Will Cases.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 6, 7 January 1914, Page 5

Will Cases.

THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

A WIDOW'S CLAIM. iJtsv Electric Telegraph—Copyright] lUnj-ckd Press Association.J , Received 11.55 a.m.) London, January 6.

The widow of Sir Edward Moss, music hall proprietor, is contesting his will. She claims that by her rights under the Scottish law the will gives her an income of a third part of the residuary estate, which is about £150,000. The trustees maintain that Moss had an English domicile.

AN ELDER SON SLIGHTED.

WIPES OUT THE FAMILY.

(Received 11.55 a.m.) Madrid, January G

I Senor Palacio, recently died, leaving over £1,000,000, mostly to Francisco, ibis youngest son. The eldest son, furfious at losing the money, killed his [mother and brothers at Berdegal. He |then committed suicide with a revolver. The fortune will probably revert to the State. CHINESE MARRIAGES. [Per Pniwa Association. 1 A Wellington, January 6. Two interesting points in connection with Chinese marriage customs were decided by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) to-day, in the case of the Public Trustee v.-Ng Kwok Shi and others, concerning the estate of Ah Ching, late of Greymouth, deceased. Deceased was born in China, and he came to New Zealand 23 years ago. He married a Chinese woman, Ng Kwok Shi, but he had also a concubine, whom he had never seen. His children all predeceased him, with the exception of a daughter and one son, who left.twin children. The questions which were submitted for the Courts judgment were: Was deceased domiciled in New Zealand? If not, how was his property to be distributed? Tn a previous judgment Sir Robert Stout held that Ah Chong had not lost the domicile of his origin, and that his movable property must be distributed in accorance with the Chinese law.

An English court, said the Chief Justice, had held that concubinage was not the same as polygamy, and that a marriage in Japan was recognised as good, though concubinage existed. His Honor, therefore, was of opinion that the marriage must he recognised, and the family was entitled to succeed, just as if it had been a New Zealand family. Dealing with the second question, the Chief Justice said that the persons entitled to the leasehold property would be, according to New Zealand law, no doubt, the persons that would have been entitled to the personal property. In New Zealand, if deceased had been domiciled in Neu Zealand, that would be a third to the wife and two-thirds to the children. Judgment was given accordingly: