Star.
London, England, 1825-11-15 00:00:00

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nevansin 14.

THE PROCURATOR•GENERA 1. V. JAINSON.

An individual df the name of Johnson, the illegiti-
mate son of an English merchant by a Hindu() woman,
retired from India to the State of Delaware, in America,
where, after residing for strove years, he died intestate.
Ten years before his death he was domiciled m that
,State. His brother Samuel, also illegitimere, applied
for letters of administration as his nest of kin, and ob-
tained them, but they were afterwar ss itbdrawn and
regrented to the same individual, as the rtintioal cre-
ditor of the deceased. The terms of the letters of ad-
ministration gave to Samuel the poser of collecting all
debts within the State of Delaware. The intestate also
left a considerable property in this country.
Dr. LVSHINGTON now contended, that Samuel John-
son, by virtue of having been declared personal repre-
sentetive by the authority of the State of Delaware,
was to be treated in the same capacity in every other
part of the aof ld whet ever the intestate might have had
effects, provided that the intestate had been domiciled
in the country whore subsequently his representative
hid been constituted. The Learned Doctor entered
into an elabot ate argument, and cited a number of
eases in support of his position, proceeding upon the
authority of the maxim that " the moveables follow the
person ;" and by a flea, n of law ate supposed to be
situated in the place where the death of the party took
place. The lex loci was, he contended, superseded by
the lex domicilii, and no matter what sort of law it was
which prevailed in a particular country with respect to
the succession in cases of intestacy, the person who was
arpuinted admini,uator to an intestate's estate in any
country (provided the intestate had been domiciled in
the place), must he looked upon as the proper person to
administer to the intestate's effects in any other country
where property belonging to him might h tve lain.
Sir C. Itcanssou (the King's Advocate), with whom
u as Dr. Jammu, maintained, that though it was a prin-
ciple of in.etnatienal law, that he who was appointed,
and administered to the effects of a party in the country
where that party died, was treated as administrator to
his effects in another country ; yet that such a principle
was limited in its applications. k was a question whe-
ther or not the intestate in this case had been domiciled
in America? The American Law required of those who
sought to be domiciled in its territory, an oath, by
which they renounced their allegiance to their natural
Sovereign. It was then a matter to be considered, how
tar it was in the power of the intestate, of his own
option, to divest himstlf of the character of a British
subject, and obtain in his favour a dispensation from
their laws and regulations, by which subjects were in
geeeral bound ? But even in case these objections could
be got t id- of, still the question walla arise, whether or
not Mr. Johnson, under the letters of administration,
seas invested with the powers which constituted an ad-
ministrator in the usual way ? He procured the letters
as a creditor to the estate—and the terms of those letters
confined his power to act to the State of Delaware.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL said, that the case was attended
with a difficulty which rendered it a matter of uncer-
tainty whether or not the party to this suit was in a si-
tuation to raise the important question which had been
submitted to his decis;on ? Mr. Johnson, one of the
panic., took out letters of administration as a creditor;
as soon as his debts were paid, the residue of the intes-
tate's effects vested in the Government of the place—so
that the question ultimately here se ould be, whether or
not the English property of the intestate belonged to
the Slate of Delaware or to the British Government ? In
order, therefore, to have that question brought inns
Court, it was necessary that the &ate of Delaware
should be a party, and authorise some person to sue ia
their behalf.
Dr. Lustnectou said, that they would have, ere this,
obtained a grant of the property to Mr. Johnson, bat
unfortunately there was not time to give the Legislature
of Delaware an opportunity of assembling. Thor
would communicate as soon as possible with the Legis-
lature of that State; and he had no doubt but that if

the case would he allowed to stand over, they would
• come before the Court, on a future occasion, armed
with the competency to claim a decision of the question,
whether or not a person, who was constituted a repre-
sentative to an intestate in America (that intestate having
been a Bluish subject, who was domiciled in America,
And died there), was entitled to administer to the effects
of such intestate that remained at his death in the terri-
tory of Great Britain ?
This suggestion was assented to, and a nominee agreed
toi, to administer the estate until the decision of the
Court should be obtained.

IN TILE MATTER CF HOSIER.
In ibis case a paper was propounded on the pan of
Mr. Hosier and his sister, purporting to be the last will
and testament of a Gentleman named Hosier, their
brother, 'silo died on the 2d of August last, in Fiance,
and they prayed that it might be admitted as such. It
appeased that the late Mr. Hosier, in the course of last

summer, repaired to Paris with his sister, for the pur-
pose of recruiting his health. Finding himself in a
declining stare, he wrote for his ) ounger brother, who
arrived in France on the 27th July. In two days after-
wards he received instructions (according to his own
affidavit) to make a testamentary disposal of the pro-
perty. By this, insttument, which Mr. Hnsier stared
he wrote by the instructions of his brother, 10,0001.
were left to Miss Ho-ier ; 1001. to a servant-maid ; and
the remainder of the property, amounting to 50,0001.
to be divided between the two brothers. Other names

wese mentioned also, but the amount of the bequests
was not stated.

S'r J. NICHOLL stated that the cirenmitances of this
case did not svirrant him in admitting this instrument.
It appeared that the late Mr. Hosier gave instructions
to his brother to make a a ill, and this communication
was given on the 29th of July. He lived to the 2d of
August, and yet it did not appear that any step was
taken by him to perfect it a a Pegal irrstrnment. There
was no reason given why he did not complete it
Again, the bequest to Miss Hosier was made in, money,
whereas the late Mr. 110,ier must have known that his

property lay in stuck. The only evidence to the in-
strument was the brother, who was himself interested

in snaking it valid ; tor by it he was Placed in a better
situation than be could be in if the deceased was ccn-

sidered as having died intestate. 'Neer all these cir-
cumstances, be would treat it as an invalid 'document.—
Proof refused.
IN THE 000108 OF CHARLES COPE, LATE OF MILLION

BASE* SAJITCHILA P.
Dr. LitainaaToa applied for letters. of adminigra-
Aion !o_pAss to Mr. Ad/. an attorney of lloondsdhcfs
et: befialfof rs. Marytrlorris.of (iaseshead, Ow ham ;
the deeeafed died io 1802, raving possessed proper y't

tte amount of 5001. the afßOPifit stated that Mrs. Nortis
*as cousin german and next of kin to the deceased.
Sir JOHN Melt,. told, di* tidying reislul• to kkove that many
applications for administration had been made by parties net entitled
thereto, and who made a trade of proctuing them, when they found
cases to lie over, be would reject the present application until More
satisfactory proof could be given that the party was emititd tb it.