The Evening Star MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1912.

Evening Star, Issue 15065, 23 December 1912, Page 4

The Evening Star MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1912.

Had the decision of the Court of Appeal in the ease of Dickens Public Trust (deceased) gone the Office. other way the public

would have had serious cause for alarm. The. high estimation in which tho Public Trust Office is held by the community needs no recapitulation—the extent to which it is availed of is proof enough of its necessity and of its satisfactory conduct in general. But it would be altogether too much of a good thing if the scope of its administration were extended in the way that was sought, and the legality of which was tested in the case referred to; and it is well that the beginnings of a bureaucracy, beneficial enough in intent no doubt, have been frustrated by the Court. The position in the case which had to be determined was well summarised by the Chief Justice:— To say that a husband whose wife dies leaving £SOO worth of property, and to which he is entitled to succeed, and whose wife may have left no creditors, is not entitled to take his wife's savings out of the savings bank without the intervention of the Public Trustee and the payment of perhaps £250 for his intervention, would be permitting an interference with rights and property surely unheard of wherever the British law is known.

It happened in this case that it was a widower who applied for letters of administration r under the law the situation would be the same if it were a widow who was applying. The hardship would be obvious; for if tho Public Trustee's interpretation of his powers were correct, the Supreme Court would be bound to entrust the Public Trust Office with the administration of the estate, should he choose to apply for it: .the mere fact of his applying would

suffice, no matter .who else might be seeking administration. The Act states that if a person dies .intestate the Public Trustee, if he applies for it, shall be entitled as of right for administration of the estate, provided that if some other person who would otherwise ho entitled to such administration applies jfor it the Court or Judge may grant ! administration to such person. It is satisfactory to find a majority of our Supremo Court Judges affirming that this does not mean that the Public Trustee has not a right prior to that of the next of kin when such applications come before them in Chambers. It may be noticed that Sir Joshua Williams and Justice Cooper hold that the next of kin has by law a prior right to that of the Public Trustee'; Sir Robert Stout (apparently) and Justices Denniston and Edwards hold that there is equality of right (meaning presumably that it is within a Judge's discretion to entertain or refuse the Public Trustee's application for administration) ; while Justice Chapman upholds tho Public Trustee's priority of right. Three positions only are possible—priority of tho one party or the other, or equality—and one of these only must be correct, to tho exclusion of the other two. Yet it seems that the law is so badly drafted that, in the opinion of tho highest body of experts obtainable, all three positions can bo upheld. It is to be hoped that this case had its origin in the desire for an interpretation of such an ambiguous section of the Act as the division of opinion, among our Judges shows this to be, and not in what may be termed tho officiousness of a busybody. In fact, we assume the former reason. Sir Robert Stout said: "If, however, the Legislature meant " this (the priority of the Public Trus"tee) to be the law, the Courts must '■' give effect to it." And tho same thing applies to the Public Trustee: if by law certain duties and obligations are imposed on him, he must do his best to comply with them. Fortunately the Appeal Court's decision does not take away from people the right to manage their own affairs and does not confer it on a Government official. But the mere fact that the decision had to bo sought is a pointed commentary on the slipshod work of Parliament that is, if the least distasteful view of the raison d'etre of this litigation is assured.