Crimes committed out of the Realm triable in England.There are several statutes of Parliament by which the parti. cular crimes of treason, murder and manslaughter committed out of the realm by any persons are made triable within the realm of England-See Hen. 8, c. 15; 33 Hen. 8, c. 23; 35 Hen. 8, c. 2; 10 and 12 Wm. 3, c. 7; 11 Geo. 1, c. 29, s. 7; 39 Geo. 3, c. 37; 43 Geo. 3, c. 113. s. 6. And see two opinions that 28 Hen. 8, c. 15, extends to colonies established before the Act has passed, 1 Chal. op, 199 and 4 Chal. op. 220, but see also 2 Chal. op. 202, 203.

Crimes committed on the High Seas.-The 1 Geo. 4, c 91,s 1, provides that the Crimes and Offences mentioned in 43 Geo. 3, c 58, committed on the high seas, out of the body of any county, shall be liable to the same punishment as if committed on land in England or Ireland, and shall be inquired of &c. as treason &c. are by 28 Hen. 8.

Criminal Law.-Strictly speaking there is no criminal code, so that the Court, after conviction of offenders, is mostly guided by precedents, or by its own discretion derived from the analogy about what the law would do in other countries in inflicting punishment. To facilitate the finding of those precedents, which were formerly registered promiscuously with the civil proceedings of the Court of Catel, the judgments in all criminal cases have since the beginning of this century, been entered in a separate book.-[Durell.]

Criminals, escape of.-In the case of Vautier, Carter and Cooper, 1833, charged with having broken into the house of Mr. Le Boutillier, in the parish of Trinity, and stolen therefrom certain money and other valuable effects, who having effected their escape to England, were afterwards apprehended at Gosport, on suspicion of having stolen property on their persons, were transmitted to Jersey in custody of a Constable, and tried and convicted: thus Justice soon overtook the criminals. Now let us contrast with this the way things are managed in the Channel Islands, where criminals who escape from one Island to another, if apprehended, cannot be removed back again, or be convicted there. In the case of Wren and others, charged with robbery, who broke from the Jersey prison in 1836, and were pursued by the gaoler and apprehended in Guernsey, the Court of that Island held that they were not competent to take cognizance of the matter as it originated out of their bailiwick, and consequently discharged the prisoners! Again: in the case of Matthews and Prowden, charged with the commission of various robberies in the island of Guernsey, and who escaped to Jersey, where they

were apprehended, the Court of this island held also, that inasmuch as the crimes were alleged to have been committed out of their bailiwick, they had no jurisdiction in the case, and therefore liberated the prisoners! Again: in the Crown v. Beauchamp, 1837, defendant was sued for the penalty of £100, as one of the crew of the schooner Spartan, which sailed from Jersey and was seized at Penzance, for having on board contraband tobacco. The prosecution was founded on 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 53, s. 48, intituled, an act for the prevention of smuggling, which extended to the island, and had been registered on the public records. It appeared that Beauchamp had escaped from Penzance, and fled for shelter under the privileges of this exempt jurisdiction. On the objection of defendant, the Court held that inasmuch as the facts alleged originated out of the bailiwick, they could not take cognizance of the matter, and discharged him from the action. On an appeal to the full Court, the judgment was affirmed! By this it may be seen that criminals escaping from other countries, are sure to find protection if they take refuge in either one of the islands of Jersey and Guernsey.

Crown Officers, recommending of-The manner of recommending these Officers has been modified. It was formerly literally understood, as was probably the original intent of the Patent, that the Governor should not interfere in recommending to those appointments. (See Art. Governor.) That continued to be the case till 1802, when the Royal Court recom. mended one person, and the Lieut.-Governor, Lieut.-General Andrew Gordon, recommended another to the vacant place of King's Procurator. Thos. Le Breton, Esq., the nominee of the Lieutenant Governor was appointed, when the Court refused to swear him in, on the ground that it was an incroachment on their privileges. This led to some spirited Representations on both sides, till at last the Gordian Knot was cut by an Order of Council, directing the Jurats to swear in Mr. Le Breton, under pain of incurring the Royal displeasure, and that the Lieut. Governor among others had a right to recom. mend. The liberal meaning was that he might do it as any other private man; but it was in fact granting the power to the Lieutenant Governor, and taking it from the Royal Court, who, could that body divest itself of intrigue and party feeling are the best judges of the fitness for such an Office.[Durell.]

Crown Officers, their right to be present at the States.-On the petition of the Procurator General, Advocate General and Deputy Viscount, setting forth that by a resolution of the 4th

October 1823, the States decided that the Crown Officers had no right to speak in the assembly on any question but those which concerned his Majesty's interest or when required by the States; his Majesty referred the said petition to the Lords of the Committee, who reported that the right claimed by the Crown Officers was founded on a custom sufficiently established by usage; wherefore the following order of the 19th March 1834, was issued: "His Majesty having taken the said representation into consideration was pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to approve thereof, and his Majesty doth hereby order and direct, that no interruption be given to the Procureur, Vicomte, and Avocat du Roi, in the exercise of their right to be present in the Assembly of the States of Jersey, nor to the Procureur and Avocate du Roi in the exercise of their right to speak in the Assembly upon any subject which may be brought under consideration: and his Majesty is further pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered that this order be forthwith registered in the Royal Court of the said island whereof all persons concerned are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly. (Signed)

:

C. Greville." Crown, matters concerning the.-The Governor or his Deputy shall be present when there shall be any sentences given in the matters which concern His Majesty, either in interest or prerogative; and the officers of His Majesty shall be able to intervene by appeal in cases where His Majesty shall be interested.-Code, 1771.

