WHAT THE PAPERS SAY.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXIX, Issue 225, 23 September 1907, Page 3

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY.

AN INSURANCE CASE. A judgment lately given by the law lords of the Privy Council in an appeal from the New South Wales Supreme Court is of very generaljnterest and importance. A man named Andrew Mattson was, in October, 1902, admitted as an insane patient to the hospital at Callan Park, New South Wales, and died there in July, 1904. He had in February, 1893, effected an insurance on his life for. £200. The policy was payable at the expiration of twenty years or sooner en the death of the deceased. Mattson died without issue, unmarried and intestate. His nearest relatives appeared to be brothers and sisters residing in Sweden and America. The Curator of Intestate Estates received' the proceeds of the policy; Mattson having left no other estate. During the time Mattson was in the asylum he was maintained out of the public revenue, and £68 2s 2d was due to the Crown on that count. The Master in Lunacy claimed from the Curator that sum. The Curator refused to allw the claim, on the ground that the proceeds cf the policy were pro-. te«!;cd by the provisions of the Life, i' 'ire and Marine Insurance Act, 1902. Then the Attorney-General petitioned tho Supreme Court for an order directing tho Curator to pay the amount claimed out of the funds in his hands. The petition was heard before Mr Justice Walker, who held that tho proceeds of the policy were protented against debts, and that protection applied to debts of the Crown as well as those of ordinary creditors, and accordingly he rejected the peti-! ticn._ Ths fnll Court affirmed that j decision. The case was taken to the Privy Council, which has not allowed ! the appeal. In delivering judgment Sir Arthur Wilson said the rights of j tlia Crown in such a ease, unless affected by the provisions of th© Act,, ware clear and indisputable. The i Crown was entitled not only to be paid, but, by virtue of its prerogative^ to be paid in priority to all other creditors. The question, therefore, arose whether the present Act bound the Crown. The Crown was not! named in it, and there was no clear I indication of an intention to bind the j Crown. The Council, following the settled principle applicable to such cases ?> decided that th© Statute in j question div not, as.a matter of law, bind the Crown. The appeal was therefore allowed. If the same position obtains in New Zealand it1 should receive early consideration

from the Government. — Lyttelton Times.