neously with the term. The effects of a lodger are liable to be seized for rent owing by as well as to the landlord, both for rent due and accruing due. See Debt, arrest for.

Lotteries.-The States by an Act, dated the 19th Dec. 1836, repealed their act of the 19th June, 1834, which abolished Lotteries in the Island of Jersey; and in pursuance thereof they entered into arrangements to raise money for the public service without the permission of the Crown, by disposing of the said Lotteries to a contractor. Their Act having been transmitted to the Privy Council unknown to them, was disallowed, as may be seen by the following order :-At the Court at Brighton, the 28th of Jan. 1837. "Whereas there was this day read at the Board a report from the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of Council for the affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, dated the 26th instant, in the words following, viz:-Your Majesty having been pleased, by your Order in Council, to refer unto this Committee an Act passed by the States of the Island of Jersey, on the 19th of December last, for repealing an Act passed by the said States, in the year 1834, abolishing Lotteries in that Island, their Lordships, in obedience to your Majesty's said order of reference, this day took the said Act into consideration, and do agree humbly to report as their opi. nion to your Majesty, that it is not advisable that the said Act should receive your Majesty's royal approbation. His Majesty having taken the said report into consideration, was pleased, by and with the consent of his Privy Council, to approve thereof, and to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the said Act of the 19th Dec., 1836, be, and is hereby disallowed. Whereof the Governor, Lieut. Governor, Commander in Chief, Bailiff and Jurats, and all other His Majesty's Officers in the island of Jersey for the time being, and all other persons whom it may concern are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly. "WM. L. BATHURST." On receiving this order, the States on the 3rd May, 1837, made a humble representation to his Majesty in Council, setting forth that they had a right to pass provisional ordinances to last for three years; that as their act had been passed and registered without any opposition on the part of the Bailiff, who might have put his dissent, or of the Lieut.-Governor who might have placed his veto against it, it had force of law; that as they did not transmit it, they were surprised to find that the act had been disallowed; that they deemed it expedient to use the right they possessed by law to stay the registry of the Order in Council which they considered contrary to their privileg es and interests until they should have an oppor

(Signed)

tunity of being heard by his Majesty; that they had entered into an engagement with the contractors for the said Lotteries, and therefore could not register the said Order without subjecting themselves to pay a considerable indemnity to the contractors who had already disposed of a great portion of the tickets; and therefore prayed his Majesty to reconsider his said Order, and if their reasons were insufficient, that they may be heard by counsel at the board in defence of their rights, &c. The effect of this was, that the Lords of the Privy Council determined on maintaining their Order, abolishing Lotteries in the Island, but in consideration of the States having previously entered into a contract for the disposal of the Lotteries for the current year, they would not insist on the said Order being put in force until the 31st Dec. 1837, at the expiration of which time, Lotteries should be entirely abolished. And they further intimated that if the States should defer registering the aforesaid order, their Lordships would be under the necessity of sending a peremptory mandate on the subject. A communication having been of the above from the Secretary of State to the Governor, and by him to the States, a motion was made and duly seconded at the sitting of the 20th June, 1837, that the Order in Council should be registered; this was opposed by the Constable of St. Martin Advocate Godfray, and the Solicitor General Dupre, and referred to a Committee. The result was that the Order in Council was never registered, but an act was passed on the 11th August, 1837, to substitute it, or rather to supersede it altogether, of which the following is a translation: "Considering that lotteries, raffles, and other games of chance, are very injurious to society, the States have decided to abolish public lotteries, and to prohibit private lotteries, raffles, or other games of chance. Therefore, from the 31st December next, public lotteries are abolished, and from the 1st September next, it is forbidden to sell, or offer, or advertise for sale, or to buy, or cause to be bought, any tickets, parts of tickets, or shares in foreign or private lotteries, raffles, or other games of chance of what nature soever, under the penalty of £10 sterling, for each ticket, part of ticket or share so sold, or offered for sale, or purchased in this country, as well against the seller or person offering for sale such tickets, parts of tickets or shares, as against the purchasers of such tickets, parts of tickets, or shares; the said penalty is to be applicable a third to the Queen, a third to the general Hospital, and a third to the informer. And in case of the insolvency of the offender, he shall be imprisoned for three months at least, and not more than a year." This Act has not

received the Royal assent, nor has the Order in Council been repealed. The consequence is that in England they consider the Act of the States has no force, and in Jersey, that the Order in Council is a dead letter.

Lunatics, or those who are considered incapable of managing their own affairs, may be deprived of the administration of their property, by an order of the Court, which, however, is not granted until incapacity is proved by six principal people, inhabitants of the same parish, and competent to form a judg. ment. A Curator is then chosen by seven of the nearest relatives of the lunatic, who are equally responsible with the person to whom the trust is committed, for the proper adminisstartion of the estate. A commission of lunacy from the Lord Chancellor has force in the Island, especially if the lunatic be an Englishman living in Jersey, and who has real and personal

property in England.

