8

ADMINISTRATION.

(A) TO WHOM GRANTED.

(B) OF THE ADMINISTRATION BOND.
(C) PRACTICE.

[See also EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.]

(A) TO WHOM GRANTED.

Where the power of granting administration is discretionary with the Court, administration cæteris paribus is always granted to the claimant having the greatest interest. Tucker v. Westgarth, 2 Add. 352.

A widow who has married again, is nevertheless to be preferred to a next of kin, in the granting of administration. Webb v. Needham, 1 Add. 494.

Administration of the property of a public functionary of the Emperor of Morocco, was granted to a party specifically empowered to take it on behalf of the national treasury, by the Mahomedan law, on proof of the Emperor's title (which was not questioned by the crown, or otherwise). In re Beggia, deceased, 1 Add. 340.

Where one of three administrators became a lunatic, the Court granted administration de novo to the other two. In the goods of Phillips, 2 Add. 335.

Administration will not be decreed to substituted trustees in the absence of the consent of all parties beneficially interested in the trust properties, until such properties are vested in such trustees. Creswell v. Creswell, 2 Add. 342.

A, B, and C, being partners, A dies intestate; the partnership is continued by B and C without any settlement of accounts; and B afterwards assigns his share of the profits to D:

Semble-That D, though he has an interest in accounts which involve the personal estate of A, cannot as a creditor of A, cite his next of kin to accept or refuse administration to him.

Semble also-That the Ecclesiastical Court, if A's next of kin, upon being cited, refuse to accept administration, and if D shew the necessity of there being a personal representative of A, will grant a limited administration to D's nominee. Cawthorne v. Chalie, 3 Law J. Chanc. 125, s. c. 2 S. & S. 127.

Where the only surviving executor became incapable of acting or of executing the necessary legal instruments to enable others to act, the Court granted administration with the will annexed to the residuary legatee, no opposition being offered by the next of kin. In re Crump, 3 Phil. 497.

Administration, with the will annexed, may be committed to a residuary legatee, during the lunacy of a surviving executor and residuary legatee, in trust; at least by and with the consent (given, or implied,) of the committee of the lunatic. In the goods of James Milnes, 3 Add. 55.

Administration, under certain limitations, of the goods of a foreigner, decreed to the substituted attorney of his executors, with an official copy annexed of "extracts" (only)" from his will," such extracts consisting of the beginning and ending of the will, and of two clauses therein; the one containing the appointment of executors; and the other a bequest of the testator's (only) property in this country. In the goods of Don Francisco Rioboo, 2 Add. 461.

The ordinary practice, where an executor fails to represent a testator, is, to grant administration, with his will annexed, to the residuary legatee, in trust, if any; and failing such residuary legatee in trust, then to grant the same, not to his or her representative, but to such person or persons as have the beneficial interest in the residuary estate, under the will.-Administration decreed, however, in this case, to the representative of a surviving trustee, in preference to either, or both, of two other claimants, styling themselves "residuary legatees," simply, but without any violation of the ordinary practice, as explained above; such other claimants being, in fact, residuary legatees for life only, each in a fifth of the residue; she, the representative of the surviving trustee, having also, as such, herself a beneficial interest in the residuary estate greater than that of either of the other claimants: and the will of the testator plainly excluding the interference or controul of those other claimants, or either of them, in the general management of his estate. Hutchinson v. Lambert, 3 Add. 27.

Administration can only be granted to a creditor upon the failing of all other representatives-the circumstances of the next of kin being creditor, is a reason against his being preferred, in a contest for administration, either with the widow or any other next of kin. Webb v. Needham, 1 Add. 494.

The 48 Geo. 3. c. 87. applies as well to an executor out of the jurisdiction of the courts of law and equity as out of the realm; consequently a limited administration was granted to the nominee of a creditor. In the goods of Jouet, 2 Add. 504.

Where the relative renounced, the Court granted administration to creditors, notwithstanding the former prayed to be re-appointed before the administration passed the seal. West v. Willby, 3 Phil. 374. A limited administration was granted to a creditor pending process, calling on all parties entitled to distribution, to accept or refuse administration. Woolley v. Green, 3 Phil. 314,

If the executor declines administration, and there be no next of kin, it may be granted to a legatee or creditor; and the same rule holds if the next of kin declines, but in that case, notice must be given to the next of kin, of the legatees' or creditors' application. Kooystra v. Buyskes, 3 Phil. 531.

