There seems to be no absolutely fixed law in regard either of inheritance, or testamentary dispositions of property; but certain general principles are recognised, which the Court will not allow to be disregarded without sufficient cause.

CASE I

DECISION OF LI HSIN-SHUI

Paternal property equally divisible between sons whether by 1st or 2nd wife, subject to claim

of 1st wife for burial expenses, etc.

In this case, Ho Shêng-chi and the deceased Ho Sheng-chung were by the 1st venter, and Ho Shêng-mao and Ho Shêng-hui by the 2nd venter, and their father seems to have left an

estate of 47 mu of land to the four in common. The principal wife Mrs Lo does not appear to have had equal affection for all the children, but to have grasped the whole for Sheng-chi, but eventually

not only holding the property, but selling it secretly for Tls. 150

the sale being

in the name of Mrs Lo, but really for the benefit of Shêng-chi.

Now however comes a bad business on the part of Sheng-mao, who, though at first opposing his half-brother, seems to have been won over by the bribes and cajolery of Mrs Lo and her son to their side, and to forgetfulness of his full brother Shêng-hui who is left single-handed in the lurch.

When the case came on, Sheng-chi had not a word to say for himself; but Sheng-mao, thrusting himself forward, flourished about, saying Mrs Lo was the head of the family and Shêng-chi was his elder brother, that he was quite willing that Tls. 50 should be set aside for Mrs Lo's funeral expenses, and that the remaining Tls. 100 were still in Sheng-chi's possession, and had not been made away with.

We wondered at this, not seeing from where Shêng-mao had got his surprising knowledge of propriety, and unable to reconcile his present selfabnegation with his previous attack on his elder brother, when, hearing an exclamation of disgust, our attention was drawn to Shêng-hui who was standing there and questioning him, the whole story came out as clear as the palm of your hand, and Sheng-mao's scheme fell to pieces.

expenses

The fair decision therefore seems to be that Tls. 50 should be set aside for Mrs Lo's funeral for though the sum be more than sufficient, it is a duty of children to provide for the burial of their mother, and the principal wife is entitled to privileges over the secondary wives; and further that the remaining Tls. 100 be divided into four shares, and Tls. 25 each given to Shêng-chi, Shêng-mao, Shêng-hui, and Ho Wên-shui son of the deceased Sheng-chung. All agree to this, and the case is at an end; but as quarrelling among brothers is not commendable, Shêng-chi and Sheng-mao must be chastised according to their deserts. Shêng-chi is to pay the various shares. per Li Hsin-shui M.

C. E. G.

37

Note. The principle laid down is that at the death of a father his property is considered to be vested in all his sons equally, whether by the venter of his principal or secondary wife; and although the principal wife if surviving has a certain right of administration, and a claim on the estate for provision for her funeral, the property does not vest in her, and may on cause shewn be distributed among the heirs; also that on the decease of one of the joint heirs, his interest vests in his heir or heirs. Further it appears that a secondary wife has no claim on an estate.

CASE 2

DECISION OF LI HSIN-SHUI

Sons, whether by first or second venter, must share and share alike. A junior should for form yield his senior a larger share,

but the senior should not accept it.

This is a dispute between Yao Wu-chu and Yao Wu-wei, arising out of a mistake on the part of their deceased father Yao Ta-hua.

Wu-chü appears to have been the son of

Ta-hua's first wife, and Wu-wei only of his second. But although Wu-wei was young then, he would grow up afterwards, and Ta-hua having the reputation of knowing what was due to his children, should not have exalted the child of his first wife and abased the child of his second, by leaving the first 6/10ths and the latter 4/10ths only of his property.

And Wu-chu on giving the matter full consideration should have set the will aside and paid no attention to it, coming to a fair arrangement with his brother; for the maxim "the will of the "father should be respected" was uttered with regard to the succession to a kingdom, and cannot be quoted by Wu-chü in the matter of family

succession.

Nor does the maxim "the younger brother "should take the less share of the fruit" apply

for it is not said that the elder brother should take the greater.

I do not think however my predecessor was right in ordering Wu-chu to pay his brother Tls. 2,000, as this was impoverishing the elder to enrich the younger, and his imprisonment and