1 Dowl. P. C. 157. A party coming up on Habeas Corpus, is protected from seizure during his return, as well as during the coming and staying. Rex. v. D'Laval 1. W. Black, 415. 3 Burr, 14 34.

Worship, place of.-In the case of Zion Chapel, 1830, the Trustees having shut up the building, for want of revenue to pay the interest on the advances they had made, amounting to £660, and the current expences of celebrating divine worship thereio, the Pastor and two Deacons endeavoured to effect a forcible entrance, on which one of the Trustees interjected the Clameur de Haro; and on the action instituted against him by the said Pastor and Deacons to see the said Clameur set aside, the co-Trustees, were allowed to intervene,and the Court by the casting vote of the Bailiff held that the Trustees being in lawful possession of the said Chapel in virtue of an hereditary contract, discharged defendant from the action, and adjudged plaintiffs to the penalty and costs. Appeal was demanded and granted. See Trusts.

Writ of Error.-This is unknown to the Jersey Court. The judgment of the inferior tribunal can only be suspended by an appeal to the full bench, which must be demanded at the time of trial, and sureties entered into, to satisfy the judgment in default of prosecuting the appeal within the time allowed by law. Motion for a new trial is rarely or never allowed in the Court below, and even if granted by the Council above, and the party be referred back, for a rehearing, some manoeuvre or other is usually adopted to nullify it. In the case of re Whitfield, their lordships granted leave for the Petitioner's case to be reheard before the Full Court, on payment of the costs of the former proceeding to the Court, or their Agent, when taxed by the Greffier. [See re-opening of a case.] On his making a lawful tender of the money to the Bench in open Court, they refused to receive it, alledging that the Court was not the place to receive money; and on his demand, that they would inform him who was their Agent, authorised to receive the same, they refused to name him, also to re-open the case, until the money had been paid, and he should produce a receipt for the same! Petitoner's counsel demanded, that the fact of his having made the tender, and of their refusal to name their agent should be mentioned in the act of the Court. The Court refused: he then moved that a day should be appointed for the re-hearing of the case, which was also refused. This was not the only manoeuvre adopted on that occasion, the Bill of Costs was actually taxed without defendant's being privy thereto, so that he was prevented having any opportunity to raise objections either to the items or the charges.