The Laws, Customs, and Privileges, and Their Administration, in the Island of Jersey: with Notices of Guernsey

in that capacity, undertake the suits of the Crown arising in England, without special authority. (Here he read the oath.) The Attorney-General maintained that he was nominated with out restriction, and that it was part of his duty to attend to the interests of the Crown, wherever originating.-The Court overruled the objection. Counsel then maintained that all actions by letters patent must be registered in the Court before they could have process upon them, and reminded the Jurats of their oath. This objection was also overruled. Counsel at length proceeded to argue that Writs or Warrants, issued in England, must be executed by the officer of the Court from which they emanate. In the present case this had not been done, and could not be done. He then went through the different Writs by name, for levying on the person and goods in execution by order of the Court, contending that the arrest and summons by the officer in Jersey was not a compliance with the forms required, therefore that the defendant must be discharged.-The Court, without any reply, overruled the objection, and confirmed the arrest with costs.

Jurisdiction of the English Courts in malters arising abroad. Offences committed out of the realm, are not coguizable by the Court of K. B. unless there is a special act of Parliament for the purpose of giving it jurisdiction.-Rex v. Munton, 1 Esp. 62-Kenyon. But if any part of the offence has been committed in England, the Court of K. B. then has jurisdiction. -Id. The King cannot, by charter, authorise the trial of crimes out of the country where they were committed.-Rex. v. Gough, 2 Dougl. 791. The Courts of Common Law have concurrent jurisdiction with the Admiralty Courts in murders committed in all havens, creeks and rivers in this realm.-Rex. v. Bruce, 2 Leach C. C. 1093; R. and R.C.C. 243. Regularly all questions of title to land in the colonies, are to be decided in the first instance by courts of local jurisdiction from which an appeal lies to the King in Council.-Attorney-General, v. Stewart, 2 Mar. 143. If a bond is made at a place beyond sea, it may be pleaded to have been made at Islington, in the county of Middlesex, or elsewhere, by fiction of law, in order to try the same in England, &c, for debitus et contractus sunt nollicis loci. Col. Lit. If any part of an offence be completed in Middlesex, though the rest were committed abroad, an indictment lies in that Court, East. Rep, 63, 3. new Rep. 91, and this though the defendant himself was out of the Kingdom at the time, if he caused the offence to be committed in England, as where the defendant sent over a libel from Ireland to be published at Westminster 6 East. 589, 590. Persous in his

Majesty's service abroad committing offences there, may be prosecuted in the King's bench by indictment or information laying the venue in Middlesex, 42 George 3, c 85 s. 18. So offences committed in the East Indies are subject to this jurisdiction, 24 Geo. 2 see 2 c. 35. s. 64. 78. 81. So if high treason be committed out of the Kingdom it can only be tried in the Court of the King's bench, or under a special commission, 33 Henry 8. c. 23, 1 Leach 157. 1 Hale 1. Felons who commit an offence in either Island provided it be completed in England, can be tried there, as was the case at the Lent Dorset Assizes of 1832, when George Prowes indicted for stealing wearing apparel, the property of Thomas Cundy, of St. Helier, Jersey, was convicted and sentenced to be transported for 7 years.

Justiciers or Jurats, packing of.-The following statement will explain how the Jurats are packed, or summoned out of their turns to hear certain causes, so that they may be decided by those who are strong partizans, and who usually vote for the faction to which they are allied :-" Before a Magistrate of the Royal Court of this Island, hereunto subscribed. Personally appeared Philip De Carteret, Esquire, who voluntarily made oath and saith, that on Friday the 9th day of November 1832; whilst Deponent was presiding the Court as Chief Magistrate, John William Dupre, Esquire, King's Advocate, acting as Counsel for Francis Godfray, Esquire, Constable of the Parish of St. Helier, requested the Deponent to cause Philip Raoul Lempriere, Esquire, (the Jurat appointed to preside the Court in causes wherein Sir John De Veulle Bailiff is personally interested), to be summoned to attend Court on the ensuing day (Saturday), inasmuch as a cause in which said Sir John De Veulle was concerned, would be brought on for hearing at the suit of the said Godfray. That Deponent accordingly ordered the said Mr. Lempriere to be summoned ; but did not give any directions for summoning other Jurats. That on the following day, Saturday the 10th November 1832, a cause having been called over by the said Francis Godfray, as Constable of St. Helier's, against twelve of the principal inhabitants of said Parish, and the Plaintiff having filed exceptions against the Jurats of the day, Philip Nicolle and George Philip Benest, Esquires, and also against the Deponent; and said Plaintiff having insisted that the cause should be decided by the other Jurats then present in Court, Philip Marett and George Bertram, Esquires, the Defendants object. ed that the cause should be heard, and determined by any other Jurats than those whose turn it was to sit for the day,

and Deponent having enquired by whose order Messrs. Marett and Bertram had attended, Mr. Hugh Godfray, Jun., the Denonciateur brother to the Plaintiff declared, that he had caused them to be summoned; that Deponent observed that such a proceeding was quite irregular, and has since forbidden the said Denonciateur to summon the Jurats in future, without the permission of the Chief Magistrate being first had and obtained. PHIL. DE CARTERET.