The executor of a residuary legatee is preferred to the executor of a creditor, in the granting of administration. Jones v. Beytagh, 3 Phil. 635.

When a sole next of kin refuses to take administration, the Court, on cause shewn, will decree letters ad colligendum bona defuncti, limited according to the special circumstances of the case. In the goods of Mary Radnall, 2 Add. 232.

(B) OF THE ADMINISTRATION BOND. In order to induce the Court to dispense with securities when required by the practice of the court, very special circumstances must be produced ;-and if the Court decree a general grant, and require securities as to part only, it will not allow separate bonds, so that other sureties than those justifying may enter into the common bond. Howell v. Metcalf, 2 Add. 348.

Quare, whether even on grants of administration, to foreigners, of the property of foreigners, generally, the administrator is compellable to give bond here,

in England, with two sureties, British subjects, for the due administration of the effects? Cambiaso v. Negrotto, 2 Add. 439.

If the Court be prayed, at the instance of parties in distribution, to pronounce an administration bond forfeited, &c. in order to its being put in suit, against the sureties to that bond, at common law, the question for the Court is not, properly, the ultimate responsibility of the sureties; it is, generally speaking, the mere fact of whether the conditions of the bond have, or have not, been fulfilled. If unfulfilled, it will be the Court's duty, generally speaking, to pronounce for the forfeiture of the bond, without any reference to that other question of whether the sureties are, or are not, ultimately responsible; leaving it to the sureties to plead and prove elsewhere, if they are capable of so doing, that the parties putting it in suit, are still, as by their own laches or otherwise, not in a condition to recover upon the bond, notwithstanding its forfeiture. Devey v. Edwards and Tappen, 3 Add. 68.

(C) PRACTICE.

Principles by which the Court is governed in granting administrations pending suit.

Administration pending suit is never granted on motion, without the prior consent of the parties. Northey v. Cock, 1 Add. 326.

The Court granted a conditional administration of the goods of a party until his last will (stated by the deceased himself a few days before his death, to be in India,) or an authentic copy thereof should be transmitted from India to this country. In re Metcalfe, 1 Add. 343.

The Court will not grant letters of administration to a creditor, in the absence of an affidavit stating the amount of property to be administered, where there has been no personal service of the usual citation on the parties entitled in the first instance. Martineau v. Rede, 2 Add. 455.

An ecclesiastical court had granted letters of administration de bonis non to two sons of a widow lady. A third son instituted a suit in that court to repeal them. On a motion for a prohibition to the Archdeacon not to proceed in that suit, the Court refused to grant it. The King v. the Archdeacon of Chester, in the cause of Pratt and another v. Swain, 1 Law J. K.B. 161.

If the party entitled to administration be resident abroad, due notice must be given to him before it will be granted to any other person; and the mere service of notice of the decree on the Royal Exchange is of no avail. Goddard v. Cressonier, 3 Phil. 637.

On an application to grant probate, on admissions of the adverse party, the answers must be on oath. Lyon v. Furness, 3 Phil. 316.

The Court refused to open a cause on the application of a party calling on the residuary legatee and administratrix to prove the testator's will, on the ground that he was abroad at the time, where, although he shewed he returned to this country with due expedition, he did not establish, that he had used due diligence in giving notice of his intention after his return, to dispute the will. In re Robinson, 3 Phil. 511.

Quere, whether the production of a conviction of bigamy against A, who had married C, living DIGEST, 1822-1828.

B, his first wife, divests A, on C's death, from propounding his interest as lawful husband of C, in a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, touching the administration of C.'s effects. Wilkinson v. Gordon, 2 Add. 152.

It is the practice of the office not to receive the renunciation of an executor, &c. without the original will. Hence the Court, when applied to for letters of administration, limited to assign a satisfied term of years to the nominee of the owner of the fee, (in which case, it is not the practice of the office to annex the original will,) on the renunciation of the party entitled to the admininistration of the deceased's effects, with her will annexed, in preference to receiving the renunciation with the original will, (this not being to be had,) decreed the party entitled to be cited to accept or refuse, &c. promising to grant the administration to the nominee of the owner of the fee, on the others' default. In the goods of Martha Fenton, S Add. 35.

