make this case public for the protection of English merchants, for this precedent destroys all the commercial sacredness of bills, since the signature of a debtor may in Jersey be set aside on the testimony of two witnesses, if they swear that the creditor made a verbal promise for time. In justice to ourselves, we can assure English merchants that such a defence would have been scouted by the Royal Court of this Island.-[Guernsey Star, Nov. 5, 1838.]

Promise, proof of.-A sues B for a debt. C caused the action to be discontinued, by promising in the presence of D, to pay the amount. Some time after, A claimed payment. C demurred, and pretended that his words did not involve a promise. A had then two ways of proceeding he might have obliged C, to declare upon oath, whether he actually did, or did not, give a specific promise; or he might have summoned D, to prove the obligation: the latter was however related to C, and therefore informed A, that his evidence would not be admitted. Thus did the law assume, in one sense, the power of a court of chancery,by compelling C to a declaration, upon oath and, in a civil light, to criminate himself; while, on the other hand, A was deprived of D's evidence, on a principle directly contrary to that on which, a priori, the disqualification originated. D's evidence was to be suppressed, because, from affinity he might have been partial to C, whereas the suppression operated, in the present case, completely in C's favour, by depriving A of his only witness.--[Plees.]

Proof of debts made in England for recovery abroad.-The proof of debts whether by specialty or simple contract, when the creditor resides and the debt occurs in England, is made in a manner peculiar to the Colonies, under the regulations of the Statute, 5 Geo. 2, c. 7. By this act it is provided that in such cases it shall be lawful for the Plaintiff and Defendant, and also to and for any witness, to certify and prove any matter or thing before the chief magistrate of the city, &c. in or near which he resides, by affidavit or writing upon oath, or if a Quaker by affirmation ; and every affidavit or affirmation certified under the city seal, in manner thereby directed and transmitted to the colony, shall be of the same force and effect there as if sworn, viva voce in open Court. No notice is required by the act to be given to the opposite party on the occasion of making such affidavit before the magistrate, but the proceeding is entirely ex parte; and on production in the Colonial Court of the affidavit so sworn, it is allowed in proof of the debt; though such evidence may of course be encountered by viva voce testimony on the opposite side. Proof of debt under this

Act, which is usually received in the Colonies and British Possessions abroad, has never yet been acted upon in the Channel Islands.

Proof of writings attested abroad.-Since the 26 Geo. 3, c. 57, s. 38, for proving writings attested by persons resident in the East Indies, it has been laid down as a general rule of evidence, not confined to the East Indies, that when the subscribing witness to a deed, or any other written instrument, is absent in a foreign country,and consequently is not amenable to the process of English courts of justice, it is sufficient to prove the witness's handwriting, [Vide Cooper v. Marsden, 1 Esp. 2; Gough v, Cecil, Selwyn, 516; Adam v. Kerr, 1 Bos. and Pul. 360; Currey v. Child, 3 Camp. 283; Cunliffe v. Setton, 2 East, 183; Prince v. Blackburn, 2 East, 250; Phil. Ev. 4 ed. 513; 1 Stark. Evid, 342; Crosby v. Percy, 1 Taunt. 364, 462, and Burt v. Walker, 4 B. and A. 697.] although we have seen it is required by the statute that the handwriting of the party to the instrument should be also proved ; and this proof has been also required by high legal authorities, on the ground that if the attesting witness were present he would prove not merely that the instrument was executed, but the identity of the person executing it, for the proof of the handwriting of the attesting witness only establishes that some person executed the instrument by the name which it purports to bear, but does not go to establish the identity of that person. [Wallis r. Delancey, 7 T. R. 266, n.; Nelson v. Whittal, 1 B. and A. 21; vide Coghlan v. Williamson, Doug. 93.] However, in a late case, where an action was brought on a promissory note, and the subscribing witness was dead, it was held sufficient to prove his handwriting, and that the defendant was present when the note was prepared, without proving the handwriting of the defendant. [Nelson v. Whittal, 1 B. and A. 19.]

Property of Intestates. -A widow on the death of her busband, and before forty days shall elapse from that date, may go before the Court, and declare that she stands upon her marriage rights se tenir sur son marriage, by which she reclaims her original personal estate, and one third of the real property her husband possessed at marriage, renouncing her dower or one third of the acquired property, and becomes released from one third of the debts which her husband owed at his decease. When a stranger dies in the Island intestate, leaving no direct heirs or kindred living in the Island, the Viscount, or his Deputy, takes possession and sequestrates the property for the benefit of those to whom it may appertam. If letters of administration to an intestate who died in

Jersey, be taken out in England, a return must be made to the Stamp office, Somerset-place, within one year, of all the Intestate's residuary personal estate, though situated in Jersey, Guernsey or elsewhere,and the duties be paid thereon. Alhough this is the law, it is scarcely, if ever, complied with. The notices sent from the Legacy office being treated with silent contempt. The custom of the city of London, relative to the distribution of Intestate's effects, as recognized by parliamentary statutes, extends to all those who were free of the city, wherever they may have died, or wherever their effects may be situated. See Intestates, distribution of their estates.

