[merged small][ocr errors]

philological learning (Rome, 1542—50, 4 vols, fol., and Bale, 1559—60, 3 vols. foL, new edition, Leipsic, by Weigel, commenced in 1825, 4to.).

Eustatia, St., one of the Leeward islands, fifteen miles south-east of Saba, and eight north-west of St. Christopher's, is a huge rock, rising out of the waves, in the form of a pyramid, 29 miles in circumference. Sugar, cotton and maize are raised here; but the principal production is tobacco, which is cultivated on the sides of the pyramid, to its very top. There is but one landing place, and that, though difficult of access, is strongly fortified. The number of inhabitants is 18,000, of whom 4000 are whites, chiefly Dutch, and 14,000 negroes. The Dutch made the first settlement on this island about the year 1600. In the year 1665, it was captured by an English expedition. The French, however, soon afterwards expelled the British; and restored it to the Dutch in 1667. The English retook it in 1689, and restored it on the termination of the war in 1697. In 1781, a large naval and military force, under admiral Rodney, compelled the inhabitants, who were ineapable of defence, to submit at discretion. The English commanders, under the pretence that the people of the island had supplied the U. States with naval stores, confiscated all private property, and, at one blow, reduced the unfortunate inhabitants to poverty. In the same year, however, the island was retaken by a small body of French troops, under the command of the marquis de Bouille. St Eustatia was again attacked by the English in 1809, and compelled to submit; but, in 1814, the Dutch government was restored.

Euterpe ; one of the muses, considered as presiding over music, because die invention of the flute is ascribed to her. She is usually represented as a virgin crowned with flowers, having a flute in her hand, or with various instruments about her. As her name denotes, she is the inspirer of pleasure. (See Muses,)

Euthanasia; a gentle, easy, happy death. Wieland gave this name to one of his works.

Eutropius, Flavius; a Latin historian, who, as he himself informs us, bore arms under the emperor Julian. The place of his birth and his history are unknown to us. He flourished about 360 A. D. His abridgment of the history of Rome (Breviarium Historic Romance) reaches from the foundation of the city to the time of the emperor Valens, to whom

it is dedicated. The style, though not finished, is perspicuous. The most esteemed editions are those of Havercamp(Leyden, 1729), Verseik (Leyden, 1762,2 vols.), and Tzschucke (Leipsic, 1804).

Euxine (Pontus Eitxinus); the ancient name for the Black sea.

Evan; a surname of Bacchus. (See Bacchus.)

Evangelical. The king of Prussia has endeavored, for some time past, to unite his Lutheran and Calvinist subjects. There was, in fact, little difference in the faith of many of the two denominations; many of the Calvinists, or the Reformed, as they are called in Germany, not holding to predestination and several other Calvinistic points; and many of the Lutherans having not adhered to the doctrine of consubstantiation. Not a few, however, still adhere strictly to the tenets of their different sects. To assist the union, as it was styled, the Lord's supper is nowT administered uniformly, in all Protestant churches, throughout the kingdom, viz.: unleavened bread is used in the rite. If any Lutheran, however, -wishes to receive the host in the old way, he may have it, because the sacrament in all Lutheran churches is administered in this form likewise. Calvinist preachers, or rather such as were formerly Calvinists, are now often appointed in Lutheran churches, and vice versa. This union has had some salutary influences; but the question may be reasonably asked, What is the character of the two sects in their present state? Have they given up or become indifferent to the important points of distinction which formerly existed between them? Nothing, in this respect, has been settled. In the public documents, the words hatheran or Calvinist are never used at present, evangelical being substituted in the room of both. The king even went so far, a few years ago, as to prohibit the use of the word Protestant, in any publication, and ordered the term evangelical to be employed, on occasion of a theological controversy which had attracted his majesty's attention.

Evaporation is the conversion of liquid and solid bodies into elastic fluids, by the influence of caloric. Expose, for instance, water to heat, bubbles at first adhere to the sides of the vessel, which, by degrees, ascend to the surface, and burst. These bubbles rise the more rapidly in proportion to the heat. Water is evaporated by the heat of the sun merely, and even without this in the open air, and the vapor, rising into the air, is condensed

