The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-12-27 00:00:00

NEXT OF KIN.

The cause of Polled v. Gray, Lane v. Gray—Prando
v. Gray has been before Vice-Cancellor Sir R. Melina,
and were two suits and a summons instituted by persons
claiming, as next of kin, for the administration of the
estate of Mrs. Mar's Mangiu Brown, late of 28,
Hertford•street, Mayfair, London, widow, who died
intestate on the 21et of December, inf. No next of
kin ooming forward at that time to claim her estate,
administration was granted to Mr. Gray, the
solicitor to the Treasury, as representing the Crown,
and he thereupon pawned himself of property of

the ittliti No amount of avid 8150,000.
ta afterwards, thew two s and the Mr
hUltitatidi lakes the tiff izt. the .- —,_
it at pryfilest appeared, tinearwriere of,_"ff,
the inteitate than eith 'lif the Of.' '•-‘'''e "
suite, it followed, amloding to the prat:tics of the Court,
that an esdrainistretiou decree would, at all events in
the abetence ~f any contest, he made upon the mum-
tains. illbtead of in either of the suits. The question,
therefore, now was whether, under the circumatancee
of the case, different parties claiming the PeePerig,
the necessary inquiries for the next of kin could .1
prosecuted under the summons.
Mr. Glasse, Q.C., and Mr. Maldlow appeared for the
plaintiff in the first cult; Mr. Cotton, Q.C., and Mr.
E. Ford for the plaintiff In the 'fecund; and Mr.
Higgins, Q.C., and Mr. G. Murray-for the plaintiff in
the numinous.
Mr. G. W. Hemming, for the defendant Mr. Gray,
on behalf of the Cr own, contended that the pricreding
by summons would be irregular, inasmuch as thews
would be a contest on the pedigree, and it wee con-
trary to the practice of the Court, as now settled, to
allow conteet,d questions to be decided on a summens.
The rights ,4 the Crown, as representing the public,
could only be satisfactsoily ascertained on an informa-
tion filed by the proper law officer.
The Vice-Chancellor said the Crown was entitled to
have evidence whether there was any next of kin. If
any were found the right of the Crown would be dis-
placed and the next of kin would have the money. lie
shouldhave thought the Crown would have proceeded,
in the shortest possible manner, to ascertain whether
there were any next of kin, for if there were none the
money might be then applied towards the reduction
of the National Debt. or to some pert of the public
service. How, then, was this simple matter to be
ascertained,? It wee said that it could not be done on an
administration summons; but his opinion was that it
could, and the counsel for the Crown had not been able ti
Cite a single ease against that view' except a cane which
was before Vice-Chancellor Stuart in Chambers in
1864. That case, however, was not argued by counsel,
and probably there were particular reasons why the
Vice-Chancellor decided that an inquiry as to the
next of kin on the summons was irregular. There
were several cases which showed that such inquiries
could be made on summons, though if a summons
involving such inquiries came before him in Chambers
he was not sure he would noway that a bill had much
better be filed, and even direct a bill to be tiled.
But what 1.714tl the icquirs here? It was simply who
were the intestate's next of kin. There was no
object in having a distinct suit, because, if a bill was
filed, it would be by one law officer of the Crown
against another. lie saw no reason for not making a
decree in all three cases. If it should turn out that the
Intestate was illegitimate, there would be no next of
kin and the Crown would remain in possession of the
money. If she were legitimate, then the next of kin
would have it. Hs should therefore snake one decree
in all three suits, directing an inquiry to ...certain who
were the next of kin; and, if it should appear that any
of the plaintiffs were the next of kin, then there must
be the common administration decree.