The Express.
London, England, 1861-06-15 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.

(115031 0= owl

PARIS, FRIDAY Evianra.

The trial of Blanqui and his companions, accused
of belonging to a secret society called the " Com-
mittee of Resistance," was proceeded with to-day.
The indictment was of a very vague description,
the principal fact of recent date being that in
March last the police found at the house of Blau-
qui's sister, Madame Antoine, No. 22, Rue Haute-
feuille, 3,000 envelopes, with addresses on them,
half of which were in the handwriting of Blanqui.
In answer to the questions of the President (M.
Rohault de Fleury), Blanqui, who had only
answered the Judge of Instruction in monosyllables,
said that he would speak candidly to-day in the
face of the court, but that he would give no answer
to the police reports, which were a tissue of lies,
and represented him as having preached "indi-
vidual war"—meaning to insinuate that he would
assassinate the Emperor. He denied that
he belonged to the Marianne—he did not
believe that such a society had ever existed. He
denied that since he came to Paris in 1860 he had
been to England and Switzerland ; he had no more
been there than he had to China or Japan. He
had passed in France under a false name, to spare
himself the annoyance of the police. He admitted
writing the 1,500 addresses, but said it was not
for him to say what his object was. He had an
intention at a certain time to communicate some-
thing of importance to the public. Most of the
3,000 addresses, as the court might see, by refer-
ring to the book, were taken from the directory.
As to the four prisoners sitting beside Lim, whose
names were on the envelopes, the police might just
as well have indicted as conspirators theother 2,906;
that would have made a grand massacre of in-
nocents. He did not understand on what legal
principle he was to be prosecuted for writing ad-
dresses on envelopes unless the prosecution was
prepared to show what writing he intended to put
into them. He admitted that after the quarter of
a century which he had passed in prison his politi-
cal principles were the same as before ; but he
strongly repudiated all idea of political assassina-
tion. The trial will not be over till a late hour.

The Imperial Court decided yesterday a case of
great importance as regards the rights of British
subjects having property in France. The facts
were shortly these: Mies Mary Kelly, • British
subject, residing at Versailles, made her will there
in the English form on January 24, 1824,
and died, still residing in France, on Feb. 2,
1846. It is admitted that notwithstanding
her long residence abroad she had not lost
her English dersicik, and that her personal
succession was regulated by English law. The
testatrix was an illegitimate child, and as she died
unmarried it is a consequence, according to

English law, that she left behind her neither heirs
nor next of kin. By her will she bequeathed to
Sarah Innes,whom she described as "her mother,"
all her jewels, and 1,0001., the said 1,0001., after
Sarah lance' death, to be applied for the benefit
of such charitable catholic establishments as

she (I understand the pronoun " she " as
applying to the legatee for life) might
appoint. She left, moreover, a legacy of
1,0001. to the Rev. Thomas Wassail, 1001. to erect
a tombstone to her father, 1,0001. to James Kelly,
another 1,0001. to the Benedictine College of St.
Gregory, and a legacy to a benedictine convent in
Warwickshire. Finally, she appointed James
Kelly, the Rev. Thomas Wassail, and John Burke,
her executors. For reasons which do not appear,
but which are unimportant, as far as regards the
present judgment of the court, Miss Kelly's
will was not proved till nearly ten years
after her death. But on November 13,
1864, the Rev. Thomas Walsall, being at that time
the sole survivor of the three executors named in
the will, obtaival probate of it from the Preroga-
tive Court of Canterbury. Meanwhile, and as long
ago as 1848, the French government, in default of
any claimant, entered into possession of the per-
sonal property of the testatrix in France, as bona
eaeantia. It is essential to the right understanding
of the case to mention here that, ex eonceais, this
taking possession by the state does not prejudice
the legal question. It is not denied that at any
time within thirty years (the period applicable by
the French statute of limitations in such a matter)
the state would be bound to refund to any claimant
who might establish a right, "under and by virtue
of the will," as construed by English law. Under
these circumstances, and on Feb. 6, 1856, Thomas

