General or Consul appointed by his Majesty at any foreign part or place; and it was once held by the English Common law courts, that even to those authorities, the power was limited to commercial transactions. This doctrine however relaxed, and within these few years, affidavits sworn before a Consul General or Consul have been received as evidence in all courts of law and equity in England; but in 1834, the Vice Chancellor refused to permit an affidavit to be read, which had been sworn before the Consular Registrar, as it did not come within the provisions of the Act of Parliament.

Tea, how imported.-It shall be lawful to import any tea into the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, or Sark, from the Cape of Good Hope, and places eastward of the same, to the Straits of Magellan, or from the United Kingdom, and not from any other place, in such and the like manner, as if the same were set forth in an Act passed in the present session of Parliament to regulate the trade of the British Possessions abroad. 3 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 101.

Term Time.-One of the barbarous anomalies of our Jersey laws, is, that a creditor cannot sue a debtor unless in Term Time, provided the debtor be a landed proprietor, even to the amount of one quarter, and provided he has not given a note of hand or other negotiable instrument for the debt ! We happen to be acquainted with a glaring instance of this monstrous custom. An English gentleman has a claim on a Jerseyman for upwards of £90, but though the claim is incontrovertible, he cannot sue the debtor until April next, because the latter is forsooth, a landed proprietor: in the mean time the debtor may die, or run away, or become a bankrupt, in either of these cases, we believe the law provides no remedy for the creditor. Is it not astonishing that laws such as this should be allowed to exist so long under the noses of our reforming legislature ?- Jersey Times]. Arrests cannot be confirmed out of Term Time excepting for notes of hand, &c.

Theatricals are licenced by the Bailiff; no charge is made. Tithe. All persons are forbidden to take or carry away their produce from the place where the Corn shall have grown, before having delivered the Tithe to whomsoever it belongs, on pain of 10 livres penalty, and to pay to him who has the right, three livres for each Vergee, and five livres for each Vergee, which owes the Tithe and compart.—Code, 1771. In Mallet v. Bertram, 1838, the Court decided, that the Rector was not bound to take his Tithe in kind, without notice, if he had been accustomed to take it in money.

Title, see Appellation.-In Guernsey the Jurats, Procureur, Comptroller, Greffier and Advocates, are called Esq., by usurpation of the Court, in 1764.

Tobacco for the use of the Army, by a T. O. 14th, April, 1828, and for the use of the Navy, by 3 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 52, s. 99, is not allowed to be landed in the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Sark or Man.

Trade of the British Possessions Abroad, Act to regulate.3 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 59. And be it further enacted, That the Master of every Ship arriving in any of the British Possessions in America, or the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, or Sark, whether laden or in ballast, shall come directly, and before bulk be broken, to the Custom House for the port or district where he arrives,-and there make a report in writing to the collector or controller, or other proper officer, of the arrival and voyage of such ship, stating her name, country and tonnage and if British, the port of registry,-the name and country of the Master,-the country of the Owners,-the number of the crew, and how many are of the country of such ship, and whether she be laden or in ballast, and if laden the marks, numbers, and contents of every package and parcel of goods on board, and where the same was laden, aud where and to whom consigned,-and where any and what goods, if any, had been unladen during the voyage,-as far as any of such particulars can be known to him; and the Master shall further answer all such questions concerning the ship and the cargo and the crew and the voyage, as shall be demanded of him by such officer; and if any goods be unladen from any ship before such report be made, or if the Master fail to make such report, or make an untrue report, or do not truly answer the questions demanded of him, he shall forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, and if any goods be not reported, such goods shall be forfeited.

Transfer of ships or shares of ships.-By C. G. Dec. 18, 1835, each party transferring will be required either to do so by a separate conveyance, or where the owners of shares, join in one conveyance they will be required to state what share or shares each conveys. And in the granting part after the customary words, "grant, bargain, seil, assign, and set over it," the words, "in the proportions above specified," shall likewise be inserted.

Transportation.-Convicts, such as thieves, footpads, housebreakers and midnight robbers, sentenced to three, five or seven years' banishment, are usually transported to Southamp ton, Weymouth, or Plymouth, and there set at liberty! Those

who are banished for life, are transported to New South Wales. There are only three instances of the latter on record. It is questionable, if the Courts of Jersey and Guernsey have any legal right to transport to any place whatever, beyond the seas; seeing that there is no law which authorizes them to do so, and that their jurisdictions are limited to their respective bailiwicks.

Transport de Justice, or removal of the Court to the Spot, which sometimes takes place when there is a litigation respecting the division and rights of property. The Jurats hear the allegations and objections of the parties, and the evidence that might be brought forward-they also examine the premises, after which they repair to the Court house. The following is the oath which the witnesses take: "You promise and swear by the faith and oath that you owe to God, that well and faithfully you will state as well what you shall know for certain, as of that which you shall believe in your conscience, after consideration of the places and of the evidences of the parties relative to an Examination on the Spot, the difference for which a view has been appointed, according to the Act of the Court, and this you shall do without any favour, hatred or partiality, as you would wish to answer before God, and in discharge of your conscience." The case of Graut v. Dixon, will explain this subject. The action arose out of a claim made by the plaintiff to a right of road and land in the corner of a field belonging to defendant, adjoining to plaintiff's property. It appeared that the gates and stone posts of the avenue leading to defendant's house had been knocked down, and that when he was about to replace them, and to build walls leading therefrom on both sides, the plaintiff claimed a right of road, and interjected the clameur de haro, which is the serio-comic preliminary for bringing questions of this nature before Justice, or rather for Transporting Justice to the place, so that they may decide on the spot. After the Court had been formed, the AttorneyGeneral, for plaintiff opened the case. Several witnesses were examined, and the contracts of the respective parties produced. A surveyor, on behalf of the plaintiff, said that many years before, he measured a distance, which he pointed out, exceeding sixty feet of the said field, as part of the property of Mr. Graut, but on being cross examined by Advocate God fray, he admitted that it might perhaps be only ten feet. He could produce no plan of the ground, nor any confirmation of his statement. Other wituesses spoke to there having been a road there originally, before the properties were divided, but none of them could define exactly its situation, nor recollect

