A HOME-MADE WILL.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 34, 11 May 1907, Page 2

A HOME-MADE WILL.

The Rights of Illegitimate Children,

THE case of the will of the late John Coles, which was the sub-

ject of an appeal before the Supreme Court last week, presents some interesting features. John Coles was married in 1896 and died in 1906. In 1900 he made a will in which, after providing for a couple of other legacies, he left the rest of his property, as stated in the will, "to my wife and children, my wife, Jeanie Coles, to do as she thinks best for the children with the same." As a matter of fact, there 7 had been no children of the marriage, but Coles was the father of three illegitimate children, all of whom had been born before the marriage. Mrs Coles was not the mother of any of these children. The Commissioner held that these three children were intended to benefit under the will, and an appeal against this decision was made, evidently by reason of the children's illegitimacy. His Honor finally allowed the appeal, stating that illegitimate children did not benefit under the will.

The main question at issu& appeared to be whether the wording of the will did not imply that the children mentioned in the will were the three natural children of the deceased. His Honor held that, as" the 'wirf waaTfilKte' in 1900, it was in no way impossible for legitimate children to be born. The wording of the will is ( vague, which is not perhaps to be wondered

at, considering that the deceased drew it tip himself. It is only another example of the folly of a home-made will. The words might have application to the illegitimate children, or to any ether children who might subsequently be born in wedlock. In any case, the mere fact that two of these illegitimate children continued to reside with Mr and Mrs Coles after their marriage would seem to imply that they were looked upon as members of the family, and, as such, were the children referred to in the will.

But there is another side from which the question can be looked at. By all the laws of common humanity, illegitimate children ought to have as much right to share in their father's bequests as those who are legitimate. It is the parents who are culpable, not the children, syid the sins of the parents should not be visited upon their progeny. It is no fault of illegitimate children that they are born out of wedlock. In fact, more responsibility ought to rest with the father in providing for illegitimate than for legitimate offspring, for the former unfortunate beings are handicapped heavily enough in the race of life without having further disabilities placed upon them. In the case of Coles, as we have said, the children were morally legitimate, in two inetances at least, by what might be termed residential qualification.

But, whether legitimate or not, it is clear that some provision should have been made for them, and it is just as equally clear that Coles himself was desirous of making such provision. The omissioD of the word "natural" before the word "children" in the will has been the stumbling block. This may be eminently satisfactory from a legal point of view, but legal principles cannot always be satisfactorily applied to a matter of ethics. The judgment recorded in this case may set up a dangerous precedent, and although it is unquestionable that this judgment has been built Dn a basis of facts, still it presents features which cannot be viewed with any very great amount of complacency.

In the interests of those unfortunate beings who, for the sins of others, are born out of wedlock, it is necessary that those responsible should see that due provision is made tor them in case of accidents. Itisaresponsibility which should be carried out with great care, for when the moral aspect comes into conflict with the legal aspect, morality generally comes in a bad second And, above all, it is abundantly plain that the provision for the welfare of illegitimate children — or any other legatees, for that matter— can never be adequately safeguarded through the medium of a home made will.