THIS case was most elaborately argued at the close of the last term and the commencement of the present by Dr. Phillimore and Dr. Lushington, on behalf of his excellency count Ludolf, the Sicilian ambassador, and Dr. Jenner, on the part of the representatives of sir Robert Hall, deceased (late a post captain in the British navy, and a brigadier-general in the Sicilian service). The king's advocate and Dr. Arnold, appeared for Chelsea hospital; against which institution the Court was prayed to enforce monition.

Lord Stowell gave judgment to day. The question, which the Court was called on to decide, arose from the capture of Genoa, and its two dependencies, Spezzia and Savona, then in the possession of the French government. The capture of these places was effected by the combined armies and fleets of the king of Great Britain and the king of Sicily; and a very considerable booty, or prize, was distributed among the captors under the grants of the respective sovereigns. The immediate question arising out of these transactions, related to the particular share of sir Robert Hall, a person described as a military officer in the service of the king of the Two Sicilies, and who was likewise a VOL. LXVIII.

naval officer, a post captain, in the service of the king of Great Britain. This party, who had been serving as a British naval officer, was transferred to the military service of the other state, the confederate state, then united with Great Britain in a struggle against the common oppressor of Europe. It did not appear how this transfer was effected. The court did not think it resulted from any of the papers which had been laid before it, that sir Robert Hall, previously to these captures, had had any connection with the Sicilian army, or with Sicily itself. It was probable that this was the first time that he had been connected with the Sicilian service by the joint opinions of the British military commander-inchief in that expedition (lieutenant-general lord William Bentinck), and the British admiral (now lord viscount Exmouth). It seemed to have been also the last time that he served in his military capacity; so that his connexion with the Sicilian service might be considered to have been accidental and temporary only. At the same time, the Court was bound to consider it a sufficiently authenticated fact, that sir Robert had been validly transferred to the Sicilian army; for he was certified by the British commissioners for the distribution of the Sicilian prizemoney as "a lieutenant-general in the Sicilian service." The claim now made on his prize-share, was preferred by the Sicilian minister A*

of parliament, that monies of this kind, thus circumstanced, should be paid over to the minister plenipotentiary of the king of the Two Sicilies; and the lapse of time which had intervened in this instance, made no sort of difference as to the efficiency of that order. Neither those acts, nor the order in council, comprised any limitation as to time, and their application was just the same as if the case were of the freshest occurrence. It was the duty of the Court to carry their enactments into execution as imperatively and peremptorily at this day and hour, as it would have been at the earliest opportunity which could have presented itself for acting on such statutes. The jurisdiction that they created for this Court began and closed with the attainment of a particular object, which was as binding now as it could have been at any former period.

If lapse of time, then, would not affect the application of these acts, what was to be said as to sir Robert Hall's having received a prize share as a naval officer? Why, the Court was bound to consider that the payment which had been so made to him, was made altogether in error. He was, in fact, to take as a Sicilian military officer; and that share was subject to be conveyed to Sicily for distribution, or to be dealt with there according to the will of that sovereign, or the institutions of that country. As to the authority to be respected, at this distance of time, was the Court to prefer a paper (the Sicilian list) which, though neglect ed during a long lapse of time was not reprehensible on any other account, and which was perfectly accurate and correct as it now

stood, or a paper (the British list) which was obviously incorrect, even independently of the proper principle adverted to by the Court, on which sir Robert Hall's greater claim on account of these transactions was founded? His lordship proceeded to shew that he must look upon the former as that which he ought to keep in view; that the acts of parliament, and the order in council, were both clear in their directions, and peremptory as to their enactments; and that his jurisdiction in this matter commenced and ended with them. Finally, he ordered the whole sum of 1,2917. to be paid out of the treasury of Chelsea hospital, to the Sicilian ambassador, according to the injunctions of the statute; and adverting to some charges insinuated in the proceedings against the conduct of the officers of the hospital, as if the original applications of his excellency had been treated with inattention and disrespect, the Court said, it must infer from the entire silence of Counsel on the subject, that such charges had been entirely abandoned: and it in truth saw no reason to think, that the officers in question had done any thing but their duty, or testified the slightest disregard or inattention in the business, to the interests of any of the parties concerned. He recommended the representatives of sir Robert Hall, to apply to the sovereign of Sicily through his minister here, who received these monies, in order to get so much of it as the inclination or liberality of the royal mind of his master might be disposed to allow them. The Court could only lament, that it had no power to do more in regard to them, than to suggest this advice.

found the interference of the deceased, and his perpetual dissensions about the "reprobate state' of his daughter extremely inconvenient and troublesome; and gladly availed herself of an opportunity of getting rid, with poor Miss Stott, of the importunities and visionary lamentations of her father. The singular eccentricities of the deceased, the strange intermixture of religious fervor and downright blasphemy in his conversation, his severity to his servants, his uncontrollable hatred to dray men, drovers, and butcher-boys, his diurnal contests with offenders in these classes, his whimsical notions of the miraculous virtue of electricity, by which he at one time proposed to discharge all the functions of an accoucheur ! his inordinate opinion of himself, amounting to a belief of his own infallibility-and the persevering hatred with which through life he pursued his daughter, were detailed at great length in the evidence. Mr. Stott was originally a footman; and appears to have been a man of great natural endowments, and to have procceded, with singular energy, in the acquisition of his practice and his fortune.

The learned judge stated the question to relate to the validity of the will. Mr. Stott had several nephews and nieces, who, as such, would of course not be entitled in distribution. The property of deceased at his death amounted in value to nearly 40,000l. In the month of February, 1821, his wife applied for a commission of lunacy against him; the inquisition was executed accordingly, and the deceased was found to have been of unsound mind from the preceding 1st of January. The will propounded in this cause was dated May, 1818; and had been executed, therefore,

not within the period comprehended in the finding of the jury, under such inquisition, but at a date about three years prior to that period. By the will, he left to his wife all his household furniture, and other things of that description; to his nephew, Thomas Clark, a legacy of 100%; to his other nephew, Valentine Clark, 150l. ; and various other legacies (including some small annuities) of no very great amount, to different individuals; especially to a Miss Hey, in acknowledgment of the endeavours she had exerted in common with himself "for reclaiming his daughter, after the latter had thrice revolted from him, and flung herself from his care and protection." There was a legacy in pretty nearly similar terms to his friend, Mr. Daniel Gough; but the amount was left in blank. To his daughter and only child he bequeathed, altogether, about 1007. per annum only; to his wife, Mary Stott, 400l. a-year during the term of her natural life or widowhood; to his three executors 50l. each; and the whole residue of his real and personal estate, in the event of his, the testator's

having no other children at the time of his death, to his nephews, Thomas and Valentine Clark, the parties in this cause. His wife he joined in the executorship of this will with the three executors before alluded to. Such was the substance of the will; and undoubtedly it was a testament very much to the prejudice of the daughter (the other party in the cause) who was his only child, and was yet assigned so small a portion out of this very large property. It was a will, however, very formally drawn up, and attested by three respectable wit