This determination, continued _Kysarcius_, how contrary soever it may seem to run to the stream of vulgar ideas, yet had reason strongly on its side; and has been put out of all manner of dispute from the famous case, known commonly by the name of the Duke of _Suffolk's_ case. ------It is cited in _Brook_, said _Triptolemus_ ------And taken notice of by Lord _Coke_, added _Didius_. --And you may find it in _Swinburn_ on Testaments, said _Kysarcius_.
The case, Mr. _Shandy_, was this.
In the reign of _Edward_ the Sixth, _Charles_ duke of _Suffolk_ having issue a son by one venter, and a daughter by another venter, made his last will, wherein he devised goods to his son, and died; after whose death the son died also----but without will, without wife, and without child--his mother and his sister by the father's side (for she was born of the former venter) then living. The mother took the administration of her son's goods, according to the statute of the 21st of _Harry_ the Eighth, whereby it is enacted, That in case any person die intestate the administration of his goods shall be committed to the next of kin.
The administration being thus (surreptitiously) granted to the mother, the sister by the father's side commenced a suit before the Ecclesiastical Judge, alledging, 1st, That she herself was next of kin; and 2dly, That the mother was not of kin at all to the party deceased; and therefore prayed the court, that the administration granted to the mother might be revoked, and be committed unto her, as next of kin to the deceased, by force of the said statute.
Hereupon, as it was a great cause, and much depending upon its issue--and many causes of great property likely to be decided in times to come, by the precedent to be then made----the most learned, as well in the laws of this realm, as in the civil law, were consulted together, whether the mother was of kin to her son, or no. --Whereunto not only the temporal lawyers----but the church lawyers--the juris-consulti--the juris-prudentes--the civilians--the advocates--the commissaries--the judges of the consistory and prerogative courts of _Canterbury_ and _York_, with the master of the faculties, were all unanimously of opinion, That the mother was not of[4.12] kin to her child.----

'This decision,' continued Kysarcius, 'however contrary it may seem to run to vulgar ideas, yet had reason strongly on its side; and has been put beyond dispute by the famous case of the Duke of Suffolk. The case, Mr. Shandy, was this.
'In the reign of Edward the Sixth, Charles duke of Suffolk, having a son by one mother, and a daughter by another, made his last will, wherein he left his goods to his son, and died. After his death the son died also - but without a will, without wife or child. Since his mother and his sister by the father's side were then living, the mother took the administration of her son's goods, according to the 21st statute of Harry the Eighth, whereby if any person should die intestate the administration of his goods shall be committed to the next of kin.
'The administration being thus granted to the mother, the sister began a suit before the Ecclesiastical Judge, alleging, first, that she herself was next of kin; and second, that the mother was not of kin at all to the deceased son; and therefore she prayed the court that the administration of the estate might be revoked from the mother and given to her.
'As it was a great cause, with much depending upon its result, the most learned lawyers were consulted as to whether the mother was of kin to her son, or no. All the lawyers and judges were unanimously of the opinion, that the mother was not of kin to her child.'
