The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-03-18 00:00:00

"STRANGER IN BLOOD" IN THE
LEGACY DUTY ACT.

In the Vice-Chancellor's Court, In London, last week, the
cause of "SkAto we v. Young " was heard, and was an In-
terest,i g case, which came before the Court on a triostion of
legacy duty, the (oration substantially, though thridentally
raised, being whrther children born previously to the mar-
riage of an ELglishmau domiciled in N'rat.ce are legitimate or
Illegitimate in the eye of the law of England:—

In this muse the teetat Thomas Skottowe, was an
Englishman who had for many years resided in
France. In 1852 he married a French lady, by whom
he had previously had two children, who were
acknowledged by him at the time of his marriage, and
were thereby rendered legitimate, according to French
law. The effect of this acknowledgment is that the
children are, for the purpoireesof the French law,
placed on the same footing in every respect as children
tsam in marriage. Two children were born after
the marriage, and in 18G8 the testator, who was en-
titled to lasge property in England, including mines in
NorthuraberlandandDurham, made his will, andthere-
by settled his property on trusts for the benefit of his
wife and children, diretiting it to be sold and the
proceeds to be invested in the manner usually adopted
when it is desired that teal property should be treated
for the purpose of inheritance as personalty. The
testator died shortly after the date of his will, and a
suit was instituted in Chancery for its administration,
under which inquiries were directed as to the testator'a
domicile and the amount and value of his property.
Tne resnit of the inquiries was that the testator's
domicile was found to be French. A claim was then
advanced by the Legacy Duty Department to be paid
ten per cent. on the property left to the two children
born previously to the marriage, on the ground that,
according to the English law, they were not legitimate,
and the case now came before the Court for argument.
Mr. Dickinson, Q C., and Mr. Hemming appeared
in suppJrt of the petition; Mr. %V. %V. Karslake for
the Crown.

The Vice-Chancellor said the question is as to the
meaning of the wor Is " stranger in blood" in the
10-gary Duty At. If the daughter of the testator
deicribed in the wid as his daughter is by the law of
France ligitimate, and must therefore in this country
. . . .

have the ;talus of 'legitimacy, it is not easy to see hot;
she can he called a "stranger in blood" to the teatator,
whose legitimate daughter she is. Where the Legacy
Duty Act uses the words " stranger in blood," they
are used to describe the states of the person. In the
cage of " ltirtwhietle v. Vardill" (2 Clark and F.,
575), it was admitted that the claimant had in En,land
the status of the eldest legitimate son ,1 his father ; but
that when he claimed to be the heir entitled to inherit
land in England, it was not enough to prove that he
had the status of eldest son of his father ; he must
prove that he bad the character of heir according to
the law of the country in which the land was situated.
And, as he could not prove that he was the el-lest sem
born in 1 swful wedlock, he failed to prove that
he was heir accuring to the hay of England,
although he had the status of eldest legitimate
son. It is argued that the words "stranger
ia blood must mean that status according to the
law of England as applied to English persons; bust
I the will is the will of a domiciled Frenchman, and the
status of the te,tators ant of his daughter must be
their status, ace erdimg to the law of France, and this,
as described in " Birtwhietle r. Var ma: t be
their status in England. If in that case the status
was that of the sliest legitimate son of his father, I
apprehend it would he absurd to say that, although
the eldest legitim de am' he was a 'stranger in
blcod." The status of this lady bring that of a
daughter legit'mate by the 1 sw of France en a declara-
tion, of the fal her, it seems to he impossible that she
can be treated seen "stranger in blood "to her father
on the n-ere ground that d she had been an Enalish.
woman and the testator an Englishman she weld be
c unsidered illegitimate. The trust for conversion in
, this case is a valid trust, and the property in view of
I this Court personal property. It seems tsme I can.
' not c -wider the status of this lady in this conn•ry
is that of a "stranger in blood" to the person to-
wards whom she has in this country the status of a
legitimate daoghter ' • and the legacy duty must,
therefore, be calculated at the rate of I not of 10 per
cent.