Prerogative Court, Friday...
'' W a 'u,t or ousiness was done in this Court to-day, but none of particular interest. One or two long depending cases were ad. vanced a 3tage or two. gUUTEIL V. 1SURIE. In thin case afn TeXftutorhi h Vad defol?d t.i g several reyprcn Centativel ; o dn h ir. uny g he survivor of thole representattver, was some tiae since called on to bring in an inventory and coeunt of the estate and effect of a Mrs. Elizabetht Arboulwr deceased:;- particularly a l to a portion of the estate ot that lauy's husband, which ehe, conjointly with her co-executor, had admjnistered,before r taking her own testament, of which nr. Burae was nominated the excecutor. Dr. e . AdIrovid , on behalf of Ara. IHlnter thedabghoer ef Mrs. Arbuitn, oprjected to the declara,iQ prodtcei In court in the way of inventory, and prayed thle Coi;rt to direct it to~ be retormned. Dr. Doinsoh , fox ir Burne, observed that Mlr. Arbouln, the original testator, in regard to a portion of whose property the aresent qlestion aros, dtled in 1803, in whiver year his widow and her co- executor took probate of his wilL Now, asthsentaprd so ong ago, and as cers. Arbounit had hererlf died so far back as 1806, andR the extecution of the trusts created by her will, on the pirs of Air. Barne 4nd hi;s coatxec,tor (now aeceaoed)1 niad never ealonre been objected to by any of the otlier numerous kindred and legatees of AIrs. Arl4oain, the learned counsel contended it was too much to call on his clent for any greatr specification of the first estate (M iTp. Arbouin's) thian he had rendered- inany years ago, to the satisfaction of all parties except theapplicant. Itmnight alsobe fairly contended that this Court hiad no jurfisdiction, or but a very feeble orne- to re- fuise orrejectan invoentory fqrnishedin complianoe witihits ass3'a tion. In a case reported in 5th Maule and selwYn, P.406, er ied i'Henderson v. French," it wa3heldby the cobnmon law court, that a prohibition would lie to the Cousistory Court of London, compelling it to receive an inventory; for the of c of that Court was nterely mimaiterial. The learned counsel, uRder all the circumstances, prayed that his party might be disanissod. Sir Jorrf, ?JIC1fQLL said, the dictumtt which had just been re- ferred to, applied onl to a case for whiceh an act of Parlianenat hail already provided and wherein the orl-giniql suit was brought by a creditor. The &omrt proceeded to statec the fActs opAt ptf wMhie the present qtuestion arose; observing, thm4t Al'r, Burne had positively sworn in his aflidavit, "th4jt no othier qf- the goods., -ebattels, credits, or efrects of the first deceased's estate (Mlr. Arbeuin) had comne to his knowledge or into his possession, save and except such as he liad already accountedI for and paid over at the times and to the parties mnentioned in certain accounts thierein referred to." Now, unless the other party couldi show some reasonable grouncl of belief that this solemn averiment was untrue, the Coutrt couldl not fairly eall or% Mr. Burrf'e, at this great diotance of time, for any more 4etailed specifi. cation of the eft~cts of the firsit estate than was contained in his pre- sent declaration. The Court, -having no sucht grounds before It, dismissed Mr. Burne fromn a ll urther observance of jusitice in tdie PREROGATIVE COUR'. FILDAY- NAv. A.