benefit of creditors. The Court grants the demand, and the record is published or read by the Officer under the Statue in the Royal-Square, for which he receives ten shillings stg., and is also posted at the door of the Court-house in the French language, in order that all creditors living in the Island, may bave knowledge of the proceedings. But no notice is sent to the absentees! By this apparently honest measure, so ably preconcerted betwixt C and D, and so successfully brought thus far, the former of which has a handsome speculation in view by making himself Tenant to the estate, and plundering the other creditors, and the latter the promise of his claim being paid, if not of a share in the spoil, A becomes paralyzed, and is absolutely deprived of the administration of his affairs. During the fortnight he endeavours to effect a compromise with those on the spot, because his English creditors are ignorant of what is going on. Those of the Jersey creditors, whose claims are founded on simple contract, not having a preference, offer amicable terms. and the others create an obstacle in the person of an absentee, on whom they throw the blame of non-compliance! C. and D. who have now found out who A's. absent creditors are, get a Solicitor to address a letter to one of them, stating the case, smypathizing for A, and urging the expediency of prompt measures; on which as a matter of course, a power of Attorney is transmitted to him, to act for the firm. Now mark! this has been done not to protect the rights of an absentee whose claim not being a judgment one, is literally good for nothing, but rather for the purpose of screwing up the concern, and driving on the contemplated bankruptcy! The Solicitor now interferes, and says he has positive instructions not to compromise with A, excepting it be as regards time, and he shall give good and available securities for payment in full. This acts a stopper to the proposed compromise, and facilitates the object which C and D have in view. Thus ends the second act. The fortnight having elapsed, A has now no alternative but to appear before the Court with a true and faithful statement of his affairs, and to ask leave to place his property in the hands of Justice, in order to obtain a respite of a year and a day. He being really solvent, it is granted; but observe, the only benefit he derives from it is subsistence for his family out of the estate during that period. As for recovering the debts owing to him he finds it impossible, nor can he sell any part of his landed property, for nobody will purchase it on the eve of a bankruptcy, lest they should be ousted by the décret. Besides, the trustee judges will not allow him to aleniate any part of

his property, unless the whole of his creditors shall consent thereto which of course is always prevented. During the year and a day, A calls several meetings of his creditors, in the lingering hope of coming to a compromise: perhaps the greater part, who by this time have become acquainted with his situation, attend, either personally or by their agents, when all are disposed to make an arrangement excepting those interrested in the Bankruptcy. They shun the meeting and blame the absentee, and therefore no adjustment takes place. Just as the year and a day is about to expire, A makes one more effort, and calls another meeting, when C, who was supposed to be well secured for his £400, by a real property worth £2,000, subject only to the mortgage of B for £200, and who all along absented himself, now makes his appearance, and declares that he must have his judgment-bond paid, as he cannot allow his money to remain out any longer. That is the finishing stroke! all chance of a compromise is now at an end, and this brings us to the close of the third act. As soon as the year and a day is up, C instigates D to go before the Court, and declare that A has not discharged his claim within the time allowed by law, and moves the bench, that in pursuance of the oath administered to the Insolvent, his property be now adjudged in decret, or renounced for the benefit of creditors, which as a matter of course is granted and an attorney is appointed to work the same. [See Bankrupt laws of Jersey, administration and division of Bankrupt's estate.] The result is that A's. creditors are compelled to abandon their claims, and the unfortunate bail among the rest. D, who is secretly secured, abandons his claim also, and then comes C, with his judgment bond of £400, who declares himself tenant to the estate: by which he takes everything subject only to the payment of B's £200,and the expences of working the Bankruptcy, which is from £40 to £50, according to the number of claimants there may be, and the £60 which he has promised to pay C, for his connivance to and assistance in the matter. Thus the unfortunate A whose estate was worth forty or sixty shillings in the pound is plundered of the whole of his property, and the creditors of all participation in the same. C grasps a property worth £4,200, for about £750, by which he realizes a profit little short of £3,500. This a faithful picture and one founded on actual experience.

Insolvent Acts.-The English Acts do not extend for the relief of Debtors imprisoned in Jersey or Guernsey, but the assignment under the acts, reaches an Insolvent's estate

situated in the Islands, and the certificate of the Court is a discharge to all debts due or claimed to be due at the time of filing the Petition, even though they had been contracted in the Islands.

Insolvent's Certificate.-Formerly the Jersey Court held that a certificate of Bankruptcy granted by an English or Foreign Court was no bar to an action in this Island for a debt contracted previous to the bankruptcy. The case of Moisson v. Quelin was decided upon this principle. It was an action brought by power of attorney to recover a sum of money due from the defendant.-The first objection taken by the defendan's Counsel was the competency of the Court; the transaction having originated in France, where the defendant had become a bankrupt, the Courts of another country could not interfere. For the defence, also, some French authorities were quoted; also Mayor's Notaries, and other certificates worthy of faith and credit, to show that the bankrupt had regularly submitted to the laws of his country. The Royal Court paid no attention to these authenticated documents, and condemned the defendant to the debt and costs. [Bowditch's Treatise, p. 61.]