Sworn before me at Jersey this twenty

seventh day of Dec. one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two. PH. NICOLLE, Jun., Jurat.” In consequence of the above order, a fresh manoeuvre has since been adopted, which is for the Jurats to exchange days. The following paragraph from the News, will explain how it is done: "On dit that the thing has been so managed as to have Messrs. Marett and Bertram seated (very conveniently) on the Judicial Bench, to-morrow, to give their opinions on the causes set down for hearing at the Saturday's Court: should this be the case, it will be the fourth Saturday following that these two Justiciers shall have met there togetherin turn or out of turn we know not. Mr. Marett was not at his post, at the full Court, held on Wednesday last, on dit on account of ill-health. It is singular enough, that the only cause heard was one of private, and not of political, interest. It came to the turn of Messrs. Le Couteur, De St. Ouen, and Marett, to sit and decide on the cases (of no public interest) at the Cour d'Héritage yesterday, and of course it comes to the turn of Messrs. Bertram and Le Quesne to sit and give their opinion in the causes to be heard to-morrow-but, on dit, that as Mr. Le Quesne sat on the Bench yesterday, in the room of Mr. Marett, Mr. Le Quesne will permit Mr. Marett to sit in his room to-morrow, provided, of course, Mr. Marett is recovered of his illness! We shall see how this will turn out. Should the on dit prove correct, the public may again expect some jugement célèbre." Singular enough however, Mr. Marett did not sit, as predicted, but Messrs. Bertram and Le Maistre, of Trinity, hence said the Editor," how it came to be their tura to sit, we could not ascertain, for certain it is, that Mr. Le Quesne ranks between them." This system of packing the Jurats has been carried to such an extent, as to cause nearly all cases of importance to be decided by party men; take for instance the case of Journeaux v. the Messrs. De Ste. Croix, which in nine cases out of ten was decided by the Jurats, Marett and Bertram, the invincible opponents of the defendants; also the case of Thornton, at the suit of the Crown v.

Godfray, Crown v. Whitfield and Nicolle, and Rafter ". Le Cras; also the case of Le Breton v. Ennis which in thirteen times, was heard either by Messrs. Marett, Bertram, Le Quense or Le Maistre, so paired as to exclude nearly all the other Jurats. In Journeaux v. Messrs. De Ste. Croix, the Jurat Bertram heard that case seven times in eight, out of his turn!

Justices Itinerant.—Mr. Clark in his "Colonial Law" says, "Up to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Justices in Eyre were sent annually or triennally to Guernsey and Jersey, to hear appeals from the Courts of ordinary jurisdiction. Commissioners were afterwards sent at intervals for the same purpose, and were invested also with extensive powers to examine the state of the law, supply defects, correct inaccuracies and retrench what the deliberate assembly deemed superfluous. This custom, however ceased with James I."

Landlord and Tenant.-When a Tenant decamps from the Island, and leaves his house unoccupied, the Landlord, with the consent and assistance of a Police Officer, breaks into the House, and by writ, distrains the goods for the benefit of himself and other Creditors, but it has of late been held that he cannot claim a priority of payment for more than the amount of the Rent due. and six months to come.

Language. Notwithstanding English is now generally spoken in the Island, the language of the States and of the Court is a french dialect peculiar to ancient Normandy, and which operates very much to the prejudice of English suitors, whose causes are usually the most important that are brought before the local tribunals, because a sworn interpreter is not appointed. In the case of Godfray on the prosecution of the Crown v. Robertson (1838) on the demand of defendant, that the said Godfray, who was a witness should give his deposition in English, as the former did not understand french, the Court, (Bisson and E. Nicolle) on the conclusions of the Attorney General, overruled the demand, and decided, that it was only Her Majesty in Council who could alter the form of proceeding in this Bailiwick.

Larceny is punished by imprisonment, whipping or banishment to England!

Law Charges.-The following are authorised by an Order of Council, dated 19th March, 1819.

BAILIFF.

For each cause, excepting those for the payment of