INSURANCE POLICIES AND DEBTS TO THE CROWN.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 3 October 1907, Page 1

INSURANCE POLICIES AND DEBTS TO THE CROWN.

The law Lords of the Privy Council recently gave judgment in an important appeal from the N.S. Wales Supreme Court, brought by the AttorneyGeneral of that State, (writes a London correspondent under 'date August 9th). The facts of the «Ls«.;wera as follow : — Andrew Matt Eon Was, . in October, 1902, admitted as an "insane patient to the hospital at Callah" • Park, New South Wales, and died there in July, 1904. He had, in February, . 1893, effected an insurance on his life for £200 with the Colonial Mutual. The policy was payable at the expiration of 20 years, or sooner on 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 .^states received the proceeds of the policy, Mattson having left, no other estate. During the time Mattson was. in tha asylum he was maintained out of tha public revenue, and £68 2s 2d was dua to the Crown on that count. Tha Master in Lunacy claimed from tha Curator that sum. : Tjie. Curator re- < fused to allow the ' claim, on tha : ground that the proceeds of the policy " were protected by. tfie- provisions of I the Life, Fire*,. Snd Marine Insurance. Act, 1902. Thereupon the Attorney- • General petitioned the Supreme" Court > for an order directing the Curatoi 1 lo ' pay the amount out of the funds ia ' , his hands. The petition was heard ba- ' fore Mr Justice Walker, who held that ' the proceeds of the .policy wera pro--1 tected against . debts, .and that that 1 protection applied to debts of tha 1 Crown as well .as to those of ordinary creditors, and .accordingly ha rejected 1 the petition. The Pull. Court, Mr Justice Cohen dissenting', affirmed that decision. In delivering their Lordship*- judgment, Sir Arthur Wilson' said tha rights of the Crown in. such a case, unless affected by the 'provisions of the Act, were clear and indisputable. The Crown was entitled ntft.onljr to b\^ paid, but, by virtue of }U prerogative, to be paid in priority.. to all othe.l creditors. The question therefore, arose whether the present Act bound the Crown. The Crown was, not named in it, nor could their Lofcbshjps see any clear indication of an intention to bind the Crown. Prima fa.cie, therefore, the Crown was not affected by it. Counsel for respondent endeavoured to show that the rule exempting th« Crown from the operation of a statua which did not name the Crown or show a clear intention to bind .tie Crown was not applicable to a statute .which would not have the effect of imposing a burden on the Crown or interfering with its property, or with some^prerogativo right belonging to the Crown and not shared by the subject; and he sought to show that what the Insurance Act did was to protect the proceeds of insnTance and prevent their being made applicable to the payment of debts generally, contrary to the general rule of law, interfering thus with the right, common to the Crowp and to the subject, to claim payment of the .debts o£ Lordships thought it unnecessary to follow the legal argument'' of the learned! counsel further,, because, if the present. Act b« held to bind the Crown, ii would directly take 'atray 'not only thn right to claim payment _of a debt, bit. the clearly prerogative right to prior'tr of payment. Their' Lordships were of opinion, that, according to the settled principle applicable to such ease's, th» Statute in question did not bind th» Crown. Their Lordships w<rald humblr advise His Majesty that,. th« appeal should be allowed, and that the judgments of Mr- Justice .Walker and tha Full Court should b» net aside, and a« order made for payment by the Curator to the Master in Lunacy of £68 2s 2d, and to the Attorney-General of his costg I in both courts in the colony.