Special certificates to the facts of the case, necessary to found the grant, superadded to the oath of the applicant, in the instance of every administration applied for, (the obvious, and only general scheme suggested for preventing frauds in obtaining letters of administration,) would involve a general inconvenience, less tolerable than the particular evil in question. But the Court may direct such special certificates in certain cases, and if, being exhibited, they are unsatisfactory to the Court, [for instance, as failing to certify the principal facts by the testimony of third persons, speaking of their own knowledge; or, as the case may be,] the Court will, at least, suspend, and may probably, in the end, altogether reject the application for the grant itself in such case. In the goods of Christopher Coke, 3 Add.

22.

ADJUSTMENT.

[See INSURANCE.]

Parol evidence is admissible to explain the intended forms of an adjustment indorsed on the back of a policy. Russel v. Dunskey, 6 B. Mo. 233.

If two persons jointly enter into a speculation, which ultimately proves unproductive, and the one furnishes the other with an estimate of the loss, who, on being requested to pay the moiety, undertakes to call and pay: In an action to recover the moiety, this is sufficient evidence of an adjustment of the amount between the parties. Clark v. Glennie, 3 Stark. 10. [Abbott]

ADMIRALTY, COURT OF.

A special contract for seamen's wages, cannot be enforced in the Admiralty Court, that tribunal having no jurisdiction over special agreements. Sydney Cove, 2 Dods. 11.

The jurisdiction over a prize cause, continues in the Prize Court of Admiralty, although the prize may have been taken after the time limited for the cessation of hostilities. Harmony, 2 Dods. 78.

A prize, taken by British and allied force, and brought within the British territory, is subject to

C

10

the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. French Guiana, 2 Dods. 151.

The Court of Admiralty has authority to inquire into the title, under which British subjects claim a right to a vessel coming into this country, which is in the possession, and appears to be the property of foreigners. Experimento, formerly Experiment, 2 Dods. 38.

A surgeon to a ship, it would appear, cannot sue for wages in the Admiralty Court. Lord Hobart, 2 Dods. 104.

The Court of King's Bench will not grant a prohibition to restrain the Admiralty Court from proceeding in a suit, instituted by several part-owners of a ship, against one for the possession of the ship's register. Anon. 3 D. & R. 178 n., s. c. 2 Chit. 359.

The Court of Admiralty is not permitted to entertain questions of disputed title, but it still retains jurisdiction over causes of possession. Warrior, 2 Dods. 288.

Jurisdiction of Vice Admiralty Courts in revenue cases, is of mere statutory institution; and by stat. 49 Geo. 3, questions of this sort must be tried either where the offence was committed or the seizure made. Hercules, 2 Dods. 353.

Question, whether a foreign ship of war lying in a port of this country, is liable to the civil process of the Court of Admiralty, in a cause of salvage, at the suit of British subjects. Prins Frederic, 2 Dods. 451.

The Court of Admiralty has authority to arrest and detain a ship, upon the application of a part owner who dissents from her intended employment, until security be given for the other part owners to the full value of his share. Apollo, 1 Hag. 306.

ADULTERY.

[See BARON AND FEME, and DIVORCE.] The commission of adultery, by husband or wife, may, at any time before sentence, be pleaded, even after seven years have elapsed from the publication of the occurrence, if it be certified that a reasonable time has only expired since it came to the proponent's knowledge. Brisco v. Brisco, 2 Add. 259.

The concurrence of cruelty and adultery, though the former be unaccompanied with personal violence, is a good ground for a separation. Hulme v. Hulme, 2 Add. 27.

To a suit by a husband for the restitution of conjugal rights, the wife's responsive allegation suggesting facts, neither amounting to a charge of cruelty, nor to adultery, admitted to proof. Molony v. Molony, 2 Add. 249.

Where adultery has been committed by the wife, but pardoned by the husband, it does not preclude him from suing for a separation. Dunn v. Dunn, 3 Phil. Rep. 6, overruling the same case in 2 Phil. Rep. 403.

But where the adultery of the wife has been acquiesced in by the husband, coupled with circumstances of misconduct on his part, the Court will not decree divorce. Best v. Best, 1 Add. 436.

Adultery may be pleaded by the defendant in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Best v. Best, 1 Add. 411.

A suit for adultery is not barred by proof of cruelty. Arkley v. Arkley, 3 Phil. 500.

In pleading the statute of limitations to an action for criminal conversation, it should be, not guilty within six years. Cook v. Sayer, 2 Ken. 371, s. c. 2 Wils. 85, s. c. 2 Burr. 753, Bull. N.P. 28.

