former should judge the matter, and the latter be professionally engaged. In the cause of the Crown v. Hue and Amy, 1837, indicted for falsifying an affidavit for the exportation of corn, Judge Le Maistre gave evidence against the prisoners, after which his competentcy to judge in the matter was opposed, when the Court ruled he was competent, and he resumed his seat. In Ranwell v. Machon and Godfray, 1838, an exception having been raised to the evidence of the Plaintiff's Advocate who had been summoned as a witness in support of his case, the Court overruled the objection, and received his deposition, grounding their decision on the following_precedents: -Thornton v. Godfray in which the Solicitor General gave evidence although his colleague, the Attorney General prosecuted the case : Brown v. Machon, in which Mr. Messervy, plaintiff's homme d'affairs was heard; and the Burrard-street affair,in which the Advocates, Messrs. Hammond and Godfray were heard on the one side, and Advocate Le Sueur on the other. In Le Breton, Attorney-General v. Ennis, 1839, the Solicitor-General Dupre, who was counsel for Plaintiff, gave evidence on the matter at issue. But here a difficulty arose as to how he should cross examine himself, when the following expedient was hit upon. The Plaintiff interrogated him and when defendant's counsel raised an objection to a question, he pleaded also for its being put !

Evidence in criminal cases, relevancy of." Evidence," says Blackstone, "signifies that which demonstrates, makes clear or ascertains the truth of the fact or point, in issue, either on the one side or on the other; and no evidence ought to be admitted to any other point." Conformably to this doctrine, a witness in criminal prosecutions takes the following oath :-"You promise and swear that you will declare the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of what you know in the prosecution of her Majesty's Attorney General against which you will do without favor, hatred or partiality, as you will answer to Almighty God, and the acquittal of your conscience." It is evident from this, that the obligation which a witness enters into, is, to declare what he may know in the prosecution against the criminal, yet nevertheless the Jersey Court allows questions of the most irrelevant and revolting nature to be put to a witness. Take for example the case of Mr. Barber, a witness for the prosecution in the Crown v. Marin, 1835, who on his cross examination, was asked certain questions respecting his marriage and other family matters, which had no connexion whatever with the prosecution. Witness was asked, "How many times have you been married?'

He refused to answer, but was adjudged to do so, by an act of the Court. He said "twice." Prisoner's Counsel: "When and where ?" Witness objected to answer the question, as it had nothing to do with the case. The Crown officer concluded that he was bound to answer every question, however irrelevant it might be to the matter at issue, as long as it did not incriminate himself, but witness still refusing to answer, the Court committed him to prison until he did answer.

Evidence abroad, in actions at law. The Courts of Jersey and Guernsey have no power to issue a commission to take evidence abroad, (as the Courts of Westminster have,) not even from one Island to the other: nor do they admit any documentary evidence, excepting the records of a Court of competent jurisdiction, duly proved. Hence, if a person is sued for debt or damage, the ground of action for which originated out of the Island, as for instance in England, France or America, it is impossible for him to bring evidence to rebut the claim, even if the debt should have been satisfied,or to disprove the allegations for his defence. In Ennis v. Thomas and Co., (1834) an appeal before the Full Court, it was judged "that the certificate passed by three sworn brokers at St. Pebersburg the 5th May, 1831, attested by a notary public produced by the defendant was not available, as an authentic document without being proved as true." In Pellier v. Jones (1834) certificates of eminent Surgeons in London were tendered by the Plaintiff to establish the fact of a dislocation, and to show that the treatment applied to it by the Defendant was adapted to a simple contusion. The Court however decided against the reception of written evidence of this kind, on the ground that it was obtained exparte.

Evidence, as to Colonial transactions, how procured in Eng. land.-The first section of 1 W. 4, c. 22, recites the act 13 Geo. 3, c. 63, relating to the examination of witnesses in India, and extends the provisions of that statute, so far as they relate to the examination of witnesses in actions at law," to all colonies, islands, plantations, and places under the dominion of His Majesty in foreign parts, and to the judges of the several courts therein, and to all actions depending in His Majesty's courts of law at Westminster, in what place or county soever the cause of action may have arisen, and whether the same may have arisen within the jurisdiction of the court, to the judges whereof the writ or commission may be directed, or elsewhere," Upon the 13 Geo. 3, c. 63, the Court of Common Pleas held [Grillard v. Hogue, 1 Brod. and Bing 519.] that a mandamus might be granted to the court in

India to examine witnesses on behalf of either a plaintiff or defendant in a civil action. By s. 4. the courts at Westminster, Lancaster, and Durham, may order the examination of witnesses within their jurisdiction by an officer of the court, or may order a commission for that purpose out of their jurisdiction, and may give such directions touching the time, place, and manner of such examinations as to them shall seem fit. But by section 10 of the same act, no examination to be taken by virtue of that act shall be read in evidence at any trial without the consent of the party against whom the same may be offered, unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of the judge that the examinant or deponent is beyond the juris. diction of the court, or dead, or unable, from permanent sickness, or other permanent infirmity, to attend the trial. This statute was passed expressly for the purpose of extending to all the colonies, &c. under the dominion of His Majesty, the provisions of the 13 Geo. 3, 63, s. 40, which related to India alone. [See also Geo. 3, c. 57, s. 38, part, and the 24 26 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 88, therein recited.] It has however gone further than that or any other statute on the subject of prosecutions for perjury, for it has declared [sec. 7] that if any person examined under the authority of that act shall wilfully and corruptly give any false evidence, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and may be indicted in the county where such offence was committed, "or in the county of Middlesex, if the evidence be given out of England." [As to the methods prescribed by different sta. tutes for obtaining evidence from India, see 13 Geɔ. 3, c. 63; and as to the practice in such cases and in others, (now other wise previded for by the sct 1 Wm.4,c.22,) see Tidd's Pract. 9th edit. 810, et esq., and the cases there cited }

