ACTION IN THE NAME OF QUEEN VICTORIA.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 5, 18 November 1863, Page 2 (Supplement)

ACTION IN THE NAME OF QUEEN VICTORIA.

A DISPUTED LEGACY. The tribunal of the Seine has just pronounced a decision in a somewhat extraordinary will dispute. An English lady — who had been twice married, the first time to a wealthy English gentleman, and, after his decease, to Comte de Silley, a French nobleman, died in October last, leaving in her will a sum of 100,000 francs (414000) to Queen Victoria, to be employed for the benefit of the London poor. The other legatees under the will and the executors wrote to the English ambassador to acquaint him with the fact, information of which was in due time transmitted to her Majesty, who decided to accept tha legacy. One of the legatees then insinuated that her Majesty should fet the relatives have the money. The English legal authorities were consulted, and they gave the opinion that the relatives had no right to the money, of which the Queen was the sovereign dispenser, unless they came under the category of the poor. The general legatees then required the Royal signature legally affixed to a royal document, and they proceeded to summon the Queen to appear on the 2nd July, either in person or by procuration. The summons was sent on the 22nd of June The case then became before the tribunal of the Seine, the plaintiff applying that order should be made for the payment of the legacy to her Majesty's Ambassador. The legal representative of her Majesty proceeded to contend that the money should be paid over to the Ambassador, who was recognised by all legal authorities, many of whom were quoted as representing in everything the person of his Sovereign. A precedent was cited in which a legacy to the Pope of an estale had been given over to the Nuncio after some dispute. The question, the advocate for the Queen contended, was not one of private law, but of international law. The advocate on the other side maintained that the legacy was made to the Queen as a private individual, and the intentions of the testatrix would not be carried out unless her Majesty became per- ' son lly the almoner of the sum left at her own disposal. The Ambassador represented his Government — that is, the Chambers of his country, the Ministry, and the Royal person — but he could not represent one of those parties separately from the rest. The French law knew neither Sovereigns nor Ambassadors. The Queen ought to submit to the requirements of that law, and to put her signature at the foot of a special and authentic procuration. That was the only guarantee which the legatees could have that the sum left hjui passed into the august hands for which the testatrix had destined it. The president of the tribunal, M. Benoist* decided in favor of her Majesty, saying that an Ambassador represented his Sovereign, and that all he said and did was substantially said and done hisby Sovereign.