LIVED TWO HOURS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20649, 25 June 1935, Page 10

LIVED TWO HOURS.

Child Who Had Share in Estate. A LEGAL PROBLEM. SYDNEY, June 14. An unusual legal problem concerning the rights, under a will, of a child who lived for a couple of hours only, came before a Sydney Court recently* The Court, on an originating summons bv the Public Trustee and others, was to decide whether a child born in a condition which gave it no chance of continued separate existence became entitled, nevertheless, to a share under the will of its grandfather. Medical evidence was given that although the child had a separate circulation for a couple of hours, it had been doomed from the outset. Under the will, if this child had not been born, four persons would have divided a certain property. If, however, the child could be said “ to have lived,” then the share became divisible into fifths and the one-fifth share of the child would pass to its next of kin as an intestacy. In the course of argument, reference was made to various authorities on medical jurisprudence. It was contended on one side that the Court could not distinguish between a child who had lived for any appreciable time whatever for a week or a month. Against this it was argued that testator could not possibly have contemplated that such a child would have participated in the distribution of the estate. The presiding Judge said that testator had left the fund to persons whom he described as “ his or her children.” He thought that the word “children” was used in a general term without reference to different classes of children. As it was impossible to distinguish between children who could not live and those who might live a comparatively short time, he would have to hold that this child shared under the will, and that its share now went to the next of kin.