The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 2
This being the last day of Trinity Term, the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR sat in the Court from 10 to 2 o'clock ; but the busi-
ness which came before his Lordship possessed no public inte-
rest. Thursday, the 2d of July, will be the next seal.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 26.
THE KING V. KNATCHRULL AND OTHERS.

The Cotirt gave judgment in this case, and allowed a Rule
obtained by the COMMON SERJEANT far a new trial, to be
made absolute. The defendants were found guilty of a con-
spiracy to defraud a peisen, named Worrall, of 4001.
This being the last day of Term, the Court sat to a late hour
hearing motions relating to points of practice.

-..11.--.
PREROGATIVE COURT, JUNE 26.
. IN THE GOODS OF HIS LATE MAJESTY.
lnirther Particulars.]
Sir JOHN NICHOL gave judgment this day. After stating
the nature of the application, and the document on which it was
founded,
The'Learned JUDGE observed, the question was, whether it
could grantprobate according to the prayer of the party, and ac-
cording to the principles and practice of the law, as established ?
' The- first point taken in arguthentwas the right of Sovereigns
generally to make their wills ; secondly, the form of the instru-
ment; and finally, the jurisdiction of this Court, so far as its
rules of practice and general principles were proved to give it
power of decision over this question. ' -
The right of Sovereigns to make their wills might appear a'
gobil ground for raising the question of protest, and for bring-
ing the matter more, formally before the Court. Next,sthe
form of the instrument might be fairly argued by propounding
the instrument itself; and its genuineness would become the
final object of inquiry. On these pointS the Court would ex-
press no- opinion whatever. Even assuming them all in the
affirmative, and taking the allegation before the ' Court to be
sufficiently proved, the first question was; whether the Court
had jurisdiction to entertain the inquiry ? ,
When this application was, first made, the Court inquired for
a precedent, and after the most diligent research, no precedent
or principle of authority could be found; not even a principle
of analogy could be found, as furnishing a precedent for the
jurisdiction of this Court. From the re4,,m of King Alfred to
the present day, there was no instance of probate being taken
to the Will of a Sovereign in this Couq, and much less fox pro-
ceedings being taken, as agaiti§t the'reignlng Sovereign of the
country.
The ordyinstanee of 4 King's Wiltheing brought into discus-
sion, waS referred to by Sir Edward Coke, in his 4th Institute,
and which stood thus upon the Rolls of Parliament: —Henry
IV,'made a-will and appointed executors, who fearing the estate
might be insufficient to pay, declined to act; and it was stated
that, in consequence, it was decided that the effects should be
disposed of by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry V. how-
ever, put an end to the jurisdiction, by agreeing to take the ef-
fects, and pay for them by appraisement. There was no pre-
cedent to be found for this Court's exercising jurisdiction over
the Will of a departed Sovereign. The only instance of a
Will of a Sovereign being brought into the Registry of this
Court, was a copy of a Will of Henry VIII. ;.but to that there
was no trace of probate having been granted. The object of
the Statute of Henry VIII. chap. 12. was for the purpose of
putting offall appeals to the Pope of Rome; and only serves
to shew, that the reigning Sovereign henceforth became the Su-
preme Head of the Church, and of the Ecclesiastical Courts ; but
it was not the object of that-Statute to make the reigning So-
vereign subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. It might un-
doubtedly be taken from the established rules of law, that our
Kings had the power of making Wills. This was according to
Lord Coke's authority ; but to what extent that power was exer-
cised, need not here be inquired. There was an instance of a
King's 'Will so late as the reign of George I. Yet no trace of any
Will being sent here for probate, which furnished decisive proof
that the Court had no jurisdiction in such case. All intermediate
Sovereigns since Henry VIII., might be supposed to have died
intestate, as far as the question of precedent could affect the
jurisdiction of this Court. In all cases of subjects dying intestate,
the Ordinary of the Archbishop might grant administration to
the widow, or next of kin; and by the Statute of Charles the Se-
cond the widow became trustee for the purpose of distributing
it. In all cases of the Sovereign dying his successor is entitled
to his personal property; and no precedent existed for his com-
ing into this Conn, in order to give his successor legal powers
to act as administrator. The Sovereign was superior to this
'Court ; its business was testamentary ; and it was described as
the prerogative, in consequente of the Archbishop halting the
.power to grant administration ; yet still this Court had no
power over the prefogative of the Crown. But the Sovereign
was considered the fountain of all justice, both Ecclesiastical
and Civil. He was the Head of the Church ; and the Com-
mon Law Courts were denominated the King's Courts.
The question here was not to try whether this was the true
will of his late Majesty, but as to its being an express personal
demand upon his present Majesty ;which was sought to be en-
forced adversely; and that the proceeding could not be institut-
ed against himself, seemed to be admitted, by praying a moni-
tion against the King's Proctor. It would be a perfect infrac-
tion of and against the principles of the common law to implead
the reigning Sovereign personally in any suit; and this Couit,
least of all, was entitled to interfere with the prerogative of the
Crown. Mr. Justice Blackstone; in speaking of the rights of
the Crown of England, said it possessed imperial dignity.—
The Sovereign was Imperator, and his kingdom declared to be
an empire.
The Statute of Henry VIII. e. 12, declares the King to be
supreme head of the realm ; inferior to no man on earth ; de-
pendent on no maid; and accountable to nb man. To say,
therefore, that any Court had jurisdiction over him, when all
jurisdiction implies superiority of power ; then no Court can
have jurisdiction, unless it can redress wrongs, and unless it
,can carry its decrees into execution.
According to Finch, every subject of England is totally di-
vested of remedy, in case the King should invade his rights,
either by private injury or oppression. But to this might be
added; the law has provided a remedy ; if any man has a just
demand against the King, he must petition him in his Court of
Chancery through his Chancellor, and the Chancellor will en-
deavour to influence and persuade, but not to command, justice.
The King, according to the same author, can do no wrong.
The King is not only incapable of doing, but of thinking,
wrong; for the law will not treat the Supreme Magistrate with
fallibility (although as a i'nan he must be subject to the same
infirmities as other men)," but that such a charge against the
dignity.of the Prince might lessen him in the eyes of his sub-
jects. • As the fountain of justice, he is supposed to be present
in all his Courts, possessing übiquity, although personally he
may not dispense justice.
The Learned Judge, having gone over a series of other au-
thorities, to shew that the Legislature had never contemplated
that the reigning Sovereign should be subject to the jurisdiction
of the superior Courts, and much less to this, which was an
inferior Court, concluded by adverting to the argument of Dr.
' Lutbing,ton, that, by the 39th and 40th of his late Majesty, it
would have been a mockery to give the power to his late Ma-
jesty to make a Will, unless that Will could be carried into
execution, came to the decision, that it would be presumption
in this Court, and high disrespect, to suppose the Sovereign
could exercise any power of defeasance, since he could only
have a wish of doing justice, and must be supposed incapable
of doing any injustice. There was no doubt there were proper
Tribunals to remedy any real injustice in this case ; but what-
ever that justice might be, this Court did not presume to de-
cide ; but simply upon the question of jurisdiction, this Court
-having determined that it was bound by law to reject the pre-
sent question, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction.

