The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-12-07
SUBJECT OF THE QUEEN?
JUDGE HANFORD SAYS THAT MRS.
JESys MUST PROVE SHE IS.
Col. Landes' Daughters SHIT Against
Him for sIo,0Oo-Her Father Dfd
Not Like the Man She Married.
Refu.ea 10 Turn Over Property.

II Mrs. Lutie Jenns Of Vancouver. B. G.
wishes 10 cue her father, Col Henry
Landes. Of Port Townsend. she must nfss
prove tina, she is citizen OF bf'tlsn 20
iuubia In the suit which she began against
him in the Federal court some time ago
she stated that she was a citizen OF taas
country, but Judge Hanford held in de-
cision rendered yesterday that wnen she
made that statement she drew legal con-
clusion.
Mrs Jenns' suit against her father
was Of a decidedly sensational nature.
She asked the court TO give her Judgment
in the sum OF slo.0a. Her complaint was
that Col. I.andes had made her certain
presents of stocks. etc, and later. because
she married man Of whom the colonel did
not approve he refused 20 turn over 10
her the property which he had given her,
but which he managed for her.
In her COMPLAINS the daughter set up
that she was citizen OF Vancouver. &.
c.. and subject of the queen. She did not
offer any law 10 show that such state
ment was legally correct. Counsel Tor Col.
LaRdes fought the complaint on that
ground. Judge Hanford was then called
upon 10 settle the point. for II Mrs. Jenns
is not foreign resident she Is not entitled
under the Federal law to sue IN the Fed
eral court. Judge Hanford's decision is an
interesting one. The court says;
Both in the caption and in the body OF
complaint the defendants who are required
TO answer are named and plainly dessnat-
ed. This being SO. the bill Is not derlurra-
BILE because there Is no plea for process
The complainant was born In the state
Of Washington and lived in thamtate OF
Washington until her marriage toyIRritish
subject when she removed to and became
permanently domiciled In British Columbia,
and she Is now an inhabitant OF British Co
iumbsa; and In her bill OF complaint al,
leges that by her change OF domiciie and
marriage she has become and is subject
of the queen of Great Britain. The show
ing that complainant was by birth CITIZEN
OF the United States. raises question as
10 her alenage at the time of commencing
this suit. and as the jurisdiction OF this
court depends upon diversity OF citizenship,
II must be alleged positively and facts must
be proven sufficient TO satisfy the mind Of
the court beyond any question of legal
doubt that she Is an allen. otherwise the
case must be dismissed for want of juris-
diction.
"A change of allegiance from one gov
eminent to another can only be enected
by the voluntary action OF the subject.
complying fully with the conditions OF the
naturalization laws. SO that there Is con-
current action and assent on the part OF
both the subject and the government to
which the new allegiance attaches Au-
thorities entitled to great respect have
been cited in the argument, holding that
II is also necessary TO have assent on the
part of the government renounced. In
my opinion that rule no longer obtains In
the United States since congress. by the act
of July "a 1868 now re-enacted In section
1889 of the Revised Statutes. has expressly
declared Ii TO be the policy of our govern
ment that the right of expatriation is a
natural and inherent right of all people.
Indispensable TO the enjoyment OF the
rights of life, liberty and the pursuit Of
happiness.
The averment in the bill that the COM
plainant has become a British subject is
the statement of mere logical conclu-
sion. and In view of the other facts alleged
II Is very questionable whether 1t can be
regarded as a sufficient allegation of a
juristictional fact. 1t Is also questionable
whether, IL the allegation should be trav-
ersed the complainant would be permitted
to sustain the issue on her part by intro
ducing in evidence a British law, II there
be one, similar TO our section .a9A adopt
ing her as a British subject as a conse-
quence OF her marriage. Courts are not
required to take judicial knowledge Of for
eign laws: therefore, If 1t should be neces-
sary TO prove the existence Of such a law
in this case. it should be pleaded.
I'm his opinion In the case of Pequignot
VS.. the City of Detroit. Mr.. Justice Brown
stated that by the 18th section Of 7sS
Vic. chapter 66 QsfD, 1t is enacted
that any woman. married, or who shall be
married to a natural born subject or a
person naturaiized. shall be deemed and
taken to be herself naturalized and have
all the rights and privileges OF a natural
born subject
IF this statute. or any similar British
law is now in force, the complainant did
become a British subject by her marriage
and Is entitled TO sue In this court. hut in
my opinion Ii Is necessary TO amend her
bill by pleading the statute. Demurrer
sustained"