that it was ever used. On examining the skins, it appeared that the plaintiff's contract represented his field as bordering on the avenue, which lead to defendant's house, whilst defendant's contract specified the right of avenue. It was alleged for defendant that the gates and stone posts had been erected 20 years ago by the late owner, who placed rails to prevent all access from plaintiff's field, and had ever since been considered the enclosure of, and belonging to, the property; and it was only since they had been knocked down that the plaintiff claimed a right within them, upon the pretext that the old gates which formerly stood in the avenue, were lower down and nearer the house. The Court, after hearing the parties and their witnesses, adjudged the defendant to the penalty of £15 and the costs, which were £29 odd. They gave the plain tiff a right of road across the avenue to his field, although he had access thereto from the public road, but did not determine how far down the avenue that right extended, nor in whom the property of the soil was vested. In fact they did not decide the question betwixt the litigants, but left the matter just as it was before.

Treason. Coining, counterfeiting money, and laying violent hands on the Bailiff or Jurats, whilst in the discharge of the duties of their offices, are reserved both in Jersey and Guernsey for the cognizance of the Queen in Council.

Trésor.--There is in every Parish a fund called le Trésor de l'Eglise, i. e. the Treasure of the Church, consisting of several quarters of Wheat-Rents, given anciently by pious persons for the use of those sacred fabrics. But an ill custom has prevailed, to make this fund (so far as it will go) answer all the calls of public service, even the most secular and foreign to religion. [Falle.]

Trial, how managed, to secure a judgment.—The following exposé is taken from the Patriot, May 12, 1835: "The regular turns of the Magistrates for Thursday fell to Messrs. Le Maistre and Bisson, but this was not convenient. Early in the morning Messrs. Marett and Bertram were in Court. Mr. Le Maistre also came; and after having been spoken to by Mr. Marett, he asked the Bailiff leave to retire, as he found himself unwell, and proposed that Mr. Marett should take his seat. Mr. Bertram said that he assisted for Mr. Le Quesne! The Court was therefore composed of those two Magistrates, strong partizans of defendant, and invincible opponents of the plaintiff, to hear an election cause for the Constableship of St. Martin's. The summons of Mr. Godfray to Mr. Messervy was called. Plaintiff insisted that the one

served him should be called; the Court found it faulty, annulled it, and refused appeal! The depositions were concluded, on which defendant demanded that they should proceed to the merits of the case. Plaintiff objected, as his Counsel, Advocate Le Couteur, was absent, in consequence of the death of a relation, and appealed to the members of the bar as regarded the custom of the Court. The Jurats decided, nevertheless, that the matter should be proceeded with. Plaintiff's Advocate protested that it was contrary to the usage of the Court, and that he himself knew nothing of the merits of the case whatever, and begged that the pleadings might be deferred. The Court ruled otherwise, and gave judgment instanter for defendant with costs." See Justiciers or Jurats, packing of.

Trial, manœuvres in.-The case of Vautier and Syvret v. the Procureur of Charles Vautier, will illustrate this subject. It was an appeal interjected by defendant, from the judgment of the inferior Court, composed of the Bailiff and two Jurats, adjudging him to the payment £25 5s. sterling, as the alleged share of Charles Vautier's liability for certain bills of exchange, which they had by a written agreement "jointly and solidarily" guranteed to pay on behalf of P. Vautier, whose property had subsequently been adjudicated by a decret. Deferdant objected to the payment on the plea,that the Plaintiffs, (holders of the bills) having omitted to cause them to be inserted in the schedule under that decret, had excluded him from his remedy against the estate, and thereby barred their right of recovery. The cause was brought on for hearing on the 24th Oct. 1838, not by appellant, but by the plaintiffs, during his temporary absence from the island, and before a tribunal, composed of the Bailiff and only six Jurats, including the two who had decided the cause in the first instance. Defendant's Counsel objected to the competency of the court, and quoted the law and numerous precedents to show, that not less than seven Magistrates could form a querum, unless the others were recused, which was not the case in that instance. The Bailiff, who as president, ought to have declared the Court incompetent, took the opinion of the Attorney General, who maintained the law on the subject: he nevertheless then consulted the Bench, who, strange as it might appear, overruled both the law and custom, as also the opinion of the Crown Officer, and decided, that they were competent; but what is still more strange, the very same Jurats under similar circumstances, in the case of Blanchard v. Laing, on the 17th April, 1839, held that they were incompetent. [See Quorum.] Defendant's Counsel declared, that not having been engaged in