granted, of which the substance is as follows: 1.-George Morley, Bishop of Winchester, founds five scholarships at Oxford for the islands of Guernsey and Jersey. 2.-This he does for the encouragement of virtue, education, and the advancement and propagation of true religion in the said islands, forming part of his diocese, and with the intention of animating the said scholars to qualify themselves to be advanced to the rank of fellows. 3.-The sum vested in the Dean of Christchurch, and the Chapter of Pembroke, for this purpose, is sixty eight pounds, eleven shilings and nine pence sterling. 4. The dean and the chapter shall receive, annually, sixty pounds sterling, the remainder being otherwise disposed of. 5.-Five scholars of the college of Pembroke, natives of the isles of Guernsey and Jersey, shall each receive ten pounds sterling out of this donation; and the said scholars shall be called, Bishop Morley's Scholars. 6.-These shall be paid to the principal of the college forty shilings per annum for the apartment of each scholar. 7.-The revenue of vacant scholar. ships shall be applied to the use of the said college of Pembroke. 8.-The engagement of the college to receive the five scholars is thus worded: "That they, the said master, fellows and scholars, and their successors, shall and will, from time to time, and successively, for ever admit and receive into the said college, five scholars, born in the said islands of Guernsey and Jersey, to be called Bishop Morley's Scholars." 9.-The dean bailiff, and majority of the jurats of the respective islands shall nominate the scholars. 10.-Three of the scholars shall be natives of Jersey and two of Guernsey. 11.-A scholarship shall be vacated by death, resignation, promotion, or removal; and always after the lapse of ten years. 12.-Thirty days after a vacancy, notice shall be given to the dean, bailiff, and jurats, that they may supply it. 13. The scholars must be duly qualified before election. 14.-The scholars are not to retain the appointment longer than ten years, nor after having obtained a living, or any other emolument; and they are to be resident in college. 15.-They may obtain permission to travel in France. 16.-But they shall solemnly promise to return to the islands there to serve the public, as preachers, or schoolmasters, or otherwise. 17.-At the age of twenty-one, each scholar shall solemnly bind himself, before the dean and the bailiff, in a penalty of two hundred pounds, to fulfil his engagements. Such as refuse, shall not be admitted. 18.-Such as have attained the age of twenty one, and refuse to ratify their promise, shall be deprived of their appointment. -The above document or indenture is signed GEORGE WINTON.

Wines, adulteration of.-In England by the statute 12 Car. 2, c. 25, s11, any brewing or adulteration of Wine is punishable with the forfeiture of £100, if done by the wholesale merchaut, and £40, if done by the vintner or retail dealer. In Jersey and Guernsey, no penalties are attached. The Duty payable on French Wines imported into this island is £1 per hogshead, and on all other wines (port included) £1 5s : now if a merchant import 100 pipes of Cette wines, he pays £200 duty to the Impot, but if he manufacture that wine into real Port for the English palate, and export it to England as such, he is entitled to a draw back of £1 5s per hogshead, and may thus defraud the revenue of ten shillings per pipe, or £50 on his hundred pipes! Now let us apply this rule to the total quantity of soi disant Port exported from this island, which we are partially enabled to do by Mr. Cyrus Redding, who in his "History and Description of Modern Wines," gives us the imports from Oporto to the Channel Islands contrasted with the exports from the latter to London. From these tables we learn that for eight years, viz. from 1826 to 1833 inclusive, there have been imported into these islands only 210 pipes of wine from Oporto, whereas no fewer than 2129 pipes of soi-disant port wines have been actually exported from the Channel Islands to England in the same period! Nay, in 1 year alone (1812) Mr. Redding assures us that only 135 pipes & 20 hogsheads were imported into the Channel Islands from Oporto, while 2,545 pipes and 162 hogsheads of soi-disant port were actually exported from these islands to London, by which, independant of the gross imposition on the English wine bibbers. an enormous fraud may have been committed on the island Revenue. [Jersey Times, Sept. 27, 1836.]

Wines and Spirits, declarations of,must be made at the office of the Impost within 24 hours after they have been imported, and the duties paid thereon, or carried to the account of the Importer, if he has given security to the collectors for payment of them. In the case of Mr. Whitfield, who kept a large distillery in Jersey, and who it was alleged had neglected to make the usual declarations on certain spirituous liquors which he had distilled and exported, and had thereby incurred fines to the amount of £6,000, his stock in trade and other effects were seized and sequestrated, and afterwards sold in pursuance of a judgment of the Court, obtained exparte, [See Re-opening of a case] notwithstanding he was a landed proprietor, and though it did not appear that the information against him was founded on oath. His property was also declared en desastre upon the allegation, that he was a debtor to the Revenue in his

account with the Collectors, to the amount of £1,176 19s. 9ąd; for duties owing on the spirits which he had imported for the purpose of manufacturing them for exportation to the Colonies, credit not being given to him for divers sums carried to the account of other parties, and which duties were payable only on spirits consumed in the island, and upon the presumption that this allegation was founded in truth, and that Mr. W's. property would not cover the same, one of the collectors, Mr. E. Nicolle was first dimissed from office, by the Governor, Bailiff and Jurats, as administrators of the Impost, and 2ndly, fixed as being responsible for the presumed deficiency, because he had neglected to take security from him, although it had not been customary to do so with any person whomsoever. An action was accordingly entered against him by order of the said administrators for payment of what might be due to the said revenue, on Mr. Whitfield's account, and when the cause came to a hearing, the same administrators judged the case: thus upon presumptions, they ruined Mr. Whitfield, and virtually banished him from the country: dismissed Mr. Nicolle from office, and then harrassed him with an action at law to recover a claim, founded on a charge which had not been established, and on a debt which had not been proved!

