ment against him was already recovered; consequently there were no grounds for another action de novo.

(6) It is not by virtue of the Act of Parliament, but by that of the conveyance and assignment.

(7) It was not the Act, but his Certificate.

(8) Certainly, but not until his new creditors have been paid in full.

Inspectors for the repairs of the public Roads.-Two are named by the parish assembly every three years, for each Vingtaine; they receive no pay, but are exempted from other personal service for the repairs of the roads. Members of the States and Centeniers are exempted from this duty. They take the following oath :-" You promise and swear by the faith and oath that you owe to God, that well and faithfully you will discharge the office of Inspector for the repair of the public roads in the Vingtaine of in the parish of and that you will follow and put in due execution, the regulations made for the repairs and keeping of the roads, and generally will perform all the duties belonging to the said office."

Insurance, Life Policy, how vitiated.-Nearly all the Insurance Companies have a clause in their Policies, providing if the assured should enter into any Military or Naval service whatever, that the said Policies shall become null and void; and as no exception is made in favour of the militia duty, which every male inhabitant of the Channel Islands is bound by law to perform, from the age of 15 to 65; it necessarily follows, if the assured should die in consequence of any wound or other injury received by violence, whilst discharging such duty, that the claim on the Company would not be satisfied. To avoid this, the assured should have a special undertaking from the Directors, accepting the said risk, and which should be endorsed on the Policy.

Insurance, Policy, assignment of.-The case of Messrs. De La Taste and Co., v. Benest, Agent for the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, will bear on this subject: A Mr. Richard Rhodes had insured his life in the Royal Exchange, for £300, and had regularly paid the premium until the year 1825, when he being indebted to Messrs. De La Taste and Co., assigned the policy to them as "a collateral security for any sum of money he then owed them, or might owe them, with a provision that in case of his death, they were first to repay them. selves the sum due to them, and pay over the surplus to his widow." This assignment was witnessed by Mr. Benest, the Agent in Jersey for the Assurance Company. These facts

were not denied, nor was the liability of the office to pay the sum of £300, disputed; but the widow having administered to the personal estate of the deceased Mr. Rhodes, had claimed the £300 from the office in London; and Messrs. De La Taste and Co. holding the policy for a valuable consideration, had also claimed the £300 in London. The answer of the office was this, "we are ready to pay it to either, if you can settle between yourselves who is to receive it-or if either of you will indemnify us against the claims of the other, we will pay it to the party so securing us; but if you both urge your claims at the same time, we must, in order to secure outselves, obtain leave to pay it into the Court of Chancery, subject to the result of the disputed claim, and then you may fight it out." Under these circumstances it came to a hearing in Jersey, the King's Procureur,for Defendant, denied the competency of the Court, the policy having issued in London, the party insured having died in London, the widow having administered in London, and even plaintiffs. themselves having already made their claim in London, where the liability was. The King's Advocate for Plaintiffs maintained the competency of the Court. as the transaction, which created the interest in the policy, took place here: it was recognized by the Defendant, as the Agent of the Company here, being a witness to it, and by having since applied to them for the He instanced sepayment of the premium as it became due. veral cases to shew the competency of the Court. The Court decided on its competency. The King's Procureur then avowed the readiness of the office to pay the money, if the Plaintiffs would secure them against the claims of the Administratrix. The King's Advocate rejected this offer; his client, by the asignment of the Policy from Mr. Rhodes, became entitled to receive the whole sum in trust, 1°. to pay whatever sum might appear to be due to themselves, and 29. to apply the surplus, if any, to the use of the widow. But in point of fact there would be no surplus, for the original debt had been so increased by subsequent payments to and for Mr. Rhodes, as to come to upwards of £300. and if they had not continued to pay the premium, they would have lost the whole; as it was, after receiving this £300. they would still lose £30. or £40. The Court decided for the Plaintiffs, they giving security to the office against the claims of the other party.

Interest of Money.-Conformably to an ordinance established by an act of the Court of Héritage, the 23rd Sept. 1714, the interest of money shall not exceed 5 per cent, upon pain of being reputed usurious, and those contravening shall be punish

ed accordingly.-Code, 1771. Simple contract debts bear no interest until after judgment has been given. Special debts such as Bills of Exchange and Promissory notes after they have been protested, or even noted. carry interest, unless they were made payable in Guernsey, where no interest is allowed. Bills and other obligations dated previous to Sept. 1. 1834, though for Jersey currency, will by an act of the States, of April 7,1834, carry interest in British Sterling.

Interest not recoverable on a foreign Judgment-The plaintiff is not entitled to interest in an action instituted in England on a foreign judgment, Atkinson v. Brasbrook (Lord) 4 Camp. 380-Ellenborough. On an action of debt instituted in England on a foreign judgment, for a entire sum recovered on counts for the balance of a merchant's account, for goods sold, monies advanced and paid monies due on bills of exchange, and for interest, the Court of Exchequer will not give interest, on affirmance of the judgment of the Court below. Doran v. O'Reilly 3 Price, 250: S. C. nom. Anon 7 Taunt, 244.

Intervention. When the intervention of a third party by remonstrance is refused, it is not usual for the Court to make an act of the same.