In an action of adultery, the marriage was proved by an examined copy of the register, and the person who examined it, being acquainted with the handwriting of the plaintiff and his wife, stated that the signatures in the register were their hand-writing; this was holden good proof of identity. Bain v. Mason, 1 C. & P. 203. [Abbott]

ADVANCEMENT.

[See EXTINGUISHMENT.]

A fund, bequeathed by will, was directed to accumulate till infants should attain 21, deducting annually from the interest, such portion as might be necessary for their education, and other expenses; with benefit of survivorship in case of either dying under 21; the shares to be vested at 21: the Court (the parties to whom the fund was given over consenting,) directed an advancement for the purchase of a commission for one of the infants, but with considerable hesitation. Evans v. Massey, 1 Y. & J. 196.

The words in a will, "I do give to my son R the perpetual advowson of H. B. in L. and my manor of L. and all my lands in it," were held by three Judges, (Park J. dissentiente) to give an estate for life in the advowson, although at the period of making the devise, he was residuary legatee, and incumbent of the living. Pocock v. Bishop of Lincoln, 3 B. & B. 27, s. c. 6 B. Mo. 159.

The testator, after devising all his manors, advowsons, &c. conveyed an advowson to trustees, to present F. J., when vacant; and then in trust for himself and his heirs: Held, that the devise of the advowson was revoked. Sparrow v. Hardcastle, 1 Ken. 67, s. c. 3 Atk. 798, s. c. Amb. 224.

Where a prebendary, having the advowson of a rectory in right of his prebend, dies whilst the church is vacant, his personal representative has the right of presentation for that turn. (Per Bayley, Holroyd, and Littledale, Js. Lord Tenterden, Č. J. diss.) Rennell v. Bishop of Lincoln, 5 Law J. K.B. 320, s. c. 7 B. & C. 113-overruling s. c. 4 Law J. C.P. 1, s. c. 3 Bing. 223.

The plaintiff claims the advowson of a vicarage, as mortgagor; insisting that it was inserted fraudulently in a particular of trust estate, directed by decree to be sold, for payment of debts: Held, that the equity of redemption of an advowson lapses, and the plea allowed without prejudice, &c. Mallock v. Salter, 2 Ken. Chanc. 49.

Where the advowson of a parish is vested in trustees for the benefit of the parishioners, an elec

tion of a vicar by ballot is not valid. The election must be by voting openly. In such a case, the right of voting at the election of a vicar, may be limited by long usage to parishioners, who pay church rates and poor's rates. Edenborough v. Archbishop of Canterbury: Carter v. Bishop of London, 2 Russ. 93.

Where the presentation to a living is void by reason of simony, and the Crown thereupon present another who is duly inducted, and in other respects qualified, that other may maintain ejectment against him whose presentation is void, and is not compelled to resort to Quare impedit.

If a person who had obtained a benefice by simony, were to enjoy it until his death, the Crown might still present afterwards. Doe d. Watson v. Fletcher, 6 Law J. K.B. 282, s. c. 8 B. & C. 25, s. c. 2 M. & R. 206.

AFFIDAVIT.

(A) HOW AND when entitled. (B) BEFORE WHOM TO BE SWORN. (C) FORM AND REQUISITES of. (D) WHEN TO be filed.

(E) DEFECTIVE and irrelevant. (F) PRODUCTIon of.

(A) How and when entitled.

F An affidavit entitled J. S. and another, is irregular. Anon. 1 Law J. K.B. 52.

Affidavits produced to obtain a rule nisi for a certiorari, if entitled in any cause, are irregular, and cannot be read. Ex parte Nohro, 1 Law J. K.B. 112, s. c. 1 B. & C. 267.

In all actions against bail, the affidavits must be entitled in the action against them, and not in the original action. Ham v. Philcox, 1 Law J. C.P. 21, s. c. 7 B. Mo. 521, s. c. 1 Bing. 142.

The affidavit for an attachment against the sheriff, should be entitled, The King v. the Sheriff of· in the cause of with the christian names of the parties. Rer v. the Sheriff of Middlesex, 2 Law J. K.B. 38.

-- V.

The title of the affidavit for judgment against the casual ejector, should state by whom the demise is made. Doe v. Roe, 3 Law J. K.B. 57.

