administration of the goods of the deceased as intestate (according to its own original impression) to certain next of kin.

The Ecclesiastical Court, in this case, apparently proceeded upon principles, which have put the law upon a clear footing. They had originally doubts as to the validity of the instruments; but as the deceased was domiciled in Scotland, and as the validity of the instruments was questioned in the Scotch courts, they suspended proceedings till in that action a decision had been given for the validity of the instruments. Thereupon the Prerogative Court, deferring to the court of competent jurisdiction, granted probate of the same. But when the House of Lords had finally decided against their validity, then the probate formerly obtained was brought in and revoked.

When the previous case of Lashley v. Hog was decided, apparently the principles which ought to govern in a case of this kind had been less maturely weighed: as already noticed, in that case general probate had been decreed, although the will was only good to a certain extent, and void as to the remainder, and had been so decided by the competent courts in Scotland, and in the House of Lords.

In the matter of Sidy Hamet Benamor Beggia, a Moorish subject, Michaelmas, 1822 (b), a question arose, in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, as to the administration to be granted to his effects. The deceased was a native of Larache in Fez, and thus a natural-born subject of the Emperor of Morocco. He died at Gibraltar, while consul of Morocco, in that place, in 1821, intestate. He died a bachelor, without father, mother, brothers, sons, daughters,

uncles, aunts, sons of the aunts (by the father), or any other proper heir by the Mahomedan law, leaving effects at Gibraltar, and in England. The Emperor Muley Soliman, under the circumstances, became entitled to the effects of the deceased, under the Mahomedan law.

These facts having been authenticated to the courts of Tangier and Rabal, they issued decrees declaratory of the law as above, and the emperor granted commission to two of his subjects (Haggi Thaer al Kial Rebati, and Haggi l'Arbi Mahanino) to proceed to Gibraltar, and act there on his behalf, by taking possession of the estate and effects of the deceased, appointing at the same time Mr. Judah Benoliel (the successor of the deceased in the consulate at Gibraltar) his attorney to receive the deceased's estate, in the first instance, and deliver it to the said commissioners.

In July, 1821, administration of the estate of the deceased was granted by decree of his Majesty's Court of Civil Pleas at Gibraltar, to the said two commissioners of the Emperor of Morocco, security being directed to be taken (and which was taken accordingly), to meet any claim of creditors or others, upon the estate of the deceased, which might be made within a year and day from that time.

These two commissioners, afterwards, delegated to Mr. Judah Benoliel all the powers vested in them by the said decree, and all other powers and authorities which they possessed, as the commissioners of his said Imperial Majesty, to receive and take possession of the effects of the deceased; to appear before any court ecclesiastical or secular, and to do all acts, matters, and things necessary or expedient touching and relating to the estate and effects of the deceased in all places, countries, dominions, or jurisdictions whatsoever.

Under these circumstances, Mr. Benoliel applied to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury for administration of the estate and effects of the deceased in England (on giving

sufficient security), for the use and benefit of the Emperor of Morocco, he being also the only public functionary of the emperor in the British dominions.

The Court considered the facts to be sufficiently verified, but suspended the grant of administration till a specific power was granted to some person to take administration on the part of the Emperor of Morocco, the commission granted to the two commissioners having been limited in express terms to act at Gibraltar.

Afterwards, in February, 1824, administration was granted to Mr. Judah Benoliel, "the Consul-General, and "sole public functionary in the British dominions, of His

Imperial Majesty Muley Abderahman Ben Hisham, Em"peror of Morocco, as a person for that purpose named "and appointed on behalf of the Emperor, and for his use "and benefit." (c)

In the case of Curling v. Thornton, in Michaelmas term 1823, the Prerogative Court of Canterbury had to decide a case of considerable intricacy in regard to the will of a British born subject, who had resided for some time in France, and died in that country. Colonel Thomas Thornton (d) went to France in 1815, and resided there for some time. Towards the end of 1816, he removed the greater part of his moveable goods to France: in January 1817, he obtained a royal ordonnance, allowing him to establish his domicil in France for all civil rights; and in July 1817, he purchased a considerable landed estate in that country, and assumed the title of Marquis de Ponté, attached to

(e) This case appears to be almost a decision on the point, that in the case of a foreign intestacy, administration is to be granted to the person having the beneficial interest, without regard to the statutes of 31 Edw. III. c. 11. & 28.; and 21 Henry VIII. c. 5. (See antè, p. 275.) (d) 2 Addams, 6. This was the will of the gentleman well known as Colonel Thornton, of the sporting world, having been Lieutenant-Colonel of the second regiment of York Militia.

that estate. In September or October 1818, he was in England, and there made and executed his will according to the English forms. It begins as follows: "This is the last will and testament of me Thomas Thornton, of Falconer's Hall, and Boythorp in the East Riding of Yorkshire; and of the principality of Chambord, near Blois, and Pont le Roi, department de St. Aube, in the kingdom of France, Esq." This instrument gives and bequeaths all the testator's real and personal property to his executors, in trust for the payment of his funeral expenses, debts, and legacies. It directs that Priscilla Duins should be allowed to select for her residence whichsoever of his houses in France or England she thought fit, with all the household furniture, plate, and effects in such house for life, and with an annuity of 500l. It provides for the maintenance and education of Thornvillia Diana Rockingham Thornton, his natural daughter by the said Priscilla Duins, till she attained the age of twenty-one; and gives her a life-interest in all his property (with the exception of a few pecuniary legacies), which it strictly entails, first on her issue, and in failure thereof, then successively on different branches of his own family.

It authorises the trustees to sell any part of the real estate in England or in France; but, estates to be purchased, or exchanged, were to be in England only. It directs that the personal property should be sold and invested in the purchase of estates, but in England only. Certain parts of the personal estate, plate, books, paintings, and drawings, were made heir-looms, to go to the tenant in tail of the entailed estates. This will was very long, occupying twenty-eight sheets of paper; it was drawn in England, with reference to English forms and to the English law; it was executed by the deceased in England, so as to pass real estate in England, in the presence of, and attested by, three witnesses.

Immediately after executing this will, Colonel Thornton returned to France, and resided there till his death, which took place in France in March 1823. He left a lawful widow, and a lawful son by her. In the will no provision was made for the widow; a legacy of 100l. was given to the son, who is described in the will as "the son of Mrs. Thornton."

The will having been propounded by the executor for probate in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, this was opposed by his widow and relict. She pleaded that the deceased had acquired a domicil in France, and that his will was to be judged of by the law of that country; that, by the law of France, the will made in favour of his adulterous offspring and her mother, while the lawful widow and the natural and lawful son were "almost wholly excluded" from any share of the property, was null and void; and that the property in question devolved by succession upon the widow and lawful child, the same as if the deceased had died intestate.

She stated also, that in June 1823, she had applied to the civil tribunal of First Resort for the department of the Seine, at Paris, for letters of administration of the goods of the deceased, as dying intestate, by the laws of France; and, though opposed by the executor, in August 1823 the president of that tribunal adjudged the possession to her, and constituted her administratrix provisionally, during the pendency of the suit, which was still not concluded.

This cause came on for argument in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, in Michaelmas term 1823; and by the judgment of the Court, the will was admitted to probate. Sir John Nicholl, the judge of the Court, in delivering his opinion, appears to have proceeded upon this, that the facts of the case negatived the voluntary total abandonment by the deceased of his native country, and

U