HC Deb 26 October 1909 vol 12 c836

asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of Alderman Wells, of Manchester, who, being largely indebted to his trade creditors, has been found to be a lunatic; whether the whole of Wells' assets, amounting to £1,800, are now in the possession of the Masters in Lunacy, who have informed his creditors that the assets will be used for the support of Wells until exhausted, and that the creditors will get nothing unless he dies before they are so exhausted; and whether Mrs. Wells, who is reported to possess considerable private means, is being called on to contribute towards her husband's support?


In the case referred to in this question the Master in Lunacy has followed the long-established practice, founded on legal decisions, of devoting the property of the lunatic, which is not so large as the sum mentioned in the question, in the first instance to the lunatic's maintenance, no doubt to the disadvantage of the creditors. I have inquired as to the suggestion that Mrs. Wells has property, but I find that to be a mistake. She has no means whatever.