Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

The Opinion of the Court; Helvets v. Helvets

Recommended Posts

The Opinion of the Court

The Amber Cold, 1750

With regard to;





The Court finds this subpoena’s intention to be subject to Judicial Review by the Eastern Circuit. Therefore it shall perform it’s duty in reviewing the case and delivering it’s ruling. Such judicial review requires no formal courthouse trial, except in circumstances when the Court determines it necessary. In absence of a Justice present in the Western Circuit, Supreme Court Justice John d’Arkent rules at the Circuit level for the purposes of this review. This review and ruling are, therefore, still subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. The following shall be dictated from the subpoena itself, with the Court’s commentary.


“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.


The Court affirms the items expressed here as universal stipulations of the case.


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 2nd 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.


The Court finds these ‘feats’ to be of no extreme nature, as countless men kill bandits, pirates, and serve the Empire every day of their lives. However, with no alternative heir present, the Court believes it inappropriate to have a title held by a dead man withheld from his sons, in a state of nonexistence which has no legal basis. 


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. 


The Court concurs. It is fair and sensible to award the requester the title Duke of Cathalon. 


In summary;


  1. A man’s will may not withhold a title in a state of non-existence or purgatory which has no legal premise or basis.
  2. Leopold Helvets shall be awarded the title Duke of Cathalon, by virtue of the Court’s interpretation of the law and the will of the deceased.
  3. Should the other potentially eligible sons reveal themselves to be alive they may appeal this ruling by the court for one year from the deliverance of this ruling.


Sir John d’Arkent, KCHE

Duke of Sunholdt, Baron of Selm

Justice of the Supreme Court

Ruling in absentia of a Circuit Judge

Edited by BenevolentManacles

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...