Walsall and Sarah Iona; brought an action in
France against the state to recover the property. The
suit was dismissed by the Tribunal of First Instance
of Versailles. Itdoes not appear, and it is immaterial
to my present purpose to inquire what were the
precise terms of the rejection of the claim of Sarah
Inner. In so far as the court refused to admit her
in the character of next of kin to her natural
daughter, it was of course quite right. If it dis-
puted her title as a legatee, as persona designate, in
character of mother, it was quite wrong. The main
point is the case of the executor. As to him, the
court held that he was not entitled to recover from
the state until he should have shown-Ist, the
existence at the time of the death of Mary Kelly
of the private legatee named in her will; and 2nd, the
capacity, according to English law, of the public
establishments mentioned in her will to accept the
legacies left to them. This judgment is confirmed
by the Imperial Court on appeal. The main ground
set forth in the judgment of the Imperial Court is
this :

That whatever may be the powers lonferred by this man-
date [viz. the probate of the Prerogative Court of London]
Thomas Wassail is but a simple administrator, acting on
behalf of others, and can never in any case take any part of
the succession for himself. That the estate can only be
administered among the next of kin or legatees, according
to their rights, and that the surplus in England would be
disposed of as goods without an owner (bona eacaatia).

This judgment will, I apprehend, be closely
scrutinised in Lincoln's Inn. I remember enough
of English law to see very clearly the important
questions which it raises, but not, I regret to say,
enough to give a positive opinion as to their solu-
tion. At the date of the will, 1824, the law was
that an executor was a "legal residuary legatee."
By the fact of his appointment the residue was
"given" to him for his own personal use and
benefit, unless a contrary intention was to be col-
lected by inference from the will itself. The first
question is whether the statute of 11 George IV.
and 1 William IV., which reversed this rule (and
enacted that an executor should always be pre-
sumed a trustee of the residue for the next of kin,
unless it appeared by the will that he "was" in-
tended Ito have it for himself), is applicable to
wills "dated," as this was, before the date of
the statute, although the testator may have
died afterwards. If on this point the law should
be in favour of the plaintiff it is to be further
inquired whether the gift to one of the three
executors of a legacy of 40001. raises that "strong
and violent presumption" against their right to
Ithe residue which the law required in 1824. But
even if it be admitted that the statute of William

IV. applies to this case it would be further neces-
sary to show, in order to support the judgment,
that where there are no next of kin, the English
Crown has, by virtue of that statute, a title against
the executor I The French judgment affirms, as
the basis of its decree, that the property in ques-
tion would be bona eacantia in England. Is that
so ? I doubt it much. At all events, it seems to
me a very strong and novel proposition of inter-
national law to say that an English executor,
armed with a prerogative probate, cannot collect
his testator's goods in France (that testator
being admitted to be a domiciled Englishman)
without proving to the French courts
that there are legatees or next of kin beneficially
entitled to the whole property, lest peradventure
the rights of the French Emperor by escheat
should be prejudiced. It is to be observed that
the judgment goes to throw the onus of this proof
upon the executor in every case. The tendency of
it is to overrule the English law, which holds the
"personal representative" to be the legal owner of
all the personal property of a deceased, and to
usurp the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
by forcing every executor of an Englishman leaving
property in France to pass his accounts before a
French tribunal. These consequences are so mon-
strous that I cannot think the judgment can stand
in the Court of Cessation. If it should, the ques-
tion will arise whether the grievance should not be
made the ground of a diplomatic remonstrance with
a view to a legislative remedy.
The Indipendance says that M Granier de Cas-
sagas° will not remain long attached to the Consti-
tutioanel ; that be left the Pays on the faith of a
promise that he is shortly to obtain a permission to
found a politico-religious journal of his own, the
management of which will be placed in the hands
of his brother—a priest, and that the aim of the
new journal will be to reconcile the French clergy
I with the Emperor, and to wile away the subscribers
to the Anti de la Religion.
The Bourse was again good. The Rente rose
15c. for cash, and 10c. for account, closing at
67fr. 90c. and afr. 95c. Mobilier rose 3fr. 75c. In
railways there was no change worth notice.