CO129-416 - Public Offices - 1914 — Page 384

2.1.

7

8565

379

and tedd ddrob on ever I .eas avoto e at aldi

TOI LLUV WSW betssto ben en triguodd bxo datriw,JANTS

€

to abrow Lentro edit bevolque asri eti

.easiretimtisbnt

sascent mi brwort Fade no blov bied now dɔidw,Jiig ent

2 ·C

t

e (869.q alero bas pựD÷1 1) vjisë waïev alik

to

to the 8 es untette ..I ruinedtoo brod to notatoeb

. IseggA

-97 kutte ut tot blov meed Jon devij ont bed neva

brel to badataroo brui ard as rst oa at blow JE

<

a890

tebm úkov noen over bloriensei no blorisert Teridarfw)

basi mkandroll edit to A mottoes to anotatvorg eitt

zoltarego otti eneo fain ,9981 to JoA 198V €Idstileno

Kɔ X*sob s'imot to etub edt de bro 9881 MJEI Jaugua no

koneg en vatr 99701 ni "Idequeig aɛw 2831 JaIS JauguA

sit to V slatkA TO SUJTtv yd,ILLw ali ni jiig eft of

.3891 Itaruɔt ni T810 1:sqeɩ bne entro

I ,bib,Illw er: Tebmu estund art doiwesh .11

4

istenen galvan bas,benetan Nold" adneve ert at AMING

*

'

Atasb z'bro¶ sonte beeqale agri fofdw amit edd od

enrw ubrei suent of eltid boog vitaetieq a textupos

1 sudily at betIqqs riot) moitetimil to astuted2 ent

15 satro mi bræl os [łomoŭ ni nebro end to V SISIJIA

MWEN

(8PECI)

Japan owned by British subjects) against all the world

except the Crown, and to hold them upon the charitable

trusts on which he had in fact applied their income.

See Churcher versus Martin (1889) 42 Ch.D. 312 and

Re Lacy 1899 2 Ch.149

the principle of which cases would I think apply in

the present instance.

The question has, however, been raised whether the

Crown is not entitled to the lands and personal estate

of Ford, who, in the events which happened, died

intestate and without heirs or next of kin, as an

escheat and bona vacantia respectively. Had the

property, whether real or personal, been situate in

England, there would have been no answer to the Crown's

claim, and there does not appear to have been any

Statute of Limitations applicable which would have

barred the same.

There is, however, the further question whether,

in the present case, the Crown can claim the property

either by escheat or as bona vacantia.

I will deal first with the question of escheat,

upon which it is not, I think, possible to find any

direct authority.

The