Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-04-30
SYNOPSIS. BY JUDGE WAYNE.

readers
SYNOPSIS, BY JUDGE WAYNE
Gen. kosciusko made four wills One in the United
States in 1885, another in Paris IN 1906 the third and
fourth made Seeure in Switzerland, whilst he
soiDurning there in 1916 and 1917.
The first and second wills revoked by the third
and he died ntestate as to bis estate in the United
States.
But the first WILL before it known that he had made
the Others probated by Mr. Jefferson in Virginia
and when Mr. jefferson learned that the General made
other wills he transferred the fund to the Orphans Court
of the District Of Columbia. The Orphans Court man
aged the fund for time, and then Benjamin L. Lear
appointed the administrator of Koscusko with the
will annexed.
He died leaving will, and George Bomford of his
executors Bomford qualifed such, and afterwards
the administrator of Kosciusko de bonis nom de
took into his possession executor the estate OF Lear
and also the of Kosccsko which had been admins
tered by Lear and first made his return to the Orphans
Court administered funds of Koscusko executor
Of Lear Afterwards they returned by him to the
Orphans Court as administrator de bonis of Kosc
usko The Orphans Court, deemng that his suretes
administrator de bonis of kosciusko insufficient
that they not liable for ay waste of them
count Of the funds having been received by him
cutor of Lear, and administrator de bons non
called upon him for ether suretcs under the of Con-
gress of the Goth Of February 1886 He complied with
the CALL and gave sureties Stot Carrco and George
G. Bomford, and Gideon, Ward, and Smith.
The original bonds of Bomford given TO the Or
phans Court under the law of Maryland which prevailed
without alteration in that part of the District of Column
ba which had been ceded By Maryland until Congress
passed the Of the Goth February 1876 The defend
ants, Stott Carricc, and G. c. Bomford, and Smith,
Ward and Gideon, became the sureties of Bomford
administrator de benis Of Koscusko under the
of Goth February, 1916.
In the State of Maryland, if executor admnistra
tor changes any part of an estate from what it
into something else it is said to be administered If
administrator de bonis possesses himself of such
changed estate of whatever kind it may be- and charges
himself with assets his sureties his original bond
administrator de bens liable for his
Of them They only liable for such assets of the de-
ceased remain in specie unadmnstered by his prede
in the administration Such is the law of Mary
land applicable the su-etes of Bomford in the bond
given when he appointed administrator de bons
Of kosciusko.
But when other sHeties are called for by the Orphans
Court under the ID section Of the Of February 20h
1916 and given, they do bear the relation
TO the administrator thai his original surees did, and
they will be bound for the waste Of the principal to the
amount Of the funds which he has charged him
self by his return to the Orphans Court administrator
de bonis when il called for additional surete and
for such the administrator may afterwards receive
The bonds taken by the Orphans Court in this case
were properly taken under the act Of the 10Th February
1886.
General Kosciuskos Geographic will Of 1916 contains
revoking clause Of all other wills previously made by
him and, having disposed Of his American
win, IN the viii or 1917, lac ed intsetate 4
such funds The second article in the will Of 1917
"Je legue tous efets, yoture, ct cheval
comprise Madame ct a Monsieur Xavier Zeltner lie,
nomme CT dessus" Record 1885, is not residuary be
quest to them Of the rest of his estate specifically
disposed ofin the wills Of 1916 and 1917.
General kosciusko sojourning in Switzerland wher
he died; bat domicled in France, and had been
for fifteen years.
His declarations 10 be received proof that his
domicil in France
Such declarations have always been received in ques-
tons of domic in the Of France those of Eng
land, and in the courts Of the United States.
The presumption of law is that the doici Of origin
retained until residence where has been shown by him
who alleges change Of it But residence elsewhere
pe the presumption, and upon him who denies it
TO be domicl OF choice the burden Of disprovDg it. The
place ofresidence must be taken to be domic Of choice
unless il is proved that il to be principal
and permanent residence. Contingent events political or
otherwise, not admissible proofs show where one
from his dOncl Of origin for residence else
where, that the latter be principal and
permanent residence But if is exiled by authority
from bis domci Of origin, il is presumed that he
has abandoned all hope Of returning back The aban-
donment, however, may be shown by proof Gen. Kos
ciusko not exled by authority He left Poland 30
luntary TO obtain civil status in France which he
scienhousy thought he could enjoy in Poland whilst
It continued under foreign dominion.
Personal property wherever il may be- is be dstri-
buted In case Of ntesacy according the law Of the
domicil Of the inestate This rule may be said be
part Of the jus gentium.
What that law is when foreign law applies, be
SHOWN by proof Of H. and in the Of written law
N be sufficient to offer evidence the official publica-
uon Of the law, certified satisfactorily TO be such
- ohNrt'eh Foreign laws must be proved by experts.
1hee IS no general rule for authencatng foreign laws
IN the courts Of other countries except this that no proof
snsi oe received which presupposes better testimony
pehind ana attainabe by the party They NAV be We
neu Dy an oah or by an exemphcation Of copy under
th great sea- OF the State nation whose law il may be-
or by copy proved to be true copy by witness who
has examined and comparedt with the orr gina or nv the
certificate of an officer authorized 10 give the Law which
certificate must be duly proved Such modes Of nroof
are not exclusive Of others especially Of codes and
cepted histories Of the law Of country See also the
Of Church Hubbard 1885, in Crancb and Talbo,
Seaman, in Cranch, 30.
In this case the code civil Of France with this endorse
ment, Les Garde des Sceaux de France 4 Ia Cour Sn
preme, des Eats unis wasofered evidence to prove
what the law Of France for the distribution Of funds
in controversy This Court ruled that such endorsement
was sufficient AUTHORIZATION TO make the code evidence
IN this case and in any other in which il may be
offered BY that code the complanants named in this
suit the collateral relations Of Gen Koeiusko are en-
titled TO receive the funds in controversy in such proper
tons as are stated in the mandate Of this Court the
court below.
The documentary proofs in this cause from the Orphans
Court Of the genealogy Of the Koscusko family, and Of
the collateral relationship Of the persons entitled
decree and also Of the wills Of Koscusko are properly
in evidence in this suit
The record from Gradno is judicial not a judgment
inter parties but foreign judgment in rem, which il
evidence Of the facts adudcated against all the world
MANDATE OF THE SUPREME COURT
United States Of america g.
The President Of the United States Of America to the
Honorable the Judges Of the Circuit Court Of the Uni
lad Gfafac for thq Dotrte a. reI.. T.