THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1901.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 94, 10 January 1901, Page 2

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1901.

A VERY curious Act. was passed last Bession in New Zealand. It provides that " should any person die, leaving a wife, and without makiug adequate provision for the proper maintenance aud support of his or her wife, husband or children, the Court may, at its discretion, on-appli-cation by or on behalf of the said wife, husband or children, order that such provision as to the said -Court shall seem fit shall be madeout of the estate of the said deceased person for such wife, husband or children." Shortly, this means that if a man dies and leaves his property to strangers or, indeed, unfairly in any way as regards his family, so as to: leave some or all of them unprovided for, the. Supreme Court may take the whole matter in hand, disregard the provisions of the will so far as they seem unfair, and order the property to be re-distributed amongst the family as it thinks right. We do not think there is another such Act in the world. Iu Scotland, it is true, there is provision that a certain-portion of a man's.property must, on his death, go to his family, The code of Napoleon of France also limits the amount or' his property that a man with a family may dispose of. But we know of no Act that gives a Court power to re-arrange matters as it thinks fit. We imagine tbe judges will find .themselves in a very awkward .predicament when they are called upon some day to make an order under this Act. There will be no precedents to guide them. The principles on which they are to act will have to be laid down by themselves for the first time. Our readers will observe that the clause we have quoted makes no reference to-the financial position of the wife or family eutside the Testator's will. It does not say that if the wife or children or any of them are well off they are to have no claim on the dead man's property. It merely says that if the father dies " without making adequate provision 1 ' for his wife or children, whether they are already well off or not does not seem to matter, the Court may practically re-distribute the estate. This Act seems to have been rendered necessary by the fact that a number of cases have occurred in which men of considerable wealth have bequeathed their property to strangers who had acquired influence over them, or for purposes of ostentation left large amounts to charities, while their wives or children were actually in need. An obvious criticism of the Act that occurs to almost any one was made by Captain Russell. He supposed the case of a " bad egg" in the family. What about him ? Was he to share like the rest ? "He might have become," said the captain, " a drunken worthless scoundrel, and yet he was to participate with the rest in the estate," and again " They shaold be careful that this young, improvident, reck-less scoundrel was not placed in the position of deriving benefit from the estate." Further, " there was nothing in this Bill to prevent a part being taken to go to the lazy and reckless wretch who refused to earn his living at all." However, we think the honourable gentleman was in error in these remarks. For the Bill distinctly gives the Court power to deal with the maurdais suiets. It says" The Court may refuse to make an order in -favour of any peraon whose oharaoter or conduct is snch ae in tbe opinion of the Court to disentitle Mm or her to ihe benefit of an order tinder the Act. That surely *«ems clear enough.

The last two clauses -of fihe Sit —Nos. 4 and 2—were, we observe, from Mansard, inserted on the motion of the junior member for Dunedin, Mr A. R, Barclay, and were, intended to meet obvious difficulties. Clause 4 limits the time within which an application may be made to the Court for an order. -It sayg " no application «hall foe hea*4 by the Court unless sucli application as a forecast shall be onadj within 6 month.) from the date of the grant of tbe prdfoate ■•of suet will." Clause 5 provides that uo one can mortgage or sell their supposed share of the paternal estate-until it is actually received.

It is curious ;to liow readily both Houses accepted the Bill and what general nnauirnity there -was "that the measure was a good and desirable one. It is certainly another of our mimerous legislative experiments, and it is to be hoped it-may in practice turn out a successful and satisfactory Act.