Property by Marriage.-The moveables of two persons entering into matrimony, become a Joint Stock, but the real estate does not: the wife's still remaining vested in her and cannot be alienated by the husband without her being made a party to the deed. If they have been separated quant aux biens she may alienate without his consent, for they are then remitted to their original position as regards property. She can also claim her marriage, that is Household Furniture, Bed, Bedding, House linen and wearing apparel which she brought to her husband by marriage-and she can do this even to the prejudice of her husband's creditors. A widower enjoys at his wife's death, if there have been children, her real estate until he marries again again; but it then reverts to his next of kin, as it does if there has been no issue.

Property by Marriage in France.-By the custom of Paris, and now by the general law of France, persons marrying place part of their property in common (en communauté); of this the husband has the administration during coverture; another part they retain for their private or separate use; this is the propre which should not be confounded with the propre au succession; in the latter case, propre signifies a real estate derived by descent, as distinguished from a real estate ac. quired by purchase.

Property of a Minor under a foreign_appointment.--The Guardian of a minor appointed in England cannot dispose of any property belonging to his ward within this Bailiwick, unless his appointment is ratified before the Court.

Property, placing of in the hands of Justice.- A debtor possessed of landed property, who desires to have time to cater into an arrangement with his creditors, when judgment has been given against him for payment of a debt on pain of imprisonment, (whether the demand be real or fictitious)way, on producing a statement of his affairs, showing conformably to the law, that has a sufficiency wherewith to acquit his debts

obtain a respite of a year and a day. See Code, 1771, pp. 221. 2. The debtor who shall claim to put his property into the hands of Justice, in order to have time to arrange his affairs, and come to a compromise with his creditors, shall not be permitted to do so, without having previously satisfied the Court that his assets are sufficient to discharge his debts, in which case, he shall be bound to produce a faithful and a just statement of all his property both personal and real, and to lodge at the same time with the Greffier (clerk of the Court), all his books of accounts, bills, schedules, bonds, titles, copyrights, documents and evidences, upon oath, that recourse may be.had thereto in the examination of his statement, if necessary. The persons who shall be authorised by the Court, to take into their charge the examination and management of the affairs of the debtor, shall be held to attend to the acquittal of his debts, without delay, and to appoint a person fit to collect his assets and the rents accruing from his real property, who may thereafter be competent to account for such, to whom it shall appertain, and who shall notwithstanding grant to the debtor what may be reasonable for the sustenance of himself and his family, according to his station in life, and rank in society. The respite which shall be granted to the debtor shall not exceed a year and a day, after the expiration whereof, if it is made apparent that the creditors have not been satisfied, both his moveable and real property without its being necessary to have recourse to any other process, shall be adjudged renou ced and decreeable." The following is the oath which the debtor takes. See Code, p.315." You swear by the faith that you owe to God, that the statement of your affairs which you have now delivered in writing, is just and true to the best of your knowledge, also that if your creditors are not satisfied within the time allowed you to compromise with them, all your moveable and real property becoming thereby renounced, and your real property decreeable, you shall bring all your copy-rights, documents and evidences, into the hands of the Greffier of the Royal Court of this Island, for the preservation of the right to whom it appertains, and that whilst your property shall be under examination you shall not dispose thereof, otherwise than with the consent of the persons authorised."

This placing of property in the hands of Justice is a complete delusion, by which the debtor is entrapped on the one hand, and the interests of the body of creditors is sacrificed on the other. It must be observed that the measure is adopted by the debtor at the instigation of a single creditor, however trifling his claim may be, without the concurrence of any others,

and that the court, who from the nature of their office ought to be excluded from intermeddling with private matters between parties, officiously step in, and usurp the powers which ought to belong to the creditors, or to the majority of them, as is the case in all civilized countries in matters of bankruptcy. The debtor names two persons, chosen from the bench, the bar, or the officials, subject to the consent of the sitting magistrates, which persons are called autorisés ol persons authorized; but mark-not to take possession of the debtor's estate and effects as assignees, or to administer them for the benefit of the debtor and his creditors, as Trustees; no for there is no assignment made of them from the debtor, and they still remain in his actual possession. Then what are the persons authorized to do ? why, merely to examine his statement, and to verify it by his documentary evidences! Now however astounding this may appear, it is nevertheless true. It is generally supposed that the property is placed in the hands of Justice, or rather of the autorisés, but this is a misconstruction arising from the loose and slovenly manner in which all legal matters are managed in the Island. It is not the property but the statement which is placed in the hands of Justice, and that merely for examination; the titles and documentary evidences are placed in the hands of the Greffier, (Clerk of the Court) temporarily,in order that the autorisés may have recourse to them, so as to be enabled to verify the statement, and to ascertain whether it is faithful and true, according to law. See Code, 1771, p. 221, and the debtor's oath p. 315. Seeing then, that the debtor does not place his property in the hands of Justice, but only a statement of it, and that the former still remains in his actual possession, it is quite clear that the only check against his disposing of it is the oath he takes that he will not do so without the consent of the autorisés. If he thinks proper to violate this oath he might do it with impunity. The Code does not provide that a breach of it shall be deemed perjury, and without such a provision, the penalties of perjury cannot in strictness of law ensue ! It is true, the statement when registered, may be considered in the light of a cognovit, or attachment against the property, but then judgment must be entered up, or the attachment be sued for in the usual way. The sum total of the matter is, that the debtor is bound by oath, not to dispose of his property without the consent of the autorisés, that the autorisés have no title to it themselves, and consequently cannot confer it on another: nor can they authorize the debtor to dispose of it until all his creditors are satisfied, which in ninety-nine cases out of a hun