51

8.—9,

Discharge op Mortgages under Section 75 of the Property Law Act, 1908, and Section 117 op the Land Transfer Act, 1915. 116. It sometimes happens that on the maturity of a mortgage there is no person in New Zealand who is authorized to give a discharge. The reason may be that the mortgagee is deceased and that administration of his estate has not been taken out, but, as a rule, the situation arises through the mortgagee being absent from New Zealand and not having left any person in this country with the necessary authority to act on his behalf. By section 75 of the Property Law Act, 1908, and section 117 of the Land Transfer Act, 1915, provision is made for the discharge of a mortgage under such circumstances. Under these sections the Public Trustee, on tender of the mortgage debt, and on his being satisfied that the amount tendered is the whole sum which is due, may receive it in trust for the mortgagee and give an effective discharge for the mortgage. The amount collected is, after deduction of a small fee to cover the services of the Public Trustee, remitted to the absent mortgagee or his order, or paid to him on his return. The provisions are of convenience both to mortgagors and to mortgagees. To the former in that they are enabled to clear their indebtedness without delay and to make any rearrangements of finance contemplated by them ; and to the latter in that the moneys due are collected on their behalf and either held in safety pending their return, or remitted to them, as they may desire. Mortgagees have on more than one occasion expressed appreciation of the services of the Public Trustee under these sections, and have been relieved to find that the mortgage moneys have been safely collected, though they had omitted to make the necessary arrangements to ensure collection. During the year five mortgages were discharged under these provisions, the amount of principal and interest collected totalling £1,748 12s. 9d. Life Insurance Act, 1908 : Minors' Policies. 117. When dealing with the estates of those persons under disability administered by the Office, I pointed out earlier in this report that infants are universally recognized as a class which, by reason of their immaturity, the law singles out for special protection. In pursuance of this policy of protection, provision has been made for the safeguarding of minors in regard to transactions relating to policies over their lives. Section 75 of the Life Insurance Act, 1908, requires the Public Trustee's consent in order to validate the various dealings by minors with their policies. Under this section a minor policyholder of or over the age of fifteen years may, with the consent of the Public Trustee, surrender, give a discharge for, dispose of by sale, or otherwise deal with a policy of insurance on his life as if he were of full age. This provision removes the disability under which an infant would suffer by reason of his minority, should he find it necessary to deal with his life policy, and at the same time safeguards him against imposition or undue influence, &c., by designingpersons, to which he would be more subject by reason of his tender years. The test applied in regard to applications of this nature is whether the best interests of the minor would be served by a proposed dealing, and good reasons must be forthcoming before the Public Trustee's consent is given. The services of the Office and the helpful advice tendered to youthful policyholders in circumstances that are plainly to their disadvantage have more than once been favourably commented upon. During the year 170 consents were given, made up as follows : Surrenders, 67 ; loans, 56 ; assignments 34 ; reduction in amount of policy, 5 ; payment or proceeds on maturity of policy, 2 ; consent to make will disposing of proceeds, 6. This total does not include all the cases dealt with, because a number were not proceeded with after the applicants had a discussion with departmental officers, and others were declined on being found to be disadvantageous to the infant policyholders. 118. A constantly recurring matter which causes confusion to policyholders is that of the legal effect of a policy of assurance taken out by one person over the life of another. In the ordinary course it appears that such policy belongs to the person taking it out —that is, the proponent. This causes surprise to parents who have arranged the policies with the intention of benefiting their children and making