Wisdom of an Advocate.-In the case of Marie Renouf, a frenchwoman who was charged with having stolen a piece of cloth from Mr. Le Gros' shop, in King-St., Advocate Marett said that he had read the depositions, but could not find a single circumstance to allege in her favour; yet nevertheless the jury unamimously acquitted her.

Wisdom of the Bench.-In the Crown v. McKay and J. Conner, two privates of the 73rd. Regt, who were tried before the Petty jury of St. Helier, in 1833, on an indictment, charging them with having broken into a house occupied by Mr. Letto, and stole therefrom seven pair of shoes, the jury found it difficult to come to a decision, on the ground, that it was proved that Mr. Letto did not occupy the house, but merely a shop therein, and that he occupied and lived in a house altogether detached from the premises. The foreman of the Jury, therefore requested the Court [a full bench of seven judges exclusive of the Bailiff] to enlighten them on that point. The Bailiff and Jurats, one and all shrugged their shoulders, and said nothing! The Jury found the prisoners guilty. In Godfray v. Le Cras, an action for damages, for an alleged libel, the full Court having found the article to be a libel, defendant moved the Bench to state their reasons why they considered it a libel, and demanded to know, first, whether the facts alleged

were false, secondly whether they were defamatory, and thirdly, whether they had been maliciously published. The Jurats, shrugged their shoulders, on which the Bailiff said it was not usual for the Court to assign any reasons for their judgments. They had decided that the article was a libel, and that was enough. In Le Breton v. Ennis, the Jurat Le Quesne, when examined as to whether an invoice had been read before the full Court, of which he was a member, concerning the price and quality of certain sugars, in Maingy v. Ennis, when judgment was given against defendant, said "whether the document had, or had not, been read, it would not have changed his judgment, because he gave it from the dictation of his conscience." Again, Hugh Godfray, Esq., was interrogated: Was deponent present in Court, when the cause of General Thornton v. Le Breton was pleaded before the full Bench ?-Yes. Was the judgment drawn up under the direction of the Jurats? Here the Court interfered, to protect its honour, and by the casting vote of the Bailiff, decided, that witness should not answer the question, "because the judg. ment having been delivered in private, it ought to remain so."

Witnesses.-Two witnesses are required to prove a fact, but in cases where a signature has not been disputed, one witness has been held sufficient, as in Bree v. Godfray, and Nicholle v. Le Four and wife. In the Attorney General v. Joseph Grant, 1836, actioning him to pay the sum of 50 livers d'ordre, (a livre d'ordre is equal to one shilling and three pence, in French currency) for having, gathered sea-weed, before the Sun rose, in contravention of the law. Though the law requires that there must be two witnesses, in every cause, to prove a fact, the Court, on the testimony of only one witness (Mr. Charles Coutanche, the officer appointed by the Parish to superintend the cutting of sea-weed), who stated that Grant had commenced gathering together the sea-weed before sun rise-condemened Grant to pay the 50 livrs d'ordre and costs!!! In the very next cause, for a similar offence, with the same witnesses for Touzel, objected to the testimony of Coutanche, on the ground that he was the brother-in-law of Touzel. The Court decided that Coutanche could not be heard. On which the Attorney-General observed, that, without the testimony of Coutanche, he could not prove the infraction of the Law against Touzel, who was consequently discharged.

Witnesses, contrariety of Judgments on.-In Le Breton v. Ennis, defendant's counsel having moved the bench, that whilst a witness was giving his deposition, the other witnesses should withdraw, the Court granted the motion; but on the objection

of Advocate Godfray, the Court held that a member of the bar was privileged like a member of the bench to retain his seat, although a witness; but a few days afterwards in the same cause, when the Jurats Messrs. E. and W. Nicolle claimed the privilege the Court overruled it. When Adv. Godfray was examined, the Court held he was not bound to answer questions concerning matters confided to him professionally, excepting by consent of the parties, but when M. Kaye (formerly Solicitor to the Bank of England) and who had been consulted by defendent professionally concerning the case, the Court held him bound to answer any question,because he was not Advocate or Solicitor of the Jersey Court. They however held he was not bound to answer questions touching his conversation with defendent since the cause had been instituted, but when Mr. N. Westaway was examined, they o erruled that decision.

Witnesses, prevarication of.-It is has been often said that when a cause is sent to proof, in which the Crown Officers act as counsel for a party, that the witnesses who depose on their side, are not dealt with according to their demerits when they prevaricate, as those are who depose on the other side. In the case of Arthur v. Hamon, (1834) Adv. Godfray said, " he saw plainly, that a witness who deposed in favour of the party for whom the King's Procureur acted, was in a different positio. whatever might be the manner in which he acquitted himself of his oath; whilst when a witness deposed against the King's Procureur's client, he was ready to send him to prison for prevarication, as was the case with the unfortunate Le Brocq, and he certainly did not deserve it more than Mr. John Le Couteur, and if he (Mr. G.) was King's Procureur, he should act very differently." The Procureur claimed the protection of the Court: it was impossible for him to pass over in silence the insult that had been offered him; he demanded an explanation. Adv. Godfray repeated the words, he had no other explanation to give. The Court passed a censure on the Advocate for his unbecoming remarks. Advocate Godfray demanded an appeal which was refused. See Procureur General de la Reine.

Witness, subpoena of to England.-A witness may be subpo. naed from the Islands to the Courts of Westminster, and also to the Privy Council under the 2nd Will 4. but not from England to the Court of Jersey. A witness coming from abroad to England without subpoena is privileged. Tidd's Prac. 198. The protection extends to their going, staying and returning Anon. Loft 434. A defendant when discharged from legal custody has no privilege from arrest in returning home, Anon.