The Court rejected an affidavit to set aside a judgment of non pros., it being entitled in two several causes against separate defendants, but written on one sheet of paper, and with one stamp only. Worley v. Ryland, 8 B. Mo. 238.

An affidavit entitled in the cause, against the sheriff by reason of his contempt, need not of necessity add the title of the cause out of which the contempt grew; but it is usual and convenient in practice to add it. Rex v. Sheriff of Middlesex, 4 Law J. K.B. 207, s. c. 5 B. & C. 389, s. c. 8 D. & R. 149.

On motion to set aside proceedings on error, the affidavits must be entitled in the cause in error, and not in the original cause. Gandell v. Rogier, 4 B. & C. 862, s. c. 7 D. & R. 259.

An affidavit entitled "In the common place," Held sufficient. Rolfe v. Burke, 5 Law J. C.P. 99, 8. c. 4 Bing. 101.

Affidavits made to found a motion for setting

11

aside proceedings by scire facias, against bail for an irregularity in the ca. sa., should be entitled in the original action. Green v. Richardson, 6 Law J. K.B. 102.

An affidavit, entitled "A against B and another," is bad; for the defendants should be described by their christian names and surnames. Doe dem. Spencer v. Want, 8 Taunt, 647, s. c. 2 B. Mo. 722.

Where affidavits had been wrongly entitled, the Court gave leave to file fresh ones, properly entitled, but they kept the others on the file, and said that no difference in the matter could be permitted to be made in the new ones. The King v. Mead, 1 Law J. K.B. 88.

(B) BEFORE WHOM TO BE SWORN.

An affidavit, sworn before the attorney or solicitor in the cause, cannot be received. Reg. Gen. 9 Price, 478.

This rule is not to be construed literally, as applying only to the attorney whose name appears on the record in the Court of Exchequer, which must be one of the four attornies of the Court, but includes the immediate attorney or solicitor of the party and, therefore, a plea in abatement set aside on this ground. Cooper v. Archer, 12 Price, 149.

An information obtained upon affidavits, sworn before the attorney in the prosecution, is not available. Rex v. Gaoler of Ipswich, 2 Ken. 421.

Affidavits of the service of declarations in ejectment, may be sworn before the attorney in the Doe d. Cooper v. Roe, 2 Y. & J. 284.

cause.

In future no commission for taking affidavits is to be granted to a practising conveyancer, unless he be also an attorney duly enrolled and certificated. Reg. Gen. 1 Law J. K.B. 192, 1 B. & C. 288, 2 D. & R. 43.

This rule is extended to attornies practising in the Courts of Wales, and counties palatine. Reg. Gen. 1 Law J. K.B. 192, 1 B. & C. 656, 2 D. & R. 870.

The Court allowed an affidavit sworn before a Commissioner of the Court of Exchequer, in Ireland, to be read. Kilby v. Stanton, 2 Y. & J. 75.

(D) FORM AND REQUISITES OF.

Where the deponent to an affidavit of debt is an illiterate person or marksman, it should be stated in the jurat that it was read over to him in the presence of the commissioners. Anon. 1 Law J. K.B. 50.

Office copies of affidavits are not to be received or read in the Exchequer, unless signed by some accredited person, who has examined them. Reg. Gen. 9 Price, 298.

An affidavit to postpone a trial, on the ground of the absence of a material witness, is good, although it does not state his name. Smith v. Dobson, 2 D. & R. 420; Macullum's case, 1 Law J. K.B. 113.

The affidavit to stay proceedings need not set forth what stage the proceedings are in. Anon. 2 Law J. K.B. 38.

Although an affidavit be informal, yet the Court, if they think proper, will look at it for their own information. Anon. 1 Law J. K.B. 52.

The affidavit to change the venue in an action on a specialty, under particular circumstances, must set forth the names of the witnesses. Anon. 3 Law J. K.B. 56.

An affidavit to postpone the trial of an information, on the ground that a material witness is absent, must state where he is. The Attorney General v. Phillips, 13 Price, 522, s. c. M'Clel. 251.

But such a rule does not apply to civil proceedings. Buckingham v. Bankes, 4 D. & R. 832.

An affidavit must not be written in a slovenly and illegible manner; and if it be so, the Court will give costs against the party producing it. Bane v. Jones, 8 D. & R. 114.