[ocr errors][merged small]

into clouds. The general cause of evaporation is caloric; but different substances require different degrees of it. Water is particularly subject to evaporation. It evaporates at a very low temperature, and, from the immense quantity which is spread over the earth, it may be inferred, with great probability, that the most important changes in our atmosphere are occasioned by it Instruments have been invented to measure the evaporation of water (see Atmoiwder), but the results are uncertain. If we assume, as experiments justify, that the annual evaporation averages 30 inches (i. e. that the vapor, if reconverted into water, would cover the surface from which the evaporation took place, to a height of 30 inches), then, the surface of all the waters on our earth being assumed at 128,000,000 of geographical miles, 60,000 cubic miles of water would be annually changed into vapor; and the amount will be still greater, if we add to it the evaporation from moist earth and from the watery parts of the vegetable and animal kingdoms. In summer, evaporation is generally much greater than in winter; yet it is not so inconsiderable in cold weather as we might suppose from the small quantity of caloric then sensible. Even in the polar circles, it does not entirely cease; for ice evaporates in the open air. To account for the phenomenon of evaporation, two hypotheses have been formed; that it is a conversion of fluids into elastic vapor by their union with caloric, or that it is a real solution of the fluids in the air. The latter theory has been opposed, particularly by De Luc. He maintains that, in evaporation, water combines with caloric, without being dissolved in the air. The principal argument in support of this theory is, that cold is generated by the evaporation of a liquid. Cold is only the absence or consumption of caloric. If now, in evaporation, caloric is consumed, i. e., is combined with the evaporated water, this consumption must

generate a sensible cold. De Luc further maintains, that the air, so far from contributing to evaporation, prevents it by its pressure. If this pressure is removed, the same quantity of water requires far less caloric to evaporate it; for experiments show that water evaporates more rapidly in a vacuum than in the air, and Saussure says, that at the same degree of the thermometer and hygrometer, the evaporation on mountains, where the air is of three times less density, is more than double that in the valleys. Later experiments render it still more evident, that a dissolving power of air is not necessary to change water into an elastic vapor, since, otherwise, it could not be produced in a vacuum. Such a dissolving power in the air, however, is absolutely required to effect a uniform mixture of this vapor with air; otherwise, from the difference of the specific gravities of the two fluids, a separation must ensue, of which we have no experience; and we find ourselves compelled to regard the union of the expansive vapor with the air as a true solution of the one in the other. De Luc developed the first view in the JYouvelles Idtcs sur la MeUorologk (London, 1786,* 2 vols.), while the solvent power was maintained to be the cause of evaporation by Hube, in his treatise On Evaporation (Leipsic, 1790). (See Perspiration.)

Artificial Evaporation is a chemical pro-, cess, usually performed by applying heat to any compound substance, in order to separate the volatile parts. It differs from distillation, its object being chiefly to preserve the more fixed matters, while the volatile substances are allowed to escape. Accordingly, the vessels in which these two operations are performed, are different ; evaporation being commonly made to take place in open, shallow vessels, and distillation in an apparatus nearly closed from the external air.

Eve. (See Adam.)


Domicil, in law. By the term domicil, in its ordinary acceptation, is meant the place where a person lives, or has his home. In this sense, the place where a person has his actual residence, inhabitancy or commorancy is sometimes called his domicil. In a strict and legal sense, that is properly the domicil of a person, where he has fixed his true, permanent home, and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning (animus revcrtendi). The Roman law stated it thus: in eoaem loco singidos habere domicilium non ambigitur, ubi quis larem rerumque ac fortunarum suarum summam constituit, unde cursus non sit discessurus si nihil avocet; wide, cum prof ectus est, peregrinari videtur; quod si rediit, peregrinari jam dtstitit. (Cod, Lib. 10, tit 39,I. 7.) In the French law, some of its best writers define it thus: Le domicile est le lieu ou une personne jouissarit de ses droits, etablit sa demesne et le stige de sa fortune (Denizart, article Domicile); or, as the Encyclopedic Moderne (article Domicile) expresses it, C'est, a proprement parler, Vendroit ou Von a place le centre de ses affaires. Vattel (B. I, ch. xix, § 22) seems to define it to be a fixed residence in any place, with an intention of always staying there. This is not quite accurate. It would be more correct to say, that that place is the home or domicil of a person, in which his habitation is fixed, without anv present intention of removing therefrom (10 Mass. R. 488). The question of domicil is often one of great difficulty and nicety, and so dependent upon circumstances, that, as it has been observed by lord Stowell (2 Rob. 322), it is hardly capable of being defined by any general, precise rules. It is compounded partly of matter of fact and partly of law. It is often a mere question of intention; Vol. iv. 52

