some cause considered sufficient by the Court to a fine of three livres d'ordre to the King, to all charges incurred in consequence of his absence, and to the cost of his seizure. The Court shall order him to be seized forthwith by the Viscount, or by one of the Sheriffs, and brought up the day upon which the cause is heard.

Art. 9th.-All witnesses in civil and mixed cases shall receive from the party at whose suit they are summoned thirty two sous d'ordre for every appearance at Court, payment to take place the day on which the cause is called.

Art. 10th. The summons heretofore served to a witness by the Prevot is abolished. A witness shall not be bound to ap. pear if he have not been subpoened by the Viscount, or by one of the Sheriffs, at least one day prior to that upon which his appearance is demanded.

en

Art. 11th.-Days shall be specially appointed for causes ajonction where witnesses are called, they shall only be heard on those days.

Art. 13th. The provisions of the preceding articles shall equally apply to causes instituted by the Crown where witnessess are called.

Art. 13th. The Court shall in future hold its sittings on the following holidays :-St. George, St. Philip, St. James, St. Peter, St. Michael, St. Simon, St. Jude, St. Luke and St. Andrew.

Art. 14th.-The judgment of the inferior number shall be final in personal causes, where the object in dispute shall not exceed the value of £5. The decision of the full Court shall be final in all personal causes under the value of £80.

Art. 15th.-The Court shall be required to mention in their acts the motives of all the decisions which it may render.

Surcharge to the Public Rates.-Whenever a person is sued before the Court for payment of his rate, if his plea is that he is overrated, the Court uniformly discharges him from the action, after having heard him declare upon oath, that the whole of his property, real and personal, is not worth double the mount of the rate at which he is assessed.

Suspension and alteration of Judgments after trial, and concoction of Judgments before trial. It is very common for a judgment to be suspended, by a Jurat asking time to consider his judgment, because a recent law requires them to assign motives for the same, which they are seldom competent to perform off hand at the time of trial; and cases are known in which they have procured the assistance of the Advocate who had pleaded the cause on the side they purposed to judge, to

frame the judgment for them: nay more, we have been assured by a respectable merchant, who had a cause tried before the full Court, and which was given against him, that a certain jurat subsequently acknowledged to him, that he gave judgment against him at the instigation of the party's own Advocate at the time of trial; who left his seat whilst the magistrates were deliberating and on approaching the bench whispered to the Jurat bien jugé, mal appellé, on which judgment was given accordingly. There are strong grounds for believing the allegation to be true, as the movement of the Advocate was particularly observed at the time, though the Jurat has since pretended, that he has no recollection of what he said to the merchant, at the time alluded to. Several cases are known in which the judgments of the Court have been altered, [See Revocal of Judgments,] to which we shall add the following one, brought to light by Advocate Godfray, Constable of St. Martin, at the sitting of the States, July 5, 1837. The Constable of St. Martin remarked, that a short time since a report was entered before the Court by the Deputy Viscount concerning the destitute state of the prisoners, when it was ordered by the Jurats on the bench, (Messrs. De Carteret and Marett) that her Majesty's Receivers should be convened, but he (the Constable) had since been informed that the judgment of the Court had been altered, and the report ordered to be presented before a full Court, however, he had heard nothing of it since. [Signs of astonishment.] After many inviduous remarks, in which some of the members seemed to insinuate that the Greffier had altered the act, The Greffier rose to explain the matter. He said that the Attorney General went with the Deputy Viscount to the Jurats after Court, and represented the affair to them, when they ordered the judgment to be altered, and allowed the matter to be referred to a full Court. The Constable of St. Martin could not restrain his astonishment at such a proceeding how dared they to alter an Act of the Court which had been passed under the presidency of Sir John De Veulle? It was really an outrageous proceeding." [News, July 7, 1837.] Concoction of Judgments before trial.-In the case of Advocate Godfray, who in 1832, was suspended from practising at the bar, for calumniating the Bailiff in open Court, the latter met several Jurats at a certain house to concoct a judgment against him; and in the case of Major General Thornton, Lieut.-Governor, v. Le Breton, Colonel of Militia, who was suspended for insubordination towards his Excellency; the case having been brought before the Court, the Jurat De Carteret, to give vent to a private pique which he

had against the Lieut.-Governor, produced a judgment in writing against him, prepared before trial, which was adopted by the Bench. The case is stated in the News, Aug. 22, 1834., "It is reported and very generally believed, that the judgment recently given by the Royal Court in the cause between General Thornton and Colonel Le Breton was actually concocted before the trial took place. It has been a matter of astonishment to many persons, how the Jurats could have managed to frame so long an act, in so short a time: they were absent for the purpose of considering their judgment, only twenty minutes, by a gentleman's watch, and in ordinary cases, the mere framing of such an act, independent of the time for bringing their opinions to anything like uniformity, would take nearly an hour; but now the secret is out! It will be seen by the following paragraph, which is translated from Le Constitutionnel, that this serious charge against the Royal Court is broadly stated, therefore unless that tribunal shall instantly vindicate its honour, justice and dignity, it will henceforth be stamped with everlasting disgrace in the eyes of the people. We know that this judgment was prepared in secret, that its origin is encompassed in dense obscurity, and that the author continues unknown: we know that it was produced by an angry magistrate who sought to be revenged for a glaring affront he received about a year since, and we hesitate not to say that it is not the work of the Court, nor of the Magistrate who produced it. No, Mr. De Carteret has not the capacity to write it; it was seen, read and corrected by a great number of persons before the hearing; it was edited by an individual out of office; the Court in thus receiving it, is degraded to the lowest level; all the Magistrates are not equally culpable, for all did not know the origin of this act, which must hand down to the latest period incontestible evidence of the civic spirit, of the patriotism and the sagacity of our unpaid Magistrates.' Whilst this stands recorded in the annals of the country as a fact, and one which courts enquiry, but is not confronted, we do not envy the feelings of Col. Le Breton at his triumphant victory, nor of those who have felicitated him on so auspicious and glorious an event!'" The matter was brought before the whole body of Jurats, at the Meeting of the States, on the 3rd Sept. 1834, by the Solicitor General Dupre, who is reported to have said:"He had been credibly informed, that several of the public Journals had published a serious charge against the justice, honour and dignity of the Royal Court, wherein it was openly stated, that the Magistrates had pre

