various natures of all those frauds would rather require a pamphlet, than the limited extent of a Note. I have avoided a technical phraseology as much as possible to be intelligible to strangers. It is not sufficient that the guarantee of the seller of real property should be good. Reference must be made to the solvency of the individuals from whom he may have made purchases at any former period. Thus A has bought 30 quarters of rent from B. and sold it to C.-Subsequently B. became a bankrupt, which draws on the ruin of A. after it, so that B. is dispossessed of his rent, which finally goes to 8 fourth person, who is technically called the tenant of B. One ought to be fully impressed with the extreme caution necessary to be used by all, but by strangers in particular, when they buy real property in this Island. The danger may however be easily avoided by adhering to the general rule of never purchasing without a good guarantee, or purchasing from a man of good freehold property. To obtain that indispensable information, it must be done by applying to some respectable professional man, who will ascertain the amount of the real property of the seller from an inspection of the public Register. and by whose advice the applicant ought to allow himself to be directed. [Durell.]

Renunciation and Cession in Guernsey.-A person who from losses in trade, or other unavoidable calamity, finds himself insolvent, may avail himself of the privilege of cession; which is done by appearing in open Court, declaring his renunciation of all his property, and swearing that he will deliver all his moveables, (his clothes, bed and arms excepted) to and for the benefit of his creditors, and, that if providence should enable him hereafter to pay his just debts, he will do so. Formerly a peson thus renouncing, wore a green cap, and divested himself of a girdle; but this humiliating exposure has been discontinued for some years. See Saisie. [Martin's Brit. Poss.]

Renvoye par incivilite d'ajournment (Sent back though informality in the summons), which is generally when the billet or summons, does not agree with the bille or declaration. The following precedents may be quoted :-Rafter v. Giffard, 1836, in which the word Advertisement was spelt Avertisement— Blanchard v. Bromer, in which Jour (day) was spelt JoutMachon and others v. Touet, 1837, in which plaintiff's christian name was spelt Lorentinstead of Laurens-Blanchard v Clark, 1838, in which the christian name of the latter was spelt Melbourne instead of Milbourne.-Horman v. Buesnel, 1838, in which word amena was spelt ammena, and mou, m'on-Aubin v. Hammond, 1838, in which the word de (of) was repeated

thus, de de. In all these cases the parties were sent back through the above informalities.

Re-opening a case.-If a party should be adjudged by defaut après contestation, he may get his case re-opened by interjecting a remonstrance before the full Court, and lodging the amount of the judgment in the hands of the Gref. fier, together with 5 per cent. commission, which it is said that officer is entitled to, for keeping money in safe custody. The latter condition may be dispensed with by consent of the plaintiff, as in the case of Le Breton v. Ennis, or on refusal thereof, by an application to the Privy Council, as in the case of Attorney General v. Whitfield. The following Order sets forth the particulars of the latter case:At the Court at Windsor, the 12th of Dec. 1838. Whereas there was this day read at the Board a Report from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dated the 10th of Dec. 1838, in the words following, viz. His late Majesty having been pleased, by His Order in Council of the 1st of March 1837, to refer unto this Committee the humble Doleance aud Petition of George Whitfield, of London, late of the Island of Jersey, Distiller, setting forth, that in the year 1833, the Petitioner repaired to the Island of Jersey, with the view of form. ing an establishment for Distilling, as well from foreigu as from articles the growth and produce of the Island, and to export the spirits so manufactured to foreign parts. That the Peti. tioner accordingly hired the necessary buildings to that effect, and at considerable expence purchased and erected the required implements to carry on his trade, which he did without molestation or hindrance from the above stated period to the beginning of September 1836. That in commencing his said business, the Petitioner applied to the proper authorities to know what Laws existed in the Island to regulate Distilleries, being desirous implicity to observe them, and thereby avoid all difficulties that might arise in carrying on his trade. That the only document put into his hands was a set of printed regulations passed by the States in 1799, prescribing the mode of levying the Iusular Impot of Foreign Spirits consumed in the Island, and the declarations necessary to be made to the Collectors, not one Article of which refers to Distilleries or to spirits manufactured in the Island. That on the 1st of September 1836, a Warrant (Ordre de Justice) was obtained at the suit of Thomas Le Breton, Esquire, Your Majesty's Attorney General, signed by Sir John De Veulle, Bailiff of the said Island, authorizing the Officers of the Royal Court to seize and sequester provisionally all Spirits extant on the premises occupied by

the Petitioner, which Warrant was accordingly executed by the Under-sheriff of the Island. That on the 20th of the said month of September 1836, a second Ordre de Justice was issued by the Bailiff on the representation made to him by the Attorney General, that the Petitioner had for some time previous committed very extensive frauds, not only affecting the Impots of the Island, but also the Revenue of Customs in England, in having manufactured a greater quantity of Spirits than he had declared to the Collectors of the Impots, and thereby incurred fines and penalties to the amount of £3,989 1s. 6d. sterling. That by virtue of this second Warrant (Ordre de Justice), the Officer of the Court seized all the personal property belonging to the Petitioner in the Island, sealed up his dwelling house, manufactory and stores, and has since sold all his effects for the purpose, as it was stated, of discharging the penalties alleged to have been incurred by the Petitoner.

