The hearing was continued of the charge against Thomas Freeman of having assaulted and beaten one Chang Yay-see on the premises of the Grand Hotel on the 12th instant.
A. J. Tatton, the manager of the Grand Hotel, said that the defendant was dismissed on the morning of the 13th instant. On the 11th instant witness had to tell the defendant to go to his room, as he was under the influence of liquor. The so happened again in the evening. On the morning of the 12th instant, witness again told him to go to his room and to stay there until he was sent for. About 5 o'clock that afternoon one of the bors came to witness's and said that Freeman was creating a disturbance in the office. Witness got dressed and hurried downstairs to the office, where he found Freeman in a very excited state. Witness was told that Freeman had struck one of the servants, so he told the defendant that he must not do that make China his permanent home. The will which his legal representatives now present for probate is wholly in his own handwriting, and was duly attested by two witnesses. Neither of these witnesses, however, is within the jurisdiction of the Court. This being the ease, the instrament before the Court must be regarded as a holographic will, which, under the common law now in force in Ching, is valid, but the Court is not informed that such a will is recognized by the law of Georgia.
These facts present for consideration one of the most complex and important subjects connected with the operation of the law of extraterritoriality. Suecinetly stated, the legal question here involved is: Can an American citizen acquire what may be termed an_ extraterritorial domicile in China? Can he have " domicile out of the United States in which he is nevertheless governed the laws of the United States, or must he retain that of the state where he was domiciled Lefore settling in China? In investigating thix subject, it will be necessary to have a clear conception, first, of the American law of domicile, and second, of the true meaning of extraterritoriality. sort of thing and that they would have to dispense with his services. The barman was allowed to drink at the bar in moderation, but not to excess, and Freeman's chits for ten days amounted to 8123.
The defendant sail that the chits were not for what he had consumed himself, but for drinks he hud stood to customers to encourage trae.
The defendant was fined $10 and costs, or in default of payment sentenced to one week's imprisonment. with hard labour, That person must always have a domicile somewhere, that no person may have more than one domicile at time, that every natural person free and ni june may change his domicile at pleasure, and that civil. states, "wi attendant rights and disabilities, depends, not upon nationality but pon domicile, are propositions upon which the authorities are universally agreed. While domicile has been defined by law writers in a variety ways, yet there are two elements which are found in all definitions, name-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.