Prerogative Court, Wednes...
The Times, 1824-12-02T00:00:00

Lor. LAU5sINGrTON mauce an appncaunu to the Court, prayisg it to permit copies of the depositions taken in the above cauue so loag ago as the year 1819, to be furnished out of the Registry, with a view to enable the Treasury to lay them before the legal advisers of the Crown, iis Mlaje.tY's Attorney and Solicitor-General. It ap- peared that about five yearrs anc, -. Pauley, the proctor, cppez'- ed on behalf of certWan parties asserted to be the natural and lawfui female children of a person who had died intestate; and of whoFe property, irn case they shoald establish the facts of their legitimacy, they would hare been, therefore. the coheiresses. The cause we_t on to the examination of witoessess upon their alleation - bv It appearing in the courseof those proceedings,thatsome difficult!y wdtld be experienced in makingout the proof oflegititnacy,owingtotheproof which it was apprehended might possibly be brought on the other side, of the non-access of the husband (the intestate) at the periods re- cessary to be assiihed, a conipronmise between the parties was agreed to; and the cause that had been instituted was no furtber proceeded in. Subsequently, however, a new difficulty had arisen as to the right of representation to the real estate of the deceased. His nearest next ot kin was a nephew; but to a nephew asserted to bea convicted felon, that representation could not descend; and it weuld be no very easy matter to invest the intestate's sister, under these circumstances, with the character of heir at Iav to the realty. Upon all these corsiderations, it was thoughi atlvisable to apply to to His Majesty's Treasury or a writ of Isehcat ; and afterwards the proper authority would be moved, in the usual way, to appoint its nouinees tbr the administration of the estate, and the distribu- tion ofthe property. Upon the case being referred to Hitu MUajesty's law-officers, they had declined, bowever, to advise the issue of the writ of EBcheal, until they could see the original depositions, or be furnished with copies of them. Sir Josx NICHIOLL observed, that in this case the cause had never been concluded. Publication had noteven been decreed. Now, in these courts it was a necessary rule of practice, that until publication was decreed, tke depositions on either side should not be communicated even to the other; for if they were so opened before the Court's decree, it was evident that adoor vould be opened to the trial of rmany other issues besides that which had been origi- nally joined upon by the parties to a suit; and it was equally clear that it would extend facilities to subornation of witnesses, colouring of evidence, and even perjury. The Coutt, therefore, was not at present aware how far it had even the power -to direct such deposi- tions to be delivered out of the registty, in a case wherein publica. tion of the evidence had not been decreed, and to those who were. not even parties to the suit. At all events, it would take time to con. sider of the matter. CASSBHASO AGAIMST NEGTtoTTr. The Counsel fbr Signor Giovanni Battista Negrotti again applietl to the Court for letters of adndiuistration to be granted to that gen. eleman (limited to certain purposes). as the comnmnittee aptolured by the superior tribunal at Genoa of the estate and efeccLs of Signor Cambiasb,-a lunatie. They stated that the father ofCam. biaso, at his death left behind himn a wil, by vhich lbe zppodatod this son the heir tO his wole property. Some objections existed against that 'will in point of fom; but these had been obviated by a decree of the Gyenoese Tribubal, empowering him to succeed in full right to his father's estate. Subscqtently, Sfgnor Cambiasohad the mi"sf'ortune to become a luinatic, and Signor Nerot asdcae h,,io Qn>ute h nyprojrmnsgnit _hgrottj; wa3 declared his cottmittee. The only propertv'not witliin thejurirdiction of the Court of Genoa consisted of certain monies invested in the English funds Upon this stock the dividends had been regularly received by Mr. Renth of this cttv througih whose able managemeat the in- vestments had been increased by accumulations to the cxtent of nearl'y 8,0001.: the tvhole amount of this patt of the property being at presen upirakstofIf,0001. It was ifor anadmainistration 'imnited to the receipt of these dividends and this stock, that AIr. Negrotti apPlied to ihis Court: btit last court day the Couirt intimated that it would not nma'se such a grant, except bail were given in double the amounrt (as usual), ad notonly so, but bail to jusrityintbiscoun- try. The learned counselcontendc(l that itwwoald unereexttoimpossible to procure sureties to such an amnount to justify here; that sureties to Justify in Genoa, which was the domicile of the parties, and of all the Wopetty In qucstion except this stock, would offer all the security the Court woul( require for the due administration of this nart of the estate; that in truth this was now altogether trust propertV, and that this Court ought to give effect to the decree of the Court at Genoa, thich had confided the trusteeship to Signor Negrotti: but while the condition of ,ustifying n this couatry was insisted upon, the i sailcould not be obtained, and the parties were kept out of the Money. And Dr. Lus oat ne closeoflils speech, begged to call the Court's attention to the evils that might ftllow upon a prac- tice of interposing any impedimentn in the way of foreigners seeking to recover personAl property in this kingdom that was not strictly and absolutelY sqeeestary. The gieat indiucement with foreigners to Invest their capital in the English funds was, the facility with which they might always obtain. dispose of. or exchange or recs them. Sir Jotey NICwoLL thought that the security of their monies hile ested in ou funds w3s at least as powerful an inducement asthat ittioted by the learned counseL. rith a view to that se- curit" in the ]secscne inManre, tne Court stil felt itself justificd in equtrmng bai that shlould engage to jusstfy in this country. It would, hkowever, alluw the matter to be mentioned to it again PREROGATlVE COURT, WEDNESDAY, DEC. 1. BUX3'ON AND YICHOLLS V. WEY NAIfG!LEEAVES.