JUDGMENT :

STANLEY, J.

A preliminary objection to the hearing of this application has been raised by the learned pleader for the opposite party. It is that having regard to the provisions of section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the petitioner for the appointment of a guardian to her daughter. That section provides that if the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of a minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Apparently the contention raised would be sound if it were not for the fact that all powers and jurisdiction previously existing in the High Court are preserved by Section 3 of the Act. Prior to the passing of the Guardians and Wards Act the Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications for the appointment of guardians. This was so decided in the case of Shannon,[1869] 2 N.W.P., H.C.R., 79.. The effect of that case was to show that the High Court in Calcutta could appoint guardians of infants who are European British subjects even though those parties reside outside of, and have no property within, the limits of its ordinary original jurisdiction. Section 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court provides that this High Court shall have the “like power and authority with respect to the persons and estates of infants, idiots and lunatics within the North-Western Provinces as that which is exercised in the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, but subject to the provisions of any laws or regulations in force.” The High Court at Fort William had power and authority with respect to the persons and estates of infants, and that power has therefore by the Letters Patent been expressly conferred upon this High Court. Consequently it appears to us that there is no substance in the objection which has been raised and we shall disallow it. No doubt under the provisions of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act a District Court has jurisdiction under the Act, but the jurisdiction so conferred upon it, has not prejudiced or affected the jurisdiction which this High Court has under the Letters Patent. It is unnecessary to consider whether the Court had not jurisdiction in this matter under its general powers. The objection is, therefore, over-ruled, and the matter will be disposed of on the merits.

2. This case comes before the Court on the application of Mrs. Ellen Ramm, the wife of Mr. Robert Ramm of Kirkee, praying that she may be appointed guardian of the person of her minor daughter Hilda Ramm. The circumstances of this case are somewhat peculiar Miss Ramm is one of several children of Mr. and Mrs. Ramm. When she was of the age of about two years, Mr. and Mrs. Ramm entrusted her to the care and custody of Mrs. Ramm's brother, Mr. Spencer and his wife, and from that time up to the present, Miss Ramm, who is now of the age of 16 years and 4 months, has been brought up and educated by Mr. and Mrs. Spencer at their own expense. She has during the period according to her own statement, been well and kindly treated. She has regarded Mr. and Mrs. Spencer as her father and mother, and is accustomed so to designate them, and she herself is known as Hilda Spencer. She has on very few occasions seen either of her parents, and in fact and truth has little or no knowledge of them. It is clear from the evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Spencer treated this young lady as their adopted daughter, and that Mrs. Ramm fully acquiesced in this, When the time came for Miss Ramm to be sent to school, she was sent to a Convent School and later on to several other schools, and she is at present completing her education at the Agra Convent, where she wishes to remain in order to complete her education and fit herself for the medical profession.

3. We have had an opportunity of questioning Miss Ramm as to her feelings in this mat