judged the case between his Excellency the Lieut.-Governor and Colonel Le Breton. Seeing the Magistrates present, he felt it his duty as law officer of the Crown, to take that opportunity to mention it, and if any one of them would deny the fact, so gravely charged,he pledged himself to bring the parties to justice immediately." No one having answered the learned Gentleman, the subject was dropped! Some months after. wards however, an action having been instituted by the Jurat Edw. Nicolle against the publisher of Le Constitutionnel, to recover compensation in damages for an alleged libel, the latter on the calling of the cause, filed an exception against the Bailiff, deciding the matter, on the ground, that he had been a party to this iniquitous judgment. The following was defendant's plea as set forth in the Act of the Court on that occasion, dated June 15, 1835:"On the calling of the cause the defendant recused the judgment of Sir John De Veulle, Knt., Bailiff, for the following motives-1st. On account of the part which he took in the cause at the suit of the Advocate stipulating the office of King's Procureur General against Thomas Le Breton, Esq., Colonel of St. Helier's Battalion of the 4th Regt. of Royal Militia, the 26th of July, 1834, when Philip de Carteret, Esq. Jurat Justicier and Lieut. Bailiff, came on the bench with a judgment in his pocket, already written and revised, for the said cause, although the said cause was not yet before the Court, or even begun, the public prosecutor not having made his representation: that the said Mr. De Carteret had no reason to expect without a preconcerted plan, that the said cause should commence that day, or be called before him, as he was not a Judge of the day! That when the representation was made before the full Court,so as to conceal what was preparing for the eyes of the public, Charles Le Maistre, Esq., proposed, contrary to the invariable rule, that the Court should retire in private, on the pretext of deliberating; to this the said Sir John De Veulle acquiesced and put it to the votes. That the Court did, in effect, retire, and there the said Mr. De Carteret produced the said judgment, which was the production of a person, a stranger to the Court. That the said Sir John De Veulle authorized and sanctioned this proceeding, without example, in gathering the opinions of the other magistrates, touching the said judgment, which was adopted and inscribed on the rolls of the Court.-2ndly. In consequence of the enmity between the said Sir John De Veulle and the said defendant, manifested on several occasions by the said Sir John De Veulle, in consequence of the political opinions of the sand defendant, and of articles inserted in his Journal, relative to

the administrative conduct of the said Sir John De Veulle." This bold challenge to prove the facts was not accepted, for Judge Nicolle did not think proper to prosecute the suit, probably because he wished to save the honour of the bench from the exposé which threatened it, or else because he was disgusted at the manoeuvre which was adopted at the onset, to get the exception filed, and to paralyze him in seeking redress. The following extract from the News will show how this was managed :-"Now, in order to explain the manoeuvre by which justice was paralyzed, to the prejudice of Judge Nicolle, it is necessary to pre mise, that the day before the cause was heard, a little bird had whispered about that Mr. Le Leivre intended to recuse the Bailiff-in other words to challenge him. The Court, for the day, was composed of Messrs. Bertram and Bis son, and the bird whispered that possibly they might not agree in their opinions, on sending the said recusation to proof. It also came to pass, that Judge D'Avranche, (Marett) by the purest accident imaginable, happened to be on the bench, as a spectator, when the cause was called.

"Sure enough the Bailiff was recused, and therefore it became necessary for somebody to preside the Court in his place, and as Mr. D'Avranche, the senior Magistrate, was present, he took upon himself that office, and gathered the opinions. Judge Bisson objected to Mr. D'Avranche's presiding, on the ground that he had not been delegated by the Bailiff, [as the Law required in cases where the Chief Magistrate was concerned] consequently, gave no opinion on the cause, as he considered the Court was illegally constituted! Judge Bertram, of course thought differently." Hence the following judgment was given. 'And after that the parties have been heard in all their reasons and allegations, by means of their Advocates on the said recusation, Philip Marett, Esq., Jurat Justicier, the senior Judge on the bench has gathered the opinions of the other Jurats Justiciers on the bench, George Bertram, Esq., was of opinion to put the said recusation to proof, and Edward Leonard Bisson, Esq., was of opinion that the said Philip Marett. Esq., could not preside the Court unless authorised by Sir John De Veulle, Knt., Bailiff, and the said Mr. Marett having coincided with the opinion of the said Mr. Bertram, the Court ordered that those who may have any knowledge of the facts enumerated in the said recusation shall be convened, from which sentence the plaintiff was allowed to appeal en fin de CHAS. DE ST. CROIX, Commis au Greffe.' Swearing affidavits abroad.-The Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 87, s. 20. confines the authority of swearing affidavits to every Consul

cause.

2A