By 42 Geo. 3. c. 85, passed to facilitate the trial and punishment of persons holding public employments who had committed offences abroad, it is provided that when prosecutions are instituted by virtue of the act, it shall be lawful for the Court of King's Bench, on motion, and after sufficient notice, either on behalf of the prosecutor or defendant, to award writs of mandamus, in its discretion, to the chief justice or judge of any court of judicature in the county or island, or near to the place where the offence has been committed, or to any governor, lieutenant-governor, or other person having chief authority in that country, or to any other person residing there, as the court may think expedient, for the purpose of obtaining and receiving proofs concerning the matters charged in the indictment or information, and after pointing out the

Island. No penalties for violating the sanctity of a Fast Day can be enforced, unless provided for by Act of Parliament or Order in Council.

Fees, Ecclesiastical.—In all matters of fees and costs, the Ecclesiastical Court follows the practice of Civil Court. It is seldom or never requisite to recover them by means of Ecclesiastical censures. If however the parties should be obstinate on that head, they could not be obliged to pay more than the insignificant charges specified in the Table subjoined to the Canons.

Feudal Tenures, &c.-Feudal vassalage prevailed formerly, in an extensive and humiliating degree in Jersey. The present enlightened state of mankind has considerably ameliorated its effects, and, in many oppressive circumstances, annihilated the power some remains however still exist in the island. The extent of these are now clearly defined, and they may all be commuted for specific sums of money. There are, in Jersey, many fiefs or manors, that have, at various times, been granted by the crown, and that are held under different tenures. The most honourable are those en haubert, or held by knight's service. There are now five of this description. They are those of St. Ouen, Rosel, Samarés, Trinity, and Meleches. We shall present our readers with a translation from the extent of Edward the third, A.D. 1331, respecting two of them, as nearly specimens of all.

"ST. OUEN'S PARISH.-Reynold de Carteret holds, in the said parish, the manor of St. Ouen, with its appertenances, by homage, suit of court, and relief; the value of which relief, when the case occurs, is nine livres tournois; and for services, that he is bound to serve our lord the king, in time of war, in the said island, at the castle of Goureie, at his own expenses and costs, for the space of two parts of forty days, himself one of the three, with horses and armour."

"ST. MARTIN'S PARISH.-William de Barentin, nephew and heir of Sir Drago de Barentin, knight, holds the manor of Rosel, with its appertenances, and the fief of Rosel, by homage; and the said fief owes sixty sols, one denier, of relief, when the case occurs. And should our lord the king come into the said island, the said William is himself bound, for the said fief, to meet our lord the king, on his horse, on his arrival, in the sea, up to the girths of his horse: and, in the same manner, to conduct him, on his departure. And while our said lord the king shall remain in the said island, the said William is to be the King's butler, on account of the said fief, and is to have the usual emoluments belonging to the king's butler;

and owes attendance at court, in the said island, at the three sessions of the court of heritage, according to the custom of the country." Specimen of one of the inferiour tenures; from the same extent.

"ST. JOHN'S PARISH.-Richard le Franchois, for eighteen acres of land, twelve in Trinity parish, and thirty in St. Lawrence's parish, owes for the whole, a dinner to our lord the king, at the feast of St. John; which dinner, the bailiff, the viscount, and the king's clerk, in this island, with their horses, and two servants, are accustomed to have and if the prevost of the fief should pay it in money, the annual value is twelve sols tournois. He owes full relief; that is to say sixty sols, and suit of court."

Gentlemen who hold fiefs are usually called by the names of their seigneuries, as Monsieur de St. Ouen, de Rosel, de Samarés, de Trinité, de Melches, &c.

Fines, remittal of.-In the case of Abraham Piton (1830) who was sentenced to pay a fine of five shillings for omitting to go to drill, and who for a default of payment suffered 4 month's imprisonment among the criminals; the full Court on the hearing of his remonstrance, claiming to be liberated,decided according to the conclusions of the Crown Officers; that the demand of the remonstrant could not be granted as in such case his majesty would loose the fine to which Piton was sentenced, and that there was but the Governor (Lord Beresford) who could remit it. The remonstrance was therefore rejected, and Piton sent back to Prison.

Fixtures.-Every thing erected by a Tenant is considered a fixture if nailed to the freehold. Special agreement with the Landlord, in writing, is necessary for their removal, unless they are fixed by screws.

Forcible Entry.-Neither the Sheriff, Denuciators nor Police Officers can make a forcible entry to serve a civil process for an arrest of either person or effects, without previously obtaining by motion, an Act of the Court, for that purpose.

Foreigners are prohibited from selling goods, wares and merchandize, by retail: they are however allowed to sell by wholesale, under a licence, as may be seen by the following extract from an Order in Council, dated 28th February, 1660: "Wee have therefore thought fit and accordingly doe hereby will and require you, to prohibit, forbid, and restrayne all forrainers and strangers (as well French as others not being his Majestie's native subjects) by themselves or by any other person or persons whatsoever, directly or indirectly, privatly or publiquely, to utter or sell by retayle, any goods, wares or