An affidavit, upon which a defendant moves to set aside the proceedings, on the ground of his being arrested by the initial of his christian name, must disclose his proper names in the title of the cause, as well as in the body of the affidavit. Shaw v. Robinson, 4 Law J. K.B. 295, s. c. 8 D. & R. 423.

A palpable mistake in an affidavit—as the wrong year in the jurat-used in support of an application to the Court, is not an insurmountable objection to the motion, as the Court will permit the error to be amended by a supplemental affidavit. Cooper v. Archer, 12 Price, 149.

An affidavit of the service of a rule, by which it is not intended to bring the party into contempt, need not state that the original rule was shewn at the time of service. Farnstone v. Taylor, 2 Y. & J. 30.

(D) WHEN TO be filed.

Affidavits which are to be used on special applications, must, in the Exchequer, be filed one clear day before the application is made; and where notice of motion is necessary, the filing of the affidavit is to be mentioned at the foot of the notice. Reg. Gen. 9 Price, 58.

An affidavit in corroboration is received, and filed before cause shewn. The King v. Siberil, 1 Ken. 356.

An affidavit must be filed in time to be read on the day when the application is to be made. Watson v. Fairlie, 4 Law J. Chanc. 53.

A rule being enlarged, as a matter of course, and a condition imposed on the plaintiff to file affidavits in answer to that of the defendant a week before the commencement of the succeeding term: it was holden, that under circumstances the plaintiff was not precluded from using his affidavits, though they were not filed within the time specified in the rule. Harding v. Austen, 8 B. Mo. 523.

But a different rule was holden to obtain, where, on a motion to set aside an award, the affidavit of the arbitrator was not filed within the time limited by the Court. Cleesby v. Peece, 8 B. Mo. 524.

(E) DEFECTIVE AND IRRELEVANT.

If an affidavit, in support of an application for the postponement of the trial of an information filed by the Attorney General, on the ground of the absence of a material witness, does not shew, 1st, of whom the deponent made the inquiry, as to the material witness; 2d, the answer to such inquiry; 3d, that the person, of whom the defendant inquired, is a party to the affidavit; it is insufficient. The Attorney General v. Tyson, 11 Price, 229.

If, on deciding on the tenability of an affidavit, made in support of a rule for the postponement of the trial of an excise information, the Court are divided in opinion, as to the affidavit being suffi

ciently circumstantial, it will make the rule absolute. Attorney General v. Dodsworth, 11 Price, 232.

Mode of proceeding upon irrelevant or scandalous affidavit. Ex parte Chisman, 2 G. & J. 315.

Where affidavits contain irrelevant matter, the Court will direct the Master to ascertain what parts are material to bring the question in dispute before the Court, and in his taxation to allow costs to the parties making the affidavits, for such parts only as are material, and to the opposite party the costs occasioned by the irrelevant matter. Cassen v. Bond,

2 Y. & J. 531.

(F) PRODUCTION of.

The original affidavit cannot be received by the Court, in lieu of an office-copy. Blackmore v. Shirley, 4 Law J. Chanc. 33.

AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO BAIL. [See BAIL.]

AGENT.

[See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.]

AGREEMENT.

[See CONTRACT.]

ALIEN.

[See DESCENT.]

No act of the British Parliament, nor any commission derived therefrom, if inconsistent with the law of nations, can affect the rights or interest of foreigners. The La Louis, 2 Dods. 238.

Semble, that if a merchant expatriates himself, as a merchant, to carry on the trade of another country, he is to be deemed a merchant of that country.

Under the Revenue and Navigation Acts, particularly the Statute 12 Car. 2. c. 18, called The Navigation Act," no trade is permitted with the colonies and plantations dependent on the crown of Great Britain, (certain specific exceptions being made,) otherwise than in vessels bona fide British owned, and with goods and commodities of a particular kind, being actually the property of the British subjects:-It was held, by the Court of Admiralty, that the 58 Geo. 3. c. 19. s. 3. and 4, which permits the re-exportation from Halifax of certain goods (that shall have been previously legally imported there, according to the conditions of the Revenue and Navigation Acts), to other of the said plantations in British bottoms, owned and navigated according to law, will not protect the property of an alien, who, though formerly resident in a British colony, where he had taken the oath of allegiance to the King, has acted as factor, in respect of such goods, for another alien, born and resident in a foreign country.

Under stat. 28 Geo. 3. c. 6 s. 12, and 58 Geo. 3. c. 19, an American merchant could not send from