HELVETS v. HELVETS

[Esterlen 4499]

SUBPOENA

14 O.F, 1750

 

THE PLAINTIFF, Leopold Helvets,

 

Represented by Frederick Armas, Esq.

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

 

The Estate of R. Kaedrin 

 

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW;

 

“TABLE VI. On Patrimony, Obligatory Heirs of the non-Imperial and Gentry. The obligatory heirs are the male children and male descendants with respect to their parents and male ascendants.”

 

“TABLE III. On Absence. Following a public absence, as decided by a magistrate or the Emperor, of eight years of more, it is the right of these parties to redistribute the patrimony of the absentee among his heirs.”

 

In challenging the last will and testament of R. Kaedrin, Adrian I, which proclaims verbatim:

 

“III. The Helvets Estate, being defined as the Duchy of Cathalon, the Varoche Palace, and the assorted intellectual and material properties hereafter referred to as the ‘Helvetii Vault’, are to be familial demesne of my sons Thomas Tancred, Peter Owyn, Leopold Guy, Robert Castor, Henry Frederick, and Richard Victor.

IV.  Until from amongst my sons one’s feats deems him worthy, as arbitrated by the attorneys of this will or a higher power, there shall be no Duke of Cathalon.”

 

It is the opinion of the plaintiff that as he is, to the knowledge of the law (His elder two brothers having been absent for longer than eight years, thereafter declared deceased under Imperial law), the eldest surviving son of R. Kaedrin, Adrian I, under the system of Imperial law which considers patrimony and succession through the lens of cognatic male-preference succession systems, the peerage title of Duke of Cathalon and the associated privileges therein are his rightful property. The purpose of this claim is to arbitrate on that matter.

 

Additionally, it is the opinion of the plaintiff that the estate’s fourth provision is in violation of these principles of succession in addition to being arbitrary and indeterminable. A ‘feat’ in this instance is not clarified, with complex and flexible parameters, and can not be expected to hold up within a court of law. Nonetheless, even taking this wish of the defendant’s estate into account, an objective viewer would determine that the plaintiff meets this criteria, having:

 

• Fought and defeated, in the field of battle, the dread pirate Antonius, in the service of the 2^nd Regiment of Foot (Also known as the Commonwealth Grenadiers). 
• Other services and actions rendered in service to the Holy Orenian Empire in his capacity as an ensign of the Imperial State Army.

 

Accordingly, it is the conclusion of the plaintiff that under fair and sensible law, the peerage of the Duke of Cathalon is his rightful property. 

 

WITH THE TESTIMONY AND INTERPRETATION OF;

 

Jasper de Sarkozy, Secretary of State of Civil Affairs 

Joseph Adler, Solicitor-General

Henry Rovin, Governor-General of Kaedrin

 

APPERTAINING TO THE JURISDICTION OF;

 

The Eastern Circuit Court,

 

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF;

To be affirmed in pre-judicial arbitration, with the intention of avoiding a hearing in proper and settling before a trial is necessary.

 

YOURS HUMBLY,

 

The Plaintiff, Leopold Guy Helvets [Mordu#6495]

 

[Volous 24]

As per effort by the Ministry of Justice to archive old cases I hereby recapitulate that a judicial opinion has been given and the case has been closed. It is now scheduled to be archived within the saint’s week. Herein dated on the 12^th of Snow’s Maiden (Horen’s Calling), 1774. 

 

Maud Cassowary, Esq.
Crown Solicitor