THE STORK DERBY

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 February 1938, Page 3

THE STORK DERBY

MILLAR WILL UPHELD

The “stork Derby" v ill of Charles Vance. Millar lias been declared legal Ibv the Supremo Court of Canada, rays tho “New York Times.” It ruled that the Toronto attorney bail a right to bequeath his fortune I estimated at I more Ilian 5U0.U00 dollars) Io the [mother who bore the most children ’in Toronto during a ten-year period, 'dating from his. death, but it also railed that illegitimate children (lid not

'count. , I Mr. Millar, a bachelor, died on October ;ii, 1926. I The decision left the situation like {this: , , 1. The petition ol’ Millar s next 'of kin" challenging the will is distallowed and the document stands 'valid until the Judiciary Committee |of the Privy Council in London, highest Court of Appeal in the British [.Empire, should decree otherwise. An 'appeal there is regarded as hardly [likely.

2. The Courts must now determine c what mother, or mothers, bore the most children under the terms of the will. The will was challenged before the Supreme Court by two relatives of the barrister, Arabella West and Alex- i lander Butcher, who asked that it be 'set aside as contrary to public policy, t j They argued that the document,!' which Mr. Millar himself admitted in 'its preamble, to be “uncommon ami [capricious,” was actually "monstrous 1 and indecent,” and. ‘'subversive to [motherhood.” To this the five Judges replied. 1 j“\Ve find it impossible to affirm that a policy of encouraging large famil-i 1 i ies by pecuniary rewards to the par-

i ents or donations to the children; Iwould have a tendency injurious to .[the State and to the people as: a I whole.” The five Judges of the Supreme Court who heard the appeal against ) the Millar will were unanimous in I holding the contentious clause a valid ; bequest. Chief Justice Sir Lymun Duff delivered a judgment in which

Justices Davis. Kerwin, and Hudson concurred. Justice Crocket disagreed with some of the reasons of the other Judges, but. arrived at the same conclusion. The contest was based on Clause 9. Other clauses left brewery shares to clergymen and race track shares to opponents of horse racing. I. P. Ilellmuth, counsel for Millar’s ick:lives, argued that Clause 9 tended io encourage, immorality.

hi discussing the question of public policy as a. reason for setting. aside cc.nil acts er bequests the Chief Justice wrote:

“Il is not sufficient to say that some, people may. be, or probably would be, tempted by the. hope of obtaining a legacy to conduct themselves in , a manner Injurious to wife and child-

ren. - ■ , "Cue could easily conjure. up the possibility that similar temptations might be inspired by a bequest of a large fortune- to the grandchildren of a testator, to be divided equally among them, as inviting each of the children to have a numerous offspring in order to secure for his- family as large a proportion as possible of the inheritance.”

QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY On the matter of illegitimate children the Chief Justice wrote: j “The determination of this controversy as to validity involves the] decision of a point of construction; viz., whether the word ‘children’ as hero employed included, illegitimate

children. “Tiiat question was answered in tbe negative by Justice Middleton and by: the Ontario Court of Appeal. We think it sufficient to say that we agree with this, conclusion, which rests upon the reasons fully stated in the able judgments delivered by the Chief Justice of Ontario and Justice Riddell in the Court of Appeal, and by Justice Middleton, and we think it' unnecessary to add anything to these reasons. "The remaining question, concerning which we express our views more at length, is raised by the contention that this clause is void- as against pub-

lic policy. In support of that, contention, we have had a powerful aivumeut from Mr. Ilellmuth, but, git ing due weight to it, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions of the Ontario Judges who unanimously held the clause to be valid.” , _ Mr. Sam Eactor, of the counsel for relatives who appealed the' Millar will case, said on hearing of the decision: “I cannel say whether there will be an appeal to the Privy Council until 1 see the written judgment. If thereare reasons to warrant it, there likely will be an appeal." A member of the law firm of Tilley, Thomson, and Parmenter, executors for the Millar estate, said the case would be returned to Justice Middleton of the Ontario Supreme Court to decide how the fortune was to be divided. The decision finds at least a dozen Toronto women still hoping for the 500,000 dollars. Six of the entrants claim to have had nine babies in the stipulated time. Two claim eight, one repoits seven, and another six. Then there are the special cases of Mrs. Martin Kenny, who unofficially claims twelve eligible, and Mrs. Pauline Mae Clark, who states that she has had nine born in Toronto in tho specified time and one born outside the city. j Mrs. Kenny whispered from her sick bed, “Rll get the money.” She has been ill since giving birth recently to a still-born baby girl, her sixteenth child.