RESULT OF AN ELOPEMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1418, 4 August 1881, Page 4

RESULT OF AN ELOPEMENT.

A tkrt vtob appointed his wife sole guardian ot their children during their minoiities, and left to each of hia daughters £.3,000 payable at twenty-one " or on her marriage, with the consent of her guardian or guardians, which should firnt happen," and £3,000 from the lesidue of his e^t.tte, payable after his wife's death. The testator died in 1871, and the widow in 1874. In 1880 one of daughter", aged 18, made a runaway match with Mr Ducdan, without the consent of any of her relations, and as no guardian had been appointed, without the consent of any guardians as required by the will. Mrs Dundus died in 1881, leaving an infant. The question arose wether, considering .the circumstances of her marriage, the representatives of Mrs Dundas were entitled to anything under her father's will. It was argued on their behalf that there being no guardian capable of giving consent, it was impOM->-ible to comply with the condition, and therefore the legacies were not forfeited. Mr Justico Fry, howevor, pointed out that on application to the Court of Chancery a guardian would have been appointed, and us such u guardirin could not have consented to such a mnrriage, he decided that the legacies had lapsed.

A Good Wokd .for thk Soldier.— Sir Garnet Wolseley, in responding for the army at a recent public dinner in London, «,ud : In the discussion on the army the the inteiests of the non-commissioned officers and privates were to much ignored. Now, that was not as it should be, for highly as he appreciated the officers, he must say he had a great affection for the men, who were quite as well deserving of the consideration of the public and of the fostering care of the nation. A British soldier was merely what he was made by the British officer. It had been said that the British soldier did not shoot as well ho ought to do ; but whose fault was {hat ? It certainly was not the fault of (he .soldier himself, and it was neither juat nor geneious on the part ofanyone to abu'-o the British soldier because he was not better instructed. They should remember that veiy few honors and rewards awaited tho return of the gallant soldier after a succesful war in which he had borne an active part. He was bound to s.iy that in his own expeiience he had seen as gieat self-abnegation, chivalry, and gallantry in the rank-an-file of tho ai my a* elsewhere. The lato Sir George Colley, one of the most gallant and noble men who ever commanded, recognised the same fact in the troops under his command, and with good reason, for their devotion had never been surpassed by their predecessors at any period of our history." " Bjjffler," in Vanity Fair, says: "I am told that the platform of Wirksworth Railway Station was the scene of an exciting encounter one day last week. On that platform was my Lord Shrewsbury. Thither, also, whether by accident or design I know not, came Mr 3 Morewood. When Mrs Morewood saw the premier Earl she went for him with a determination worthy of any cause. FirFt she laid about his face with an umbrella, and when he got hold of that she dropped it and went at him with fists and nails like a tigress and prize-fighter combined. The spectators, of whom there were several, seemed to sympathize with what would, I suppose, be called the weaker side, and one man called out, "Bravo, Missis ! It serves him right," This i« certainly letributive justice. But it is rather hard to bo handled so roughly, in public by one's future mo f h3r-in-law. It is fair to remember, too, that Lord Shrewsbury is a small man ; and as there is still so much talk of " kicking," and the like, it seems to me that if this operation is to take place, one of his own sex ana sizo should be detailed to do it. In all my remembrance of many threats of kicking, I never yet heard of a little man threatening to kick a big one. On the other hand, I have never heard" of- many big men threatening to kick a little one 'and failing to do it. ' > Frequent washing with sOap suds, says Colonel F. D. Curtis, in (the linral New Yorker, does a pig a great deal of good' and should always be .practised if They get dirty. Young pigs will never, thrive well in a~ filthy pen. If^the dam is'unclean the' pigs are liable, when sucking, togetsqre about the head and around, their mouths, which will stun£ them. When this is the case they ehpuld be thorougly washed and oiled.