SUMMER CIRCUITS, 1822.
NORTHERN.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT and Mnt Justice BAYLEY.
York and City—Saturday, July 20.
Durham—Saturday, August 3.
Newcastle and Town—Wednesday, August 7.
Carlisle—Tuesday, August 13.
Appleby—Monday, August 19.
Lancaster—Wednesday, August 21.

NORFOLK.

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS and Mr: Justice BEST.
Buckingham—Monday, July 15.
Bedford—Thursday, July 18.
Huntingdon—Saturday, July 20.
Cambridge—Monday, July 22.
Bury St. Edmund's—Thursday, July 25.
Norwich and City—Tuesday, July 30.
MIDLAND.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM and Mr. Justice IfoLitoYD.
Northampton—Monday, July 15.
Oakham—Friday, July 19.
Lincoln and City —Saturday, July 20.
Nottingham and Town—Friday, July W.
Derby—Tuesday, July 30.
Leicester and Borough—Friday, August 2.
Coventry and Warwick—Wednesday, August T.
OXFORD.
Mr. Baron GARROW and Mr. Serjeant
Abingdon—Monday, July 15.
Oxford—Wednesday, July 17.
Worcester and City—Saturday, July 20.
Stafford—Thursday, .luly 25.
• Shrewsbury—Wednesday, July 31.
• Hereford—Monday, August.s.
Monmouth—Saturday. August 10.
Gloucester and City—Wednesday, August 14..