The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

ie pointed out that the Lords' dfc:is_ic_)_r_a gave to the fathor of the girl killed in the action in question $1,500 damages under the statute dealing with fatal accidents. Then the father, in his capacity as execuy-- The decision was held to be equally applicable to the Ontario statutes, and accordingly, damages in this Province may be based en-- tirely upon the value of the de-- ceased to the dependents at the time of death. 'The amendment which Mr. Strachan _ sponsored would eliminate this cause for ac-- tion under the "expectancy of life" feature in the Trustee Act, or in other words, would restore the basis of actions to the condition which prevailed before the House of Lords made its decision. In _ historical background, Mr. Strachan and other members ex-- plained that under a decision given late last year by the House of Lords on the Rose versus Ford case, bear-- ing on an English statute compar-- able to the Fatal Accident Act and Trustee Act, that executors of a person killed in an accident could secure damages from the person re-- sponsible for the accident on the basis of the dead person's "expect. ancy of life." whn sponsored the amendment, hinted also that when the act came before the Legal Bills Committee, he would make two suggestions,. one of which would have reference to the costs of funcral expenses. The suggestions were made en-- tirely on the assumption that the amendment, ordered to the Legal Bills Committee for further argu-- ment, would be passed by the Hoause. Hon. Gordon Conant, Attorney-- General, told the members he felt the basis of damages under the act was too narrow and might reason-- ably be extended, a view which was held also by Hon. Leopold Mac-- aulay, Opposition Leader, and L. M. Frost (Cons., Virtoria). lan Strachan (Lib., St. George), who -- sponsored the amendment. Indication the Ontario Legislature would move toward extending the basis of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, was given yesterday during House debate on the amend-- ment to the Trustee Act. SENT TO COMMITTEE Opposition to Amendment Claims Insurance Rates Affected PLAN WIDENING DAMAGE BASIS \__Mr. Macaulay revealed that prior to the argument on the bill he was | Inclined to oppose it, and he said he was prepared now to support it if the Attorney--General would in-- | clude in the Statute Law Amend-- ments Act legislation that would | widen the Fatal Accidents Act ac-- \cording to such terms as might be advised by the members of the | Legal Bills Committee. _ _Both Premier Hepburn and Mr. |Conant intimated that the matter , would be taken under advisement. David A. Croll (Windsor--Walker-- ville) opposed the amendment, claim-- Ing the immediate family of an ac-- cidentally killed person was surely entitled to something because that person was deprived of his life. He suggested, tono, that Frank Spence (Cons., Fort William) had "let the cat out of the bag when he said the only group interested in seeing this amendment becoming law was the Insurance companies." tor, sued for the less of expectancy of life under the section correspond-- ing to the Ontario Trustee Act, and received $7,500 on behalf of the estate. Arri\ 2. "On a subsequent date I reiter-- ated my request to include all mem-- bers, because I don't think Toronto legislation is a political thing. The meeting did not transpire, and some of the legislation come to me only a week or so." Mr. Strachan pointed out <that when he introduced the Torontna bill he had suggested that the bill should be advanced to the commit-- tee stage, where proper representa-- tion could be given to its contents. Instead of that it was rejected by the House in second reading. He claimed there was something wrong with a procedure that allowed a bill to be hoisted in this fashion, and suggested a remedy migzht be found in sending a bill of that character directly to committee after first reading. He, too, recommended _ there should be a pre--session conference on city legislation. A. W. Roebuck, Liberal, Bell-- woods and former Attornev--Gen-- eral, who in a recent statement be-- fore the House made outspoken criticism of the City Hall's failure to acquaint members of the legis-- lation, declared: "I am not greatly disturbed by this little explosion of the Toronto Mayor. He is quite wrong when he says we didn't know enough about the bills. The trouble was we knew too much about some of them." "It is just cheap politics on the Mayor's part, it is unwarranted, gratuitous, unseemly and impudent. I don't think our constituents want us to be rubber stamps for any mu-- nicipal Government and I don't think we should be castigated for reéfuzing to do so," Mr. Glass de-- clared in reply to Mayor Day. "The Toronto members should have been called in consultation on legislation. Ian Strachan, Lib., St. George and Party Whip, declared that he had asked Mayor Day one month before the Legislature sat if he would call the Toronto members together and discuss with them the Toronto leg-- islation. Responsibility for any lack of co-- operation that may have existed during this present session of the Ontario Legislature between To-- ronto members and the civic ad-- ministration, was placed yesterday by Liberal members squarely upon the City Hall authorities. GLASS ANSWERS DAY Mayor Ralph Day, J. J. Glass, Lib., St. Andrew, reported to the House, had criticized in published state-- ments the Toronto members in re-- spect to their handling of Toronto legislation, had claimed they were unco--operative and had ignored in-- vitations to meet the Board of Con-- trol in conference over legislation desired by the city. TORONTO BILLS FAILURE LAID 1O CITY HALL oronto Liberal Members Claim Parleys Should Have Been Held