1. These two appeals can he dealt with together. The appellant was appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor in March 1931 and thereafter the minor was in the custody of the appellant. Subsequently the minor seems to have run away, and at any rate gone through some sort of marriage with a young girl of sixteen which the learned Judge in the Court below describes as an invalid marriage. The present petition which originated in an attempt by the appellant to recover custody of the minor resulted in an application for his removal from guardianship, and in the affidavit it is stated that the appellant had been ill-treating the minor. Beyond that affidavit and the evidence of the minor himself in Court, which is far from convincing, there was no other evidence with regard to ill-treatment. The appellant did not give evidence himself or call any evidence; and he was removed from guardianship and the present guardian was appointed instead. In making the order appointing the present guardian and removing the appellant, the original guardian, the learned Judge referred to the statement made by the minor that he had been ill-treated but did not come to any finding whatever on that question. He proceeded to say that the minor being about 19 years of age was sufficiently old to be able to express a preference for one person over another for his guardian. That of course is not a reason at all for the removal of a guardian. The reasons for the removal of guardians are set out in Section 39, Guardians and Wards Act; and that certainly is not one of them; and Courts removing guardians must, first of all, be satisfied that there are present one or more of the reasons for the removal of guardians set out in that section and should expressly state what the reasons are which justify the order removing the guardian. Here the learned Judge has not given any reason for the removal of the appellant. It is left to be a matter of conjecture only that he was purporting to remove the guardian by reason of the guardian's proved ill-treatment of the minor. But he does not say so.
2. It was his duty to say so if that were his opinion upon the evidence. As it is he has not given any finding which would justify the removal of the appellant, the guardian who had already been appointed. That being so, it seems to me that the appellant ought not to have been removed. But it appears that the minor has either just become a major, or is about to become one, so that it is hardly necessary to make any order with regard to a change of guardianship. Either there is no longer a guardian needed by reason of the minor having become a major, or there is a very short period of minority left. It is therefore not necessary to change the present guardian. But since the appellant, the original guardian, was removed without any good reason being assigned, the appellant will be entitled to his costs of one appeal (Appeal No. 144 of 1934). No order as to costs in C. M. A. No. 145 of 1934
3. I agree with my Lord the Chief Justice.