action is brought against the wife by a third person who has acted in good faith, for valuable consideration, and in ignorance of the real facts as to the character of the wife's obligation.

It may probably now be said that the rule is an absolute one even in such a case. (Dame H. Ricard v. La Banque Nationale (1893), Q. R. 3 Q. B. 161.)

Such a transaction, being " une fraude à la loi et à l'ordre public," is an absolute and radical nullity.

It is apparent from the above that a person having business transactions with a married woman in the Province of Quebec must look well to his steps. If the husband does not join in the transaction, the obligation of the wife may be void for want of authorization. If he does join in the transaction, it may be equally void as being "contrary to public policy." To the legal maxim "caveat emptor" it would be well to add, in the Province of Quebec, the words "et qui cum muliere contrahit."

Strange to say, no precautions are necessary when dealing with spinsters and widows, the law having apparently unbounded confidence in their ability to protect themselves.

Maintenance.

Marriage involves not merely the ordinary obligation upon the husband and wife to maintain and bring up their children (Art. 165), but children are bound to maintain their father, mother, and other ascendants, who are in want.

Sons-in-law and daughters-in-law are also obliged in like circumstances to maintain their father-in-law and mother-inlaw and vice versâ. (Arts. 166, 167.)

Note, this last obligation ceases when the consort through whom the affinity existed and all the children issue of the marriage are dead. (Art. 167 (2).)

See for a recent instance of the law enforced by a married woman against her father-in-law, Gallagher v. McEnroe, Q. R. 17 S. C. 294.

Mothers-in-law stand in an advantageous position in the Province of Quebec, as will be seen by the following example.

The plaintiff brought an action for support against her son-in-law, who pleaded as a defence that the conduct of the plaintiff left much to be desired, and that she was a source of scandal to her minor children, over whom she did not exercise sufficient surveillance, of which instances were given. The Court overruled this plea with costs. (Poissant v. Racette, Q. R. 14 S. C. 441.)

When the mother-in-law contracts a second marriage, the obligation to maintain her ceases. (Art. 167.)

An interesting case was recently decided by the Superior Court. (Barnes v. Brown, Q. R. 7 S. C. 287.) The facts were these. A young woman married in the city of New York and came with her husband to Montreal, where, after remaining for some time, he abandoned her. She took an action for an alimentary allowance against her father-inlaw, the writ being served upon him in Montreal during a temporary visit. The action was, however, dismissed on the ground that the obligation to furnish aliment being an obligation arising from the operation of law solely, a person such as the defendant, who was not subject to that law, and by the law of whose domicil, which was also the place of the marriage of the plaintiff to his son, no obligation is imposed upon a father-in-law to maintain or contribute to the support of children-in-law, could not be held liable when he ceased to be within the Province.

Evidence.

Married persons are as a general rule incapable of testifying for or against each other. (Code of Procedure, Art. 314.) This rule, drawn from the Roman law (domestici testimonii fides reprobatur), is to be found also in the present

French Code.

It is supposed to be based on principles of public policy, in order to prevent the danger of perjury from the use of marital influence were the wife allowed to testify on behalf of the husband, and in order to preserve family secrets, and to encourage mutual confidence between husband and wife. "Placée ainse entre son mari et sa conscience, celle-ci

fléchira, et le parjure devient un fait accompli.”

"This rule," says Greenleaf (16th ed., vol. 1, s. 334), "is founded partly on the identity of their legal rights and interests; and partly on principles of public policy, which lie at the basis of civil society. For it is essential to the happiness of social life that confidence subsisting between husband and wife should be sacredly protected and cherished in its most unlimited extent, and to break down or impair the great principles which protect the sanctities of the relation would be to destroy the best solace of human existence."

To this general rule as between husband and wife there. is one exception.

When they are separated as to property and the one has acted as agent for the other in administering the goods of the other, then the agent may be examined as a witness in regard to the matter of the administration, if the Court before which the matter is pending shall think proper to allow it. (See 2 Rev. Leg. 390; 6 Rev. Leg. 1.)

