stephens and Stephens.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 988, 19 October 1881, Page 3

Stephens and Stephens.

On the 7th of July last in the House, Mr. Kelly asked the Minister of Justice, what action the Government have taken in the matter of the petition of Stephens and Stephens, with respect to the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee to the House, and referred by resolution of the House to the Government ? In asking this question, he thought it well to give the House a brief explanation of the ease. It appeared that the petitioner’s husband, on his decease, had left certain property amounting in value ® to £1,200, in which his widow had a life interest. A Mr. Mokbis had been named executor in the will, but he had declined to act, and wrote to the widow’s legal adviser suggesting that the Public Trustee should administer the estate. The widow was afterwards advised to apply to the Supreme Court Judge in Dunedin to administer the estate. That

was accordingly done, and the Judge made the appointment. An order was made that a true and correct inventory of all the property .of Athe deceased should be made up and furnished ; but that order of the Judge was not complied with. The trustee had given in no account of the property to the Judge of the Supreme Court, and whatever amount was received for the property had been dissipated, X the widow receiving nothing at all from it, and being left in a state of destitution. As the appointment of trustee had been made by the Judge of the Supreme Court, the Government, although not legally responsible, were morally responsible for the consequences. He would read the recommendation which had been made by the Public Petitions Committee : —“ I am directed to report that, taking into consideration the fact that a Registrar of the Supreme Court was appointed trustee without the usual bond for the proper performance of his duty, the Committee is of opinion that the Government cannot divest itself of the moral responsibility, and recommends that the Crown Prosecutor be instructed to take action against the said E. ff. Wabd, on behalf of Jane Douglas, to recover the property which appears to have been misappropriated.” That was the recommendation made by the Committee, and he desired to know what action the Government had taken in the matter. Mr. Dick, in reply, said the hon. gentleman had stated the case correctly on the whole, but there were one or two points which appeared to have been overlooked which came to light after the House rose last session. It seemed that Mr. Wabd had been appointed at the request of Mrs. Douglas and her lawyer, Mr. Haebis, not because he held any office under the Government, but because he • was a friend of the widow. He was not appointed in any way as connected with the Court. She did not request that he should be bound to find security to give a faithful account of the money received. Under those circumstances the Government had consulted with their Law Officer, who gave an opinion to this effect; that the Government could not in any way be answerable, and could not be expected to take any action upon the matter. The following was the opinion of the Law Officer on the subject : —“ It appears to me that misconception has arisen in this case from the assumption that Mr. Wabd was granted administration as Registrar. Certainly this was not so ; there was no law for granting administration to a Registrar in respect of his office, and it will be seen the Judge did not affect to do so. On the contrary, the law then in force required that the administration of the estates of persons deceased should be given to officers appointed by the Government, and called curators of intestate estates. These officers and their deputies were directly under the control of the Supreme Court, and were bound to give security as prescribed by law.” The gentleman appointed was not a curator of intestate and was not appointed in’Shy way in that respect, but, as he had before stated, simply as a friend of the widow. When the Government looked into the matter, they did not consider it advisable to take any further steps in the meantime.

Again on the 16th September, Mr. Kelly asked the Colonial Secretary, what action has been taken by the Government to igive effect to the report of the Public Petitions Committee in the case of the petition of Stephens and Stephens ? He had been asked by the Public Petitions Committee to put this question, and, in order to make the question intelligible, he would read the report of the Committee, which was as follows ; “ It appears, from the evidence before the Committee, that money to the amount of at

least £1,226 has been received by Edward ffrancis Ward, as trustee for the estate of the late James Schoefield Douglas, and that no account whatever has been furnished by him to the Supreme Court, as ordered by Mr. Justice Chapman on the sth day of September 1873, to be made on or before the 10th August, 1874 ; and, therefore, there appears a primafacie case of misappropriation of the estate.

“ The Committee are of opinion that it was clearly the duty of the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Dunedin to see that the order of the Court was complied with ; this duty not having been performed by their officer, the Government cannot escape responsibility in the matter. The committee, therefore, recommend the Government to instruct the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Dunedin to take action against Edward ffrancis Ward, to cause him to furnish a true account of hie administration of the estate of the late James Schoefield Douglas; and that, failing the furnishing of any satisfactory account of his administrarion, to take such further action as may be deemed advisable in the public interests.”

Last session the committee strongly recommended the Government to take similar action, and they wished to know what the Government had done in the matter.

Mr. Dick replied that the Registrar at Dunedin was instructed to take action to get the account rendered as recommended by the Public Petitions Committee. The Registrar had telegraphed to Hawera, where it was believed Mr. Ward resided, and had also written to him, but no reply had been obtained. He asked the assistance of the Crown Solicitor, and the result was contained in the following telegram, dated 15th September, received from the Registrar : —“ Have consulted Crown Solicitor. He advises that I cannot compel account, as I am neither legatee, next of kin, nor a creditor of testator ; and in point of fact I have nothing to do with the matter. He refers me to ‘ Williams on Executors’, page 2657.” That was the last stage of the matter, and he would lay the papers on the table for the information of honorable members.

Mr. Kelly asked if they were to understand that an order given by the Supreme Court was to have no effect, if an officer could set that order at defiance, and if the Government had no power to enforce the order of their own Court ?

Mr. Dick was not ’sufficient of a lawyer to answer that question. If the honorable member would put a question on the Paper to the effect that he (Mr. Dick) should consult the Solicitor-General, he would be happy to do so.