This judgment having been reversed by the Privy Council, the Jersey Court has since admitted a Certificate of Bankruptcy or Insolvency as a bar to an action. Take the case of Billing v. Gartrell, in 1838, which is the last of that nature. It was an action to recover £11 7s. 6d. British sterling, amount of a bill drawn at two months, dated 11 Jan. 1833, accepted by the Defendant payable at Messrs. Lubbock and Co., bankers, London; and protested for non-payment. At the time the original debt was contracted, both plaintiff and defendant were living at Plymouth, but subsequently the latter lived at Library-Place, in the town of St. Helier, Jersey, where he carried on the business of an ironmonger. Defendant went to England, and whilst there was arrested at the suit of one of his creditors: being unable to satisfy the debt, he surrendered to prison, in Jan. 1835; and after remaining in custody a certain time prescribed by law, he filed a petition to the Insolvent Court for relief, under the Statute called the Insolvent Debtor's Act, 7 George 4, c. 57, and also a schedule setting forth all the debts he then owed, amongst which was the plaintiff's and the nature of his assets. On filing his petition and in pursuance of the Statute, he executed a conveyance and assignment of all his estate and effects, both within the realm and abroad, without exception to the provisional assignee of the said Court, on certain conditions and stipulations set forth in the Act, in trust for the benefit of his then creditors, and also a warrant of

Attorney to confess judgment for the amount of the said debts, so that execution under the same might be issued and levied on his estate and effects,when sufficient cause should be shown to the Insolvent Court for that purpose. The defendant having been heard on his petition before one of the Commissioners of the said Court, at Exeter, on the 9th of March, 1835, he was declared and adjudged entitled to his discharge from the several debts due or claimed to be due from him at the time of filing his petition, and was discharged accordingly. After awhile, defendant returned to this Island, where he had since carried on the business of a Broker, and on the 30th of May, his stock in trade and other effects, were seized by the Officer of Justice, in virtue of a process issuing out of the Jersey Court, at the suit of the plaintiff, as an individual creditor, for payment of the debt aforesaid, to which the defendant's adjudication had extended, and he was summoned before the Magistrates. to show cause why the said seizure should not be confirmed, and his goods sold, before the Sheriff, to satisfy the debt, according to the custom of this Island." The following was the judgment of the Court :

"The year one thousand eight hundred and thirty eight, the sixteenth day of June. On the action instituted against Mr. John Gartrell and Mr. Philip De Ste. Croix, who has remained security for the judgment against the said Gartrell by Mr. William Henry Billing, to pay him a certain note of hand or bill of exchange, drawn by the said Mr. Billing, the year 1833, the 11th day of January, payable to his order, at two months after date, on the said John Gartrell for the sum of eleven pounds, seven shillings and six pence, stg., according to the course of Exchange on London, and accepted by the said Gartrell, payable at Messrs. J. Lubbock & Co., Bankers, London, which note of hand or Bill of Exchange, has been protested for non-payment. Item, to pay him the expenses of protest, inte. rests and damages,incurred and to be incurred thereon.And also to hear the record of the Officer. On the calling of the cause, Frs. Godfray, esq., Advocate, declared that he was charged to plead the cause of the Plaintiff. (1) On the pretension of defendant, that the Court is incompetent to entertain this cause, (2) and that the plaintiff has no right of action against him, the said defendant having, on the 9th March, 1835, taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act in England, and the said defendant, having produced in support of his pretension, the said Act (3) as also a copy of the schedule which he then delivered and in which schedule the note of hand claimed by the Plaintiff is entered-and on the pretension of the Plaintiff that the

document produced by the said Gartrell is not authentic, and cannot be received in this Court, but that even were it duly authenticated, it would not liberate the defendant excepting from the arrest of his person, and not from an arrest on his effects, and on his demand,that the said defendants be adjudged to the claim and expenses. Considering that the defendant is domiciled in this country and carries on a trade. (4) That admitting he had been allowed to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, he is not at all liberated from the payment of his debts and can be actioned for that purpose by persons duly authorized (5) in virtue of the said Act of Parliament, (6) not only in England but elsewhere. The Court have declared themselves competent-and as regards the merits, considering that the Act produced by defendant (7) is duly authenticated, and that by this Act, it is stated that the defendant has been admitted to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act; and that the schedule which accompanies this document contains the debt which the plaintiff at present claims payment of. Considering that although the property of the said defendant can be applied to the liquidation of his debts at the instance of persons legally authorized, (8) in virtue of the Act of Parliament precited, the right of action does not belong to his creditors individually. The Court has overruled the pretension of plaintiff, and discharged defendant from the action. From which decision the Plaintiff is allowed to appeal before a greater number. And considering the said appeal the defendant is allowed to protest against all losses, prejudices, interests, damages and delays. “CHAS. DE STE. CROIX, Commis-au-Greffe." -The appeal was never prosecuted.

The following notes are taken from the News, in which the case was reported: :

(1) Well, what of that? Nobody denied it: the question mooted was, who was the representative of, and responsible for, the Plaintiff, for costs and damages. if Defendant should be discharged from the action, seeing that the Plaintiff was living out of the Jurisdiction? The question was cautiously evaded.

(2) This is a silly pretension, because it does not allege a single reason why the Court should be deemed incompetent. (3) That is wrong: it was not the Act, but the Certificate that he had conformed to the Act.

(4) What in the world can this have to do with the question? (5) That is downright nonsense. The insolvent having executed a Warrant of Attorney to confess judgment for the amount of the debt, before one of the superior Courts, judg