sometimes of express intention, and sometimes of presumptive intention, from acts and conduct. The mere dwelling or residence in a place is not, of itself, sufficient to make it the domicil of the party. He must be there with the intention of remaining (animo manendi). The act of residence must be coupled with the intention of making it the real, substantial home of the party, excluding all others. If, therefore, a person, having his home in one place, go to another for temporary purposes, but with an intention to return, his domicil is not changed by such absence; nor does he acquire a new domicil in the place of such temporary residence. If a person go on a voyage to sea, or to a foreign country for health or pleasure, or business of a temporary nature, with an intention to return, no one supposes his domicil to be changed thereby. But, sometimes, where there has been a removal for temporary purposes at first, there may be engrafted on it, subsequently, an intention of permanent residence. And, in many instances, therefore, where we are called upon to decide upon questions of domicil, the length of time of the residence becomes a material ingredient. Lord Stowell has observed, that it is not unfrequently said, that if a person comes to a place for a special purpose, that shall not fix a domicil. "This," he adds, "is not to be taken in an unqualified latitude, and without some respect had to the time which such a purpose may occupy; for if the purpose be of a nature that may probably, or does actually, detain the person for a great length of time, a general residence might grow upon the special purpose. A special purpose may lead a man to a country, where it shall detain him the whole of his life." (2 Rob. Rep.

[ocr errors][merged small]

322,324.) These remarks, again, require some qualification; for time is not absolutely decisive in such cases, if it is clear, from other circumstances, that the purpose was wholly temporary and positive. Suppose a man should go to a country in ill health, and remain there a number of years, and, during that whole period, were incapable of being removed, or of returning home, without danger to his life; if such residence were so constrained, it would not change his former domicil. The question of domicil is of very great importance, for it often regulates political and civil rights, and founds or destroys jurisdiction over the person or property. Thus, for instance, there is what is called a political domicil, which is that place where a party must exercise his political rights, duties and privileges, as his right to vote, his duty to pay taxes, &c. Then there is what is called a civil domicil, or that where he has fixed his habitual home or residence, which decides upon his civil rights, and power to acquire, alienate and dispose of property, to contract marriage, &c. Then, again, there is, or may be, a forensic domicil {forum domicilii), or place where he is to sue or be sued, and to be subjected to the exercise of the jurisdiction of judicial courts. It may, and it often does happen, that the political, civil and forensic domicil is the same; but this is a matter, not so much of general principle, as of positive legislation in different countries; and, therefore, it is often regulated, in different countries, by very different rules, sometimes by opposite rules. Some general principles, however, may assist to guide us, in cases where there is no positive legislation to govern the case. 1. The place of birth of a person is considered as his domicil, if it be at the time the home of his parents. Patris originem unusquisque sequitur. This is generally called domicilium originis (the domicil of nativity). But, if the parents were then on a visit or journey (in itinere), the home of the parents (at least if it were in the same country) would be deemed the domicil of nativity. A person born in a foreign country, while his parents are there under the allegiance of the government of the country, though they are there for temporary purposes only, is generally deemed a subject of such country, and owing allegiance to its sovereign. 2. The domicil of birth continues until a new domicil has been obtained. Infants are generally deemed incapable of changing their domicil during their minority, and, there

fore, they always retain the domicil of their parents; and if their parents change their domicil, that of the infant follows; and if the father dies, his last domicil is that of the infant. A person who is of age to choose a domicil for himself, still retains the paternal domicil, while he continues to remain with his parents. But when he is emancipated, or has acquired a domicil of his own, he no longer follows the paternal domicil. 3. The domicil of birth, also, easily reverts; and it requires fewer circumstances to establish in proof, that a party has reverted to the domicil of his nativity, or family domicil, than to establish his foreign domicil. The reason is obvious. A residence in the place of one's birth, unexplained, gives rise to a general presumption, that it is of permanent choice; because an affection for such a place, and a desire to abide there, are so commonly found among all classes of persons. 4. The domicil of a married woman follows that of her husband. This results from the general principle, that a person who is under the authority and power of another, possesses no right to ^hoose a domicil. 5. By the civil law, minors retain, as we have seen, the domicil of their parents; and the same principle is said to apply, in that law, to the case of persons insane, or non compos mentis, whether they are under guardianship or not; for the guardian has no power to change their domicil, as it may change the order of succession to their estates. But it has been said that our law is different, and that a guardian may change the domicil of his ward, if he chooses. (9 Mass. R. 543; 5 Pick. R. 20.) But this is a point which deserves very grave consideration, and does not seem universally settled, as a part of the common law. (See Gaier v. O^Daniel, 1 Binney, 352, note; Somerville v. Somerville, 5 Vesey jr., 787; Pottinger v. Wightman, 3 Meriv. R. 67.) 6. Prima facie, the place where a person lives is taken to be the place of his domicil, until other facts establish the contrary. 7. Every person of full age having a right to change his domicil, it follows, that if he removes to another place, with the intention to remain (animo manendi), the latter instantaneously becomes his place of domicil. It is of no consequence, in such a case, how short his residence may have been; for it is the fact, coupled with the intention, that settles his domicil, and here both are unequivocal. 8. If a person has actually removed to another place, with an intention of remaining

