Viewing page 219 of 251

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

0468

5
manage the same and collect the rent thereof, a power visited in me by deed dated in Dec 1857 — and exercised by me continuously up to the time of seizure, and I during all that time a citizen and resident of Norfolk.

And how can Mrs Johns who has not resided in Norfolk since 1857 or since the property of Freemason St was devised to her, be said to have [[strikethrough]] been [[/strikethrough]] abandoned it unless one can be said to abandon [[strikethrough]] that of [[/strikethrough]] the possession of that of which she was never possessed. Mrs Johns has an interest in the rent and profits. If this interest is in any way liable to confiscation under the Act of July 1862 which will hardly be pretended however, it is obviously and manifestly just that proper proceedings should be instituted in the courts against the fund in my hands instead of leaving to an Agent of the Government to seize the property and there obtain indirectly and by force what the law contemplates shall be left to judicial arbitrament.
 
If not liable to confiscation and this can only be determined by the Court, there is no other ground of claim to it on the part of the Government — for it almost implies as absurdity to designate property conditioned as that herein described as abandoned or coming within the terms and intents of the Treasury Order under

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2024-04-15 20:03:20