Intestates, distribution of their Estate.-According to what Law. Personal property, follows the person of the owner, and in case of his decease intestate, must go according to the law of the country where he had his domicile, the actual locus of the goods having no influence. Bruce v. Bruce, 2 B. and P. 229 n.; Burns v. Coles, Amb. 415 S. P. Piper, v. Piper, Amb. 26; Somerville v. Somerville (Lord), 5 Ves. jun. 750. And see Nevinson v. Stables, 4 Russ. 210. Therefore where a native of Scotland went to India in the Military service of the company and died there, it was held that his property must be distributed according to the law of England which prevailed in India, and where at the time of his death he domiciled. Id. Otherwise,if he had gone to India in the King's ser. vice, or for any temporary purpose.-Id. Prima facie, the place of residence is the place of domicile, but they may be rebutted or supported by circumstances. Bempde v. Johnstone, 3. Ves. jun. 198. An acquired domicile is not lost by mere abandonment, but continues until a subsequent domicile is acquired, which can only be animo et facto,unless the party die in itinere toward an intended domicile. Monroe v. Douglas, 5 Madd. 379. Real property is regulated by the law of the country where the land lies. Brodie v. Barry, 2 Ves. and B. 131: S. P. Elliott v. Minto (Lord) Madd. 16. An intestate,domiciled in England, leaving a real estate in Scotland, the heir being one of the

next of kin entitled to share according to the law of England is not subject to the condition of collating the real estate according to the law of Scotland.-Id. A native of Scotland domiciled in England having personal property only, executed during a visit to Scotland, and deposited there, a will prepared in the Scotch form, and died in England :-Held, that the will was to be construed according to the English Law. Austruther v. Chalmer, 2 Sim. 1. T. P., a native of England, domiciled in Guernsey, dies intestate, leaving a widow and infant children by her, and also by a former wife. The widow after his death, is appointed guardian of the children by the Royal Court of Guernsey, and in conjunction with a former marriage, sells the property of the intestate, and invests the produce in the English funds, after which she comes to England with her children, and is domiciled here. On the death of some of the children under age, a question arises whether their shares of the property have become distributable according to the law of England or Guernsey and it was held that the law of England was to govern the succes sion, the domicile of the children being (according to the opinion of foreign jurists, our own law being silent on the subject) to follow the domicile of the surviving mother, where no fraudulent intention can be imputed. But fraud may be presumed, where no reasonable cause appears for the removal. Potinger v. Wightman, 3 Mer. 67.

Intesiates, personal property, how distributed in Jersey.A wife is entitled at the death of her husband to half of his personal property, if he leaves no children; the other half going to the next of kin; but only to One third if there should be issue, the other two thirds, going to the heirs. The personal property of intestates is divided equally where there are only sons, or only daughters; but when there are both, the sons are entitled to two thirds and the daughters share the remainder. In all collateral successions the real and unbeqeathed personal property lapses to the nearest relatives per capite, and not per stirpe; and to the males in exclusion of the females, in the same degree of relationship. if the widow finds her husband's personal estate encumbered, she may within forty days after his decease, come into open Court and publicly renounce to the third of his personalty. To avoid exposure, it is practised, that the widow has by private contract, before two Jurats, passed her third of the personal estate to the heirs, who have covenanted to let her have her paraphernalia, and acquit her of all the debis; but if the whole estate fall short of clearing them, such contract would not serve the widow to

plead against the creditors, but she would still be liable; but if she renounce, then is she freed. Formerly she lost the third of all estates purchased by her husband during coverture, and the profits of such estates as had been purchased for both their lives; but notwithstanding a renunciation, she is entitled to her præter dolem, or provision de la robile; these were anciently such jewels, clothes, &c., as were at the time of her marriage reserved to her, and an inventory having, at that time, been made and signed by the husband. In the present day, the widow is also allowed a bed, linen, and all other household stuff, not exceeding a third. [Bowditch's Treatise.] Inventory, benefit of, usually called Benefice d'Inventaire. This is a process instituted by the heir at law, to ascertain the solvency of a person deceased, before he takes to the succes. sion, so that he might not become personally liable for the debts unless there are sufficient assets to cover him, which he would be, if he accepted the administration of the deceased's property, and it should turn out that he died insolvent. The process does not lead to the discovery of the assets, nor of debtors to the estate, but only of the claimants, and hardly that. It may be very properly called a refining process, by which all absentee creditors of the estate or non claimants are barred from their right of recovery. The mode adopted is as follows the heir at law moves the Court for leave for the Viscount or bis Deputy to hold an inquisition on the property of the deceased, which on being granted, that officer gives notice in the French newspapers only, published on the Saturday following, that on a certain day, he will hold his first inquiry at the domicile of the deceased, and after that of the second, third and fourth. On those days all claimants are required to appear either in person or otherwise, to present a statement of their demands, and in default thereof,on or before the last day, are excluded from all right of recovery against the succession! By this mancurve creditors living in England and elsewhere, not represented by an agent at the said inquiry, are shut out altogether, there being no provision made by law or custom to protect the rights of absentees, nor is it necessary to send them any notice whatever, by letter or otherwise. The officer having made out is inventory of the assets and claims, makes a record of the same, which is certified under his hand and returned into Court, where the heirs at law are summoned to appear, to accept or reject the succession, each in his turn according to precedency. If no one accepts the administration, a creditor may sue for a decret, the result of which is, that the property is adjudicated by a decree in one