In Ontario, in civil matters, there is no incompetency to testify by reason of crime or interest; parties to actions, and the husbands and wives of such parties, are competent and compellable to give evidence.

No consort, however, can be compelled to disclose any communication made by the other during the marriage; this privilege extends to all communications, not merely to those which are confidential. (R. S. O. c. 73, ss. 4, 8.)

In criminal matters the protection of married persons is carried somewhat further; consorts are not merely, as in civil matters, not compellable to disclose any communication made to each other during marriage, but are not competent to make such disclosure. (R. S. C. c. 56, s. 4.)

WILLS.

The commissioners who prepared the draft Civil Code, from which the present Code is derived, say in their report (p. 171) that they "are fain to believe that by means of amendments, which are few in number, they have approximated the main features of these forms (that is French and English forms) in such a manner as to offer upon the subject a distinctly Canadian law, which does not essentially depart from either one or other of its sources."

There are three methods in which a will may be validly made in the Province of Quebec:

(a) In notarial or authentic form;

(b) In writing and in presence of two witnesses, in the form derived from the laws of England;

(e) In the form required for holograph wills. (C. C., Art. 842.)

While the formalities prescribed by the Code for making a will "must be observed on pain of nullity," yet it is provided that wills purporting to be made in one form, which are void in consequence of the inobservance of some formalitics, may be valid as made in another form, if they contain all the requisites of the latter. (Art. 855.)

(a) Notarial.

Wills in notarial or authentic form are received before two notaries, or before a notary and two witnesses.

The testator, in their presence and with them, signs the will or declares that he cannot do so, after it has been read to him by one of the notaries in presence of the other, or by the notary in the presence of the witnesses. (Art. 843.)

By the Code (Art. 856) no letters probate of an authentic required, the original remains with the notary, and

will are

the originals and legally certified copies of wills made in such form make proof in the same manner as other authentic writings (Art. 856), "i.e., they are authentic and make proof of their contents without any evidence of the signature or seal appended to them, or of the official character of the officer."

But the executor named in such a will was held in Ontario not to be entitled to ancillary probate under a statute providing that where "any probate or letters of administration, or other legal document purporting to be of the same nature, a Court of competent jurisdiction in any Pro

granted by

vince" is produced to the registrar of any Surrogate Court in Ontario, ancillary probate shall be granted.

The Court held that, although the executor might not be obliged to produce the will before any Court for probate as authority to act under it, he would necessarily have to prove the testator's death in any proceeding he might have to bring

under it, and that the will had not been revoked," and that consequently such a document is "far from being the equivalent of letters probate or letters of administration which import death leaving an unrevoked will or death intestate.” (In re Maclaren, 22 A. R. (b) English Form, 18.)

(b) English Form.

Wills made in the form derived from the laws of England must be in writing and signed at the end with the signature or mark of the testator in presence of two competent witnesses together, who attest and sign the will immediately in presence of the testator and at his request. (Art. 851).

(c) Holograph Will,

The holograph will is one which is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator, and was recognized by Roman law.

By the policy which now prevails throughout England, Canada (except Quebec and Manitoba), and most parts of the United States, holograph wills stand on no privileged footing. but require to be attested like other instruments.

The law of Quebec and Manitoba differs from that of the other Provinces of the Dominion in recognizing a will in this form, as is done by the law of Louisiana and some other States.

The Code, Art. 850, provides that "holograph wills must be wholly written and signed by the testator, and require neither notaries nor witnesses. They are subject to no particular form."

The essentials of a holograph will were discussed in the case of Reeves v. Cameron (Q. R. 2 Q. B. 232), decided by the Court of Appeal, which reversed the judgment of the Superior Court. The facts were these:

In 1875 Madme. Metzler brought from Ottawa one of her nephews, John J. Reeves, who lived with her and took care of her until her death in 1878. In 1868 she made a will before notaries in favour of J. J. Reeves and two other nephews. After her death J. J. Reeves produced and proved a holograph will, a writing, without date, in these terms: