An important legal question, involving Section It of the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, will have to be settled by Judge A. Mossop as a result of an action drought by Mrs. Esther Benjamin against Mr. A. J. Kane, as administra. for of the estate of the late David Hai Benjamin, in HM. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Nov. 5. Mfr. B. Hartopp is appearing for both parties in the sult, while Mfr, John MeNeiil appearing on behalf' of the Midland Investment Ca., interested creditors against the estate." After a hearing that lasted all day, Judge Mossop ad= Jourmed the case sine die, Section LI of the act in question sets out that if a man effects an expressed policy to be in favour of his wife an immediate trust Jo created in her favour, a trust that cannot be revoked. In the present case, policy for Tls. 10,000 was taken out: by the late Mr. Benjamin in 108), whereby the Sun Life Assurance Ca, of Canada agreed to pay the amount due on his death to his legal representative On November 7, 1934, he took out form termed an Appropriation of Polley, which varied the policy by inserting the words "I do hereby vary the Benjamin estate, Should the court decide against him, he would further contend that in any case, Mrs. Benjamin's share, ap-Droximately two-fifths, should be refected. "When his Lordship pointed out that it would be necessary. for the plaintiff to prove that her husband intended the money he ccntri-Duted to be a gift to her, Mr. Hartopp remarked: "When a wife asks her husband to buy something for her, nine times out of ten he is expected find the money."
In adjourning the case, sine die his Lordship remarked that," immediately upon his return to Shanghai, he would set as early a date as possible for a continuation of the hearing of the ease.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.