It appears that the guardian of a lunatic in Jersey has the power of deporting the sufferer to an asylum at Point-Orson, in France, nor does it seem necessary that he should obtain a warrant from the Royal Court, or a certificate from a medical practitioner. A case of this kind recently occurred, where the person confined was perfectly sane; after a detention of thirteen months he found the means of making known his situation to Mr. White, British Consul at Granville, through whose active interference he was released. Whether this right originated before King John was expelled from Normandy by Philip Augustus of France, or whether it has crept in since the islands were separated from the duchy, we can not at present ascertain; but in either case, such an abuse ought not to be continued, as it places the personal liberty of the subject under the controu of a foreign jurisdiction. Besides, it gives an opportunity to a designing guardian to strip a real or pretended lunatic of his property.

Maintenance.-The remedy on behalf of a wife for a separate maintenance on account of the misconduct of her husband, is by a petition or remonstrance to the inferior Court, claiming her marriage and a weekly allowance. Relief is never obtained in any other way. See Husband and Wife.

Majority, how to estimate it.-In Le Gros and others v. Le Breton & others, before the Privy Council in 1833. A remont. strance was presented to the Court consisting of 10 members, praying that a certain act or decree of that Court might be annulled, or for such other relief as the Court might deem fit. Four of the members were of opinion that the remonstrance ought not to be received, three that the act in question ought to

be modified, and three that the act ought to be annulled, whereupon the Court pronounced judgment that the Remonstrance was rejected. Their Lordships held that the Remonstrance ought to have been received.-[Knapp's Reports.]

Mandamus.-A high prerogative writ, of a most extensive remedial uature, issuing in the Queen's name from the Court of Queen's Bench, and directed to any person, corporation, or inferior court of judicature, within the Queen's dominions, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified.

Manslaughter is punished by fine, imprisonment, or banishment to England, according to circumstances.

Marriage, publishing banns of.-Under the 26th Geo. 2, c. 33, the publication of the banns must be in the names of the parties according to baptism or reputation. If otherwise, the marriage will be invalid, unless both parties are aware that when the marriage was solemnized a false name or names had been put up. In Martin v. Couch and Hillman, 1832, which was an action before the Ecclesiastical Court of Guernsey to cause an opposition made by the said Couch to the publication of the bands of matrimony between Hillman his apprentice and the plaintiff to be set aside. The indentures were made in England, in which the apprentice covenanted not to marry until he was 21 years of age, but he being then 20 years old, had attained his majority, the opposition was set aside, and defendant condemned to the costs.

Marriage with French Subjects out of France.-In the present state of our intercourse with France, it is of great importance to Englishmen, and more especially so to English women, to know what is the state of the French law respecting mixed marriages celebrated out of France. The Code Civil, Art. 173, declares, that marriage contracted in a foreign country by a Frenchman, whether with a Frenchwoman or a foreigner, is null, if it has not been preceded by a publication in France, or by respectful notices (actes respectueux) addressed by the Frenchman to his father and mother.' The Court of Cassation, by two decrees of the 9th of March, 1831, made after a solemn discussion in the cases of Julie Fauvel and Flore Dieu, has confirmed the principle,that the default of publication in France carries with it nullity of marriage contracted by a Frenchman in a foreign country. Some of the courts indeed have held that notices to parents are not absolutely necessary where the Frenchman is above twenty-five years of age. But the Court of Cassation grounded its decision solely upon the absence of publication. It is clear therefore, that any Englishwoman, or

even any Frenchwoman, who marries a Frenchman in England, without previous publication in France, renders herself liable, upon going to live in that country, to be reduced to a state of concubinage, and to have her children bastardised, if her husband should sue for a dissolution in the French court of law. The clergy generally should be made aware of this law, and should acquaint such of their parishioners with it as may come to them for the purpose of contracting marriages with Frenchmen. On the 6th of Oct. 1831, Mr. B. being above 25 years of age, contracted a Marriage in the Island of Jersey, with an English Lady. On his return to France, he made a formal demand upon his father for an annual allowance of 4000 francs, on the ground that, having himself become the father of a family, his wants were increased, and he required wherewithal to support his wife and children. The father resisted this claim, on the ground that the marriage was illegal; first, became the certificate of the marriage in England, did not state that the bands had been duly published; secondly, because the previous publications in France had been omitted; and thirdly, because no respectful application for consent had been made to him (the father.) These points were tried before the Tribune de Premiere Instance, at Nantes, and afterwards before the Royal Court of Rennes, on an appeal, both of which decided in favour of the son. The cause was afterwards brought before the Court of Cassation by an appeal, which came to a hearing soon after. The Court after hearing the Consel for both parties,decided that as marriages in Foreign Countries, between citizens of France and Foreigners, although celebrated in conformity to the laws of the country in which they are contracted are valid only when the previous publications have been made in France, and in the case of a Son above the age of 25, when either the consent of the parent has been obtained, or the prescribed formal applications for such consent have been made; and as in the case of Mr. B. jun., neither of these requisitions of the law had been complied with,--the judgment of the two provinicial Courts must be annulled as contrary to law.-See Clandestine Acts.

Master and Seamen. -No person shall be qualified to be a master of a British ship or to be a British seaman, within the meaning of this Act, except the natural born subjects of his Majesty, or persons naturalized by any Act of Parliament, or made denizens by letters of denization, or except persons who have become British subjects by virtue of conquest or cession of some newly acquired country, and who shall have taken the oath of allegiance to his Majesty, or the oath of fidelity