PRIVATE OR PUBLIC?

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 140, 10 December 1918, Page 6

PRIVATE OR PUBLIC?

"Giving effect to deed of family arrangement in the estate of C. J. Jury (deceased)," runs the marginal note on Section 41 of the "Washing-Up" Bill. Mr. G. Witty raised the point that the matter should have been introduced in a private Bill, not in a public Bill. The estate was worth £90,000. If the matter was allowed to go through in a public Bill, a fee of £50 would be obviated.

It was explained that the estate was a Native one./

Sir Joseph Ward said that the section was needed for the administration of the estate under the Public Trustee. The same procedure had heen done before m a number of cases'.

Mr. Speaker ruled that the matter should have been the subject of a privato Bill, but in. the circumstances—the shortness of tfie session—he considered t.ha.t the matter could be taken in a public Bill. v .-■:*..

The Prime Minister submitted that the section came from a. Department of the Crown, and therefore was a public matter. '.. '.

Mr. Hornsby said that such an attitude would favour .the Public Trustee in respect to wills as against private lawyers. The Speaker suggested that the clause should be deferred for consideration by a committee, and this was done. . At 4.20 (at the conclusion of the Committee stage), -Mr. M'Combs asked whether the Bill could be held up till the committee's report had been obtained. Mr. Speaker made no promise. '