Curator. Should any person make a bad use of his proper. ty, the heirs at law may on applying to the Court, and shewing sufficient cause, have a curator or guardian for bad conduct appointed over him; in which case the proprietor loses all power over his effects and is considered in this and some other respects as a man in England would be, against whom a statute of lunacy should be issued. The mode of proceeding is to lodge a complaint with the Constable. On an information given by the Constable, that a person residing in his parish is incompetent to manage his affairs, the Attorney General moves the Court, that six of the principal inhabitants who may be acquainted with the party shall be convened before Justice to report their opinion on oath, as to his or her state of mind; when, if it shall appear, that the party is non compos mentis, the officer moves the Court for leave to summon seven of the nearest relations to elect him a guardian, called a curator, who on being approved by the Court is sworn into office for a year and a day. Curators may be appointed over

in the Island or out of it. and without oath being previously made that the said debt is justly due, and without security being given to prosecute the suit, though the Plaintiff should also be expatriable; [Hitchcock v. Mc Gregor] persons not expatriable are liable to arrest on bills or promissory notes payable to order, but not on bonds [Queree v. Aubin, 1838]: the Sheriff can take either body or goods, but cannot take both unless he first seizes the goods, and finds them to be insufficient to satisfy debt and costs. Money, i.e. coin of the realm, found in the house or lodged in a bank and also debts in the hands of a third party, can be arrested, but not money carried about the person; nor the working tools of an artificer unless it be for Rent. [Benest v. Toll, 1838.] The law requires that before an arrest shall be levied, the Sheriff shall present an account to the debtor setting forth the particulars of the demand. Arrests, for security of payment, of bills of exchange and promissory notes, not due, are made on the person, and arrests for security of rent, accruing due, are made on effects. If the debt be contracted out of the Bailiwick, and no acknowledgment be given within it, or an engagement to pay it here, it has been questioned if the Court is competent to entertain an action for its recovery, but if it be founded on a bill of exchange, or any negociable instrument, or even on a bond, or on the record of a judgment given in England, or elsewhere,either for debt or damage, the Court always maintains its competency thereon: the creditor in such case may follow the debtor to sue him, or send a power of Attorney, giving authority to some person to act on his behalf, but the power must be enrolled in the Court, to give it validity; or he may get an administrator appointed to represent him, which is the cheaper mode. Evidence of the debt by the personal attendance of witnesses, or acknowledgment in writing, properly authenticated, is necessary. Persons when arrested are, in default of bail, either of a person of known landed property in the Island, or a deposit of the money, committed to prison. The debtor is usually brought up by the next Court day, (generally on Saturday) when the case is heard and the arrest is either liberated, or confirmed with costs, but if the debt be denied the matter is sent to proof, and in the mean time the debtor is remanded to prison. It is said that if a creditor releases his debtor from gaol he can cause him to be arrested again for the same debt both before and after judgment, adding the costs of the previous caption and the prison expences thereto, and that he can do this again and again until the debt be extinguished by payment, or the debtor be discharged from custody by an Act of the Court.

Debt, arrest for, when and by whom it cannot be executed. -Arrests made after sunset, have been adjudged illegal : in the case of Gallichan and Machon v. Lamb, (1834) defendant was arrested between the hours of nine and ten o'clock at night, on an order of Justice, on which the Court gave the following decision: "It appearing that the arrest of the person of Defendant has been made after sunset the Court by the balance of the chief magistrate, has judged that it is illegal, therefore the said arrest remains liberated." It has been questioned whether the execution of a Writ by the Deputy Viscount, who is not named therein, is legal, but there is no decision on the point. It has been adjudged, however, that an arrest made by the Constable is illegal, when the party has not previously applied to the Sheriff. In the case of Gray v. Poyntz (1836) the Court held that, an arrest made by the Constable of St. Helier on the person of defendant, in virtue of an Ordre de Justice, was illegal, inasmuch as Mr. Gray had not applied to the Sheriff or Denunciators to arrest him; and it appearing afterwards that defendant had been subsequently arrested by Denunciator Aubin, whilst in prison on the arrest made by the Constable, and after the Court had declared it to be illegal also, it being effected in consequence of that made by the Constable, wherefore they liberated it accordingly.

Debt, arrest for in Guernsey.- By an Order in Council dated 13th May, 1823, which regulates the Law of Arrests, Bail, Costs, &c., no arrest of the person is permitted for any sum under £5 sterling; and only in cases founded on affida vits, taken before the Bailiff, or before any one of the jurats of the Royal Court, after a person has lived in that Island a year and a day. In the case of De Jersey v. Mc Lean, the Guernsey Court decided that all persons, whether fondés en héritage or not, are equally liable for debts due on Promissory notes, Bills of Exchange, or other negociable securities, twenty-fours hours after arrival in that Island. By the constitution of the Island, the Court has no cognizance or jurisdiction over debts or other cases that have been contracted out of the Bailiwick, or that have originated elsewhere, and in former times, even so late as in the memory of some of the Court, the exemption from arrest of a stranger, for a debt contracted in England or other places abroad, was absolute, not only for a year and a day, but so long as the stranger remained in the Island. It is only of late years that the Court has modified this general exemption, and judged that after a continued residence of a year and a day, the stranger