That on the first intimation received by the Petitioner, that these proceedings would be unremittingly pursued against him in Jersey, and being assured in the mean time that infor mations had been lodged with the Board of Customs in England, alledging that he had committed frauds to an enormous amount against the revenue of Great Britain, the Petitioner left the Island instanter in order to justify his conduct with the authorities in the Mother Country, where he possessed considerable quantities of distilled spirits in Bond, and against the revenues of which he was accused of having committed the greatest frauds. That in consequence of the information given to the Commissioners of Customs, a minute investigation of the Petitioner's transactions has taken place,the result of which has fully satisfied that Hon. Beard that his conduct was unimpeachable, and they have restored to him all the Spirits he had bonded in England. That on the 28th January 1837, the Royal Court, at the suit of the Attorney General, condemned the Petitioner to pay the above enormous penalties, on pain of prison, and thus virtually banished him from the Island. That on the 15th Oct. 1836, the Petitioner was, by an act of the same Court, declared insolvent (ses biens en désastre), a proceeding that will very shortly necessitate another Decree adjuding the whole of his property real and personal to his Creditors generally. That the Petitioner left the Island two days after the first Warrant was obtained against him, and not having returned to it since, or authorized any person to represent him there, all the Judg. ments of the Court in these matters have been given ex-parte. That the Petitioner is advised that no law or precedent exists

in the records of the Island, that could possibly authorize the Attorney General or the Bailiff so to seize and confiscate his property; and that moreover he has not incurred the penalties for the payment of which such seizures are stated to have been made. That if the above illegal, arbitrary and oppressive proceedings on the part of the constituted Authorities in Jersey were not speedily stopped, and the Petitioner could not obtain that redress to which he humbly, but firmly, considers himself entitled, they would not only operate his utter ruin, as regards his pecuniary circumstances, but would inevitably have the effect of destroying his character as an honest man, a fair dealer and manufacturer; and humbly praying His late Majesty provisionally to order the Royal Court of Jersey forthwith to stay all further proceedings against the Petitioner, to direct the said Royal Court to lodge at the Privy Council an authentic copy of all Laws and Regulations registered in the Island relative to the levies of the Impots and Distilleries, to allow the Petitioner to be heard by Counsel in support of this Doleance and Petition, and against the proceedings taken against him; and further, that if after mature investigation of the case, no frauds can be substantiated as having been committed by him, it might please His late Majesty to order the entire restitution of his property so illegally and arbitrarily disposed of by the Authorities above stated, together with ample and just com. pensation in damages for the wrongs he has thereby sustained, as to His late Majesty should seem meet.

The Lords of the Committee, in obedience to His late Majesty's said Order of Reference, proceeded to take the said Doleance and Petition into consideration, on the 22nd February last past (when Their Lordships ordered the matter to stand over for one month,) and again on this day; and Their Lordships having heard Counsel on both sides, do agree humbly to report to your Majesty as their opinion, that the said George Whitfield ought to be allowed to bring his case to a hearing before the full Royal Court of the Island of Jersey, upon the issue of the 15th October 1836, upon his paying the costs of the proceedings subsequent to the 15th October 1836; that all such costs incurred in Jersey be taxed by the Greffier of the Royal Court; and that the said full Royal Court of the Island of Jersey ought to be directed to hear the same; and in case Your Majesty should be pleased to approve of this Report, and to order as is herein recommended, then Their Lordships do direct that before the said George Whitfield shall be entitled to have his Petition so heard by the full Royal Court of the Island of Jersey, he shall pay to the Royal Court of Jersey, or their

Agent, the sum of one hundred and sixty-two pounds sterling, for the costs already incurred on this Petition before this Committee.

Her Majesty having taken the said Report into consideration was pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to approve thereof, and of what is therein recommended, and to order,as it is hereby ordered that the same be duly and punc. tually observed, complied with, and carried into execution : Whereof the Bailiff and Jurats of the Royal Court of the Island of Jersey for the time being, and all other persons whom it may concern, are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly. (Signed) C. GREVILLE. Repairs.-No Tenant in Jersey ought ever to enter on possession of a house until such alterations as may have been promised, are actually completed; and though the landlord should be bound, by a written agreement, either to put his house in repair or to keep it so, his neglect cannot be made a set off against the rent, but may be grounds of an action for damages as in the case of Rafter v. Duheaume.

to

Retrait Lignager.—The Retrait Lignager was abolished by an Order in Council in 1834. Originally that law might have been proper, but latterly it had become liable to great abuses ; for instance, if a kinsman, or the Lord of the Manor thought that property had been sold advantageously, he contrived get the bargain for himself, or to extort a sum from the buyer. If the bargain was set aside, the buyer not only lost the chance of any improvement which might have taken place in the value of the property, but nearly a twelve month's interest of his purchase money.-The Jus Protimeseos. or Retrait Foncier, has been continued, but the person who avails himself of his right to claim it, is bound to pay all expences to be incurred in the proceedings. The right of action,like most others of the same nature is limited to a year and a day.-[Dure!l.]

Reversionary Legacy, attachment of.-In Blake w Le Feuvre, an action to show cause, why an attachment in the hands of the Executors to the will of Mr. John De Caen, for payment of the sum of £40, should not be confirmed; it appeared that Plaintiff had obtained a judgment against defendant for £5 damages and costs-which in the whole amounted to £40 that defendant had a reversionary legacy of £250 in the 3 per cent consols left him by Mr. John De Caen, and that he had disposed of the same to a Mr. Woolcock for £189, who was allowed to intervene in the cause. It was contended for Le Feuvre and Woolcock that the attachment was illegal, inasmuch as the executors of the will were in duty bound to