THE PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1750, 15 May 1913, Page 3

THE PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE.

AND ITS LEGAL WORKS. Sir,—"To bo positive in ono's opinions and selfish in one's habits" has been stated to be "Ihe host recipe if not for happiness, at all events for that far more attainable commodity, comfort." At least one of these ingredients is present in Iho conclusions that the Hon. John liigg, M.L.C., "The New Zealand Times," anil the correspondents o£ that estimable sheet have" arrived at about the Public Trust Oflicc report. Tho manner in which the lirst-nanicd gentleman and tho Wellington Trades and Labour Council have been misled 011 the questions in issue in that report show that advantages oilier than mere comfort are to Ire gained by a partisan journal from so spccious a course. It seems desirable, therefore, to consider what were tho Commissioner's recommendations and to what part exception is taken by tho patriots mentioned above. 1. Tho Commission recommended certain changes-in tho work of administration, including Native work. To this little or 110 serious objection has been taken. 2. The Commission recommended certain changes in the conduct of tho legal work of tho Department. To this recommendation tho strongest possible exception has lieen taken. Tho Commissioners have been charged with bias, bad faith, anil dishonesty. Tho lawyers have been represented as using the Attorncy-Generaljwho with Machiavellian foresight had himself appointed in chargt* of this Department) as a willing tool to further their unscrupulous designs against 1110 welfare of the State. The Department itself is pictured as being about to bo dealt a crippling blow that will destroy all its usefulness.

What are (lie recommendations that portend such frightful disaster? They are four in number:— 1. The office solicitor should confine himself to office work and not appear to any extent in Court. .Surely there is nothing unusual or revolutionary about this proposal. Tlio huge hulk of the work done by the Department is done in this oilicc. It is common knowledge that only in the rarest cases is capacity for office-work and court-work found in the same lawyer. When a man has had little or no experience in court practice or public speaking, his unfitness becomes practically a certainty; and that is the position of the present office solicitor. Without the opinion of a commission, it would seem that the head of a legal bureau with work from all over tho l)o----minion of a most responsible and exacting nature would be better'employed-in his office than in court. Tho whole legal staff was practically inexperienced when it entered the office. It has been kept exceedingly busy since,- so it is understood. How, then, can they get that sound knowled!;.? that comas of a careful find thorough study of the complexities and problems of the law and association with expjrieneed lawyers? Surely whatever lime' they had would' be better spent in this way rather than in rash appearances in court. When tho officework increases it. may be advisable to appoint. an experienced court lawyer at <t reasonable salary. But the work does not warrant that yet, and the results do not warrant a continuance of (lie present course.

2. That legal advice should not bft given gratis t" persons not interested in estates b:ing administered in the olticc. . One wou'.J think that even your morning contemporary would admit this lo be common sens?. Does it seriously contend that the taxpayers intend to support, a bureau to give advice to propel ,'v-owners and nnnev-leiulcrs? I'or such are most,' who get the cheap law referred to. :i That wills should not bo drafted by the office solicitor where a personal interview cannot be had. This will bo admitted by any layman who has had anything to do with a will to be common sease and to mean a much bigger savins to the people than cheap and hastily-drawn wills would effect: for these have to ho afterwards patched up bythe Court:. Moreover, this recommendation is in accord with that recently tendered by the Supreme Court. 4. That it is unnecessary lo resort to questionable or. undignified methods 1 of attracting business by unduly encroaching on tho prerogatives of others, and any undue forcing of busi- • ness must bo strongly condemned. This seems moro than warranted when the action of the Public Trustee ill re r cent cases is called to mind. The first attempt at a despotism was in November, 1!)U, where tho lubuc Trustee applied for administration of the estate of William Craig, of Auckland, deceased. All the beneficiaries bui one were in Sow Zealand and of age. They had agreed as to who was to administer the estate, and had informed the Public Trustee. The Judge who heard the application stated: "'J'lio claim put forward bv the Public. Trustee is of a right lo ailministor the estate of every person who die* intestate possessed of property in the Dominion, whenever such an estate is brought to his notice, and to exercise such right iii defiance of the wwics of I lie persons beneficially interested. . . . Willi comm"nilablo condor he has informed the Court that in all cases when he learns of the exi-tence ot an intestate estate he intends to assert his alleged viglil lo administer it. It was held lie had no such right. Nothing daunted, the Public, trustee, wlio-e cilice was, wo are informed, overflowing with work, persisted in his endeavour lo wrest the administration ot these estates i'rom the widows and chclilron of dt}coa>ecl poisons. Ho :n)plK. l (l to tho Court of Appeal under the 1 üblic Trust Office Act, but owing to his wrong interpretation of its clauses he did not get a decision. Ho then opposed an application by a widow, got tho case removed into tho Court of Appea , and had his alleged right finally decided against. The Chief Justice, ill the course of his judgment, said: "I do not know of anything moro fatal to 1 1ho 1 üblic Trust' Office) continued prosperity than tho enactment of a law that would not permit people to administer their own a 'Sir S Joshua Williams said. "It should be borne in mind that the Public I rusteo exists for tho benefit of the public, and tiio public docs not exist for the benefit •of the Public Trust Olhce. 1 lie Court should allow people to manage their own affairs." The other Judges made similar remarks. . , At tho same time as Craig s case, tho Public Trustee was applying at the other end of the Dominion to lie appointed executive of an estate against the wishes of all the beneficiaries and the directions ot ■the will—his only apparent object being to earn his commission by doing work that ho was not asked to do. Does not. a Public Trustee who, when 'his Department is overburdened with work persists in fatuous attempts to force' himself on people who don t want him, and won't have him at any price, deserve a much more severe rebuke than ' l °Thcre is scopo for good work by the Department. Where the estate is very small the testator has no friend or relative capable of or willing lo carry out his wishes or where trusts are likely to be prolonged, solicitors very often recommend iiis appointment. They have never complained of his increasing activities whero they were the result of legitimate methods' But tliev do complain, and justly, •it such methods as those referred above, ami at the dispensation of ,frec law to people well able to afford to pay for it. It appears from the detailed knowlejt>e of Iho inner working of the rublie Trust office displayed in the correspondence and editorials, that a large part of (he criticisms of the Commission' have hcen .inspired, if not written, by some member of the legal staff whose methods have been adversely criticised on almost every point where they have been subjected to criticism; and it is in an endeavour to pre-ent (lien; matters without or bias that 1 have written at Mich length.—l am. etc.. 1-Ali: PI.AY.

I'or ("liililfi-n's .lUukitii,' at Nifflit, "Woods' Uveal Pcßrymiut Cure, Is, Od.*