will, the widow was "sole legatee and constructive executrix." The Judge added, "That the deceased, when he wrote this will, was not, as it seems, apprised that he had any property in England to dispose of; whereas he had 3307. in his agent's hands. It is possible that the wife may yet be called upon at Madras to prove this will in solemn form of law; or that, from the decree already made there, an appeal to the King and Council may be prosecuted by the daughters of the former marriage. My difficulty, therefore, in granting probate to the widow as constructive executrix is, that she would, in that character, be exempted from giving security. But I see no objection to allow administration, with the paper annexed, to pass to her as relict and principal legatee, on her giving security. There is some difficulty in varying the form of the grant, but yet there is still greater difficulty the other way."

Administration was accordingly decreed to Mrs. Read, as the relict and the principal legatee, the usual security being given. The case shows, that the Court did not hold itself bound by the Indian probate, but entitled still to decide as appeared to be just and expedient in the circumstances of the case. It is not stated in the Report, whether the deceased was in the military service of the East India Company, or of the public; this would have ruled his domicil. In the case of Burne v. Cole (supra, p. 277.), the domicil appears to have formed an important feature in the cause.

In the goods of Donna Maria de Vera Maraver, a case occurred, in Easter term 1828, similar to that of the Countess Da Cunha. (1) In this case of Donna Maria de Vera Maraver (m), it appeared that the deceased, a native of Spain, had made her last will and testament on the 22d of No

(1) Ante, p. 291.

(m) 1 Haggard's Eccles. Rep., p. 498.

vember 1815, and named her husband and her sons executors. She died at Seville, in November 1820.

In April 1821, the surviving husband, Don Martin Saravia, accepted and formalised the will of his late wife, and ratified her appointment of executors. He died in August 1827. A sum of stock in the British funds (consisting of upwards of 3000l. new 4 per cent. annuities) stood in the name of Donna Maria de Maraver, wife of Don Saravia. On the death of the husband a power of attorney, held by Messrs. Mastermans for receipt of dividends, ceased. In order to sell out the stock and receive the dividends which had accrued since the death of the father, Don Cayetano Saravia, one of the sons, and a surviving executor, came to England for the purpose of proving his mother's will.

He made affidavit (through a sworn interpreter), that by the law of Spain "the fortune or property of a Spanish lady on the occasion of her marriage (unless she expressly declines having any settlement) is inventorised and valued, and such inventory and valuation is signed by her intended husband, and the amount thereof remains vested in the wife, and must, at her decease, be made up and paid by the husband to her executors or heirs; that the husband and wife, during their joint lives, are, with respect to their property, in a state of copartnership, and the husband, in case of his wife's decease, is answerable to her executors or heirs for a moiety of such profits, or increase of their joint property (called Gananciales) as may have arisen during their cohabitation (n); that the wife has full power of authority to make her will as a feme sole," &c. That in this case all that the surviving husband could have done

(n) This goes much further, than the law of Scotland does; no claim would arise there till after the wife's death. (Lashley v. Hog, ante, p. 138.

would have been to alter or revoke so much of the will as related to one fifth of the property; but that, instead of revoking, he had declared and formalised the will.

The Court, after satisfying itself by other evidence as to the identity of Don Cayetano Saravia, granted him a general probate of his mother's will.

Very important questions occurred in regard to the law on this subject, in the case of Stanley v. Bernes, in the High Court of Delegates, upon appeal from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, in Hilary term 1830. (0)

The points there discussed involved the question, whether a British subject could acquire a domicil in a foreign country, so as to bring him under the rules of the law of that foreign country in relation to his testamentary acts (p) ; and what should be done when such testamentary acts, though valid according to the English laws, were invalid according to the law of the domicil.

John Stanley, a native of Ireland, died in the island of Madeira on the 15th of November 1826, being then upwards of eighty years old, leaving Helena Stanley, his widow, and John Stanley, his only legitimate child, him surviving. The deceased had left Ireland prior to 1770, and settled at Lisbon. In January 1770 the deceased, by a public act, had abjured the Protestant religion, and professed that of the Catholic church: this was in order to enable him to contract a marriage with a Catholic. In the same month he married Helena Doran, of Irish extraction, but a natural-born Portuguese subject, without any marriage articles.

In 1798 the deceased obtained an act of naturalisation from the Queen of Portugal; and on the 6th of March

(0) 3 Haggard's Eccles. Rep., 373.

(p) This had been made matter of doubt in the case of Curling v.

1801, he signed a bond of allegiance to the Crown of Portugal. The French, on their occupation of Portugal in 1808, first treated him as a British subject, and put him in prison, but afterwards released him. It was thus matter of dispute in this cause, whether the French considered him as a British subject or not. On his release by the French he removed to and settled in Madeira. In 1823 the deceased, then resident at Madeira, authorised his son to take, at Lisbon, on his father's behalf, an oath of observance of the constitution under the Portuguese monarchy. The deceased at that time received a pension from the Portuguese government.

The deceased had had four children by his wife, but only one son, John Stanley, survived him. His wife having become insane, went or was removed from Portugal to Ireland, where the connections of both resided: there she remained at the death of her husband: she was supported in Ireland by an allowance out of the husband's property. From the time that the deceased went to Madeira, he resided in that island, within the dominion, and subject to the laws, of Portugal, till his death in 1826.

Besides his legitimate son John Stanley, the deceased left a natural son Joze Maria Bernes. This natural son was married, and at the time of the death of the deceased had five children, whom the deceased treated as his grandchildren.

On the 21st of June 1820, the deceased made his will at Funchal in Madeira. In that will he declared that he was brought up in the religion of the church of England, and that he intended to die in that religion, and requested to be buried in the English burial ground. He gave to the natural son and his children, and to Joaquina, the grandaunt of these children, who resided in family with the testator, legacies to a considerable amount; he gave the residue of his property to his legitimate son John Stanley, jun. ;

and he appointed executors to his will. By a first codicil, dated at Funchal, the 4th of July 1820, he gave further legacies to his natural son and his family, and he named another executor. By a second codicil, dated at Funchal, the 11th of July 1820, he gave a farther legacy to the natural son, and to Joaquina the grand-aunt.

This will, and the first two codicils, the deceased declared, in the presence of a notary and five witnesses, to be his solemn will and testament, and desired that they might be considered as good, firm, and valid; and he requested the notary to draw up an act thereon, which being done, the deceased approved and signed such act; the notary attested it, and the five witnesses subscribed their names thereto.

By a third codicil, dated at Funchal the 24th, and an addition to it, dated the 31st of October 1822, he merely 'changed some of the executors. By a fourth codicil, dated at Funchal, the 29th of October 1825, he bequeathed various sums of stock, which he had in the English funds, to and for the use of his natural grandchildren, to the exclusion of his lawful son John Stanley; and, of the same date, he made an addition to this fourth codicil. The third codicil and the addition thereto, and the fourth codicil, were each published and declared in the presence of three witnesses, who attested them. The addition to the fourth codicil was signed by the testator, but not attested. The whole of the testamentary writings of the deceased were in the handwriting of the testator.

After the testator's death, the will and codicils were deposited at the British consul's office at Madeira, and authenticated copies were sent to England.

It was understood, that all the executors had renounced, and these testamentary writings were propounded for administration, with these writings annexed, by Bernes the natural son. This was opposed by John Stanley junior, the lawful son, who claimed administration as in case of