INDIAN PRINCE'S STATUS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14895, 22 January 1912, Page 3

INDIAN PRINCE'S STATUS.

GAEKWAE AS CO-RESPONDENT. (rBOM OTJ* OWN COMtESPOJTDBNT:.] ; London, December 13. A cuwotrs application was made; thia week to Mr. Justice Bairgrave Deane in the Divorce Court, in which H.H. the Gaekwar of Baroda was the central figure. The Gaekwar is one of India's most enlightened rulers, i thoroughly Westernised, and an aggressive critic of British rule. He has been cited as co-respondent in the j care of Statham versus Statham, and the j question of jurisdiction was raised. .In India all the ruling princes above the law and can never be sued for any debts, however legal the claim may be. The Gaewkar, of ooursei refused service of the writ this summer, and by the time it could be served on his solicitor the royal personage had returned to India. _ Mr. Bayford, for the petitioner, asked for leave for substituted service - of the divorce citation, on the prince. He said that the question was whether the Gaekwar could say he was a ruling sovereign in an Indian state, and therefore exempt from the processes of this Court. The India office in its certificate said His Highness was recognised by the Government of India as a ruling chief governing his own territories under the suzerainty of His Majesty the King. The certificate added that His Highness; was not treated as a subject of His Majesty. The whole basis of it was the suzerainty of His Majesty over the- State, and therefore over the ruler of that State. The Gaekwar was the raler of a State, but subject to the suzerainty of the English Crown. The Gaekwar must be treated j as a foreigner, but then the question came, was he also an absolutely independent ruler over an independent State, owing no suzerainty? For the Gaekwar, Mr. W. 0. Willis submitted that his client did not come within the jurisdiction of the Court. The divorce citation should be cancelled, and his! name should not be used as a party to the suit. The document supplied to Mr. Justice Lush by the India office clearly showed that the Gaekwar was a native prince under British, suzerainty, but that j the British did not treat his territory as being part of British India. Therefore, he was a foreign ruling prince, and the Court had no jurisdiction over him. The Judge promised to consider his decision. [The decision was ultimately in favour of the Gaekwar, who z since the above 'was; written, has been censured for his attitude! to the King at the Durbar.] ; '' J