[merged small][ocr errors]

there for an indefinite time, and as a place of present domicil, it becomes his place of domicil, notwithstanding he may have a floating intention to go back at some future period. 9. The place where the family of a married man resides is generally considered as his domicil. But this may be controlled by circumstances. For if the place be only a temporary establishment for his family, or for temporary objects, it may be different. 10. If a married man has his family fixed in one place, and does his business in another, the former is considered as the place of his domicil. 11. If a married man has two places of residence at different times of the year, that will be esteemed his domicil which he selects, considers or describes as his fixed home, or which appears to be the centre of his affairs, where he votes, or acts as a citizen. 12. If a man is unmarried, that is generally the place of his domicil where he transacts his business, exercises his profession, or assumes municipal duties or privileges. 13. Residence in a place by constraint, or involuntarily, will not give the party a domicil there; but his antecedent domicil remains. 14. Mere intention to acquire a new domicil, without the fact of removal, avails nothing; neither does the fact of removal, without the intention. Presumptions arising generally from circumstances, will not prevail against positive acts, which fix and determine domicil. 13. Widows retain the domicil which had been their husbands' until they have acquired a new one. Vidua mulier amissi mariti domicilium retinet.—There are some other considerations, of a general nature, which deserve enumeration, as they respect domicil in a foreign country. Those which have been already referred to, principally respect domicil in different parts of the same country. 1. We have already seen, that persons who are born in a country, are deemed inhabitants and citizens of that country. Foreigners, also, who reside there for permanent and indefinite purposes, or, as Vattel expresses it (B. I, ch. xix, § 213), who are permitted to settle and stay in a country, are deemed inhabitants. If they are there merely on a visit, or for temporary purposes, they are not deemed inhabitants. 2. A person who resides in a foreign country, for purposes of trade, is deemed an inhabitant of that country by foreign nations; and his character changes with that of the country. In peace he is deemed a neutral, in war an enemy; and his property is dealt with accordingly in prize courts.

{The Venus, 8 Cranch R,278.) 3. A person may have a national character of his trade, although his domicil be in a different country. Thus, if he be allowed to engage in the trade exclusively belonging to the subjects of an enemy's country, he will, so far as respects that trade, be deemed an enemy trader, and his property will be liable to condemnation as such, though his own domicil be neutral. So, if he is the owTier of a plantation hi an enemy's country, the produce thereof will be liable as prize in the same manner.; So, if he be a partner in a house of trade in an enemy's country, his property in the partnership will be deemed the property of an enemy. (9 Cranch, 191; The V&ilantia, 1 Rob.*R., 14, 15; ThePhamix, 5 Rob. R., 20; The San Jose Indiano, 2 Gallison's R.,268.) 4. A national character, acquired by residence in a foreign country, changes wdth a change of that residence: and if no other domicil be acquired by the party subsequently, his native domicil reverts; and, in such a case, it will revert as soon as he puts himself in motion to return to his native country, although he has not actually arrived there. But the mere return to his native country does not destroy his foreign domicil, unless there is an intention to abandon the latter. [The Venus, 8 Cranch R., 278, 281; The France, 8 Cranch R., 335.) 5. If a person quits his own country, for temporary purposes, or in public employment, and solely by reason of such employment, his native domicil is not changed thereby. If an Englishman, for instance, should go to Germany in the king's service, or for a temporary purpose, the domicil of his birth would not be changed. But if he entered into the German service, although with a general, indefinite intention to return to England, it would be otherwise. 6. The descent of real estate, such as lands, is according to the law of the place, rei $it(e. But the descent and distribution of personal estate is according to the law of the place of the owner's domicil. It has been recently doubted in England, whether a British subject can, by a foreign domicil, change the general lawT of succession, as to his personal estate, existing in his own country. But it is admitted he may change his domicil, in different parts of his own country, and thereby change the succession and distribution of his personal estate. (Curling v. Thornton, 2 Addam's Eccles. R., 17, 19.) 7. A wrill of personal estate, good by the law of the place where the party

« 上一頁繼續 »