and that if the Executor failed in
paying the costs, he would himself
be legally liable to the proctor.
Publication passed, and the cause
was assigned for hearing. Upon
motion, the Prerogative Court re-
scinded the conclusion of the cause,
and granted the promovent leave
to re-examine the witness, after a
release of his liability. Affirmed,
on Appeal, by the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council. [Clark
v. Carter.]
207
3. The rejection of a witness, in the
course of the hearing of a cause, in
the Ecclesiastical Court, on the
ground of interest, is not of itself
an appealable grievance, the hear-
ing being one continuous act,
and an Appeal being competent,
after sentence, from any compart-
ment of the cause. [Handley v.
Edwards]

407

entered into possession and received
the rents and profits, but took no
further steps to prosecute the es-
cheat to final Judgment for the
Crown. Upon an information filed
in 1835, by the Attorney-General
of Jamaica, praying that the grantee
might be declared accountable to
the Crown, in respect of the rents
and profits received by him since
he had been in possession. Held
by the Court of Chancery of Ja-
maica, and affirmed on Appeal by
the Judicial Committee, that the
grantee was bound to prosecute the
escheat to final judgment for the
Crown within a proper time; and
that he was liable to account to the
Crown for the rents and profits re-
ceived by him, from the time of
entering into possession. [Mason
v. The Attorney General of Ja-
maica]
228

ESCHEAT.

(Jamaica.)

In the year 1827, letters of preference
of escheated property in the Island
of Jamaica were granted under the
Great Seal of the Island; by the
terms of which it was provided,
that the grantee should, within.
twelve months from the date there-
of, or for such further time as the
Governor of the Island should limit
and appoint, take the necessary
steps to prosecute the rights of the
Crown to the escheated property,
otherwise the preference thereby
given was to be void. The grantee
VOL. IV.

The admission of a witness that he is
a member of a religious sect who
hold a certain principle as a body,
which, if acknowledged individually,
would subject him to excommuni-
cation, ipso facto, by the 12th canon
of 1603. Held insufficient to dis-
able him from giving evidence in
the suit. And

Quære. If excommunication, ipso
facto, (if not absolutely abolished
by Statute 53 Geo. III., c. 127,) dis-
ables a party from being a witness,
until absolved. [Escott v. Mastin]

FOREIGNERS.

See" LEX FORI."

FOREIGN LAW.

104

1. If reliance is placed upon a diffe-
rence between the law of England
and a Foreign State, the party re-
lying upon the difference is bound,
by witnesses or authorities, to prove
such fact. [Smith v. Gould] 21

(British Guiana.)

2. In an action brought in the Su-
preme Court of British Guiana, the
Plaintiff obtained an interdict re-
straining the Defendants, the mana-

gers of a plantation, from selling
or consigning any portion of the
proceeds of the plantation. This
interdict remained in force until the
cause came on for hearing, (ten
months afterwards,) when the Court
discharged the interdict as having
been obtained per sub et ob rep-
tionem, and condemned the Plaintiff
"to make good to the Defendants
all losses, costs and damages by
them already had and suffered, or
yet to be had and suffered in con-
sequence." An Appeal was en-
tered against this Decree, but not
prosecuted. The Defendants to the
previous action then brought an ac-
tion in the same Court to assess the
losses, costs, and damages incurred
by reason of the interdict. Evi-
dence was given of certain damages
sustained in consequence of the in-
terdict, which was not contradicted.
The Court rejected the claim in toto.
Held by the Judicial Committee on
Appeal,-

1st. That the Decree discharging the
interdict must be presumed to have
been conformable to the law of Hol-
land prevailing in British Guiana.
2nd. That that Decree must be taken
as a simultaneous Decree discharg-
ing the interdict, and pronouncing
for damages. And,

3rd. That the Court below was wrong
in rejecting the claim in toto, there
being evidence of damages sustained
by the interdict. And remitted the
cause to the Court below to assess
the damages incurred. [McTurk
v. Bent]

213

(Jersey.)

3. By the Law of Jersey, it is neces-
sary, in order to constitute a valid
Judgment, that a majority of the
Jurats constituting the Court, con-
cur in the Judgment. If they are
equally divided, the Bailiff has the
casting vote.

A judgment of the Royal Court, in an
action of defamation, consisting of
the Bailiff and six Jurats, of whom
three were of opinion that the ac-
tion ought to be dismissed; two
for the Plaintiff; and one that
the Court could not pass judicial
sentence upon the defendant,"-
and the Bailiff did not vote. Held
by the Judicial Committee to be
bad, and the Judgment of the Court
below reversed.

And, upon the merits, Judgment or-
dered to be entered for the Plaintiff,
with damages awarded by their
Lordships. [Le Breton v. Ennis]

(Lower Canada.)

322

4. The firm of S. & W. H. in Lower
Canada, being indebted to J. W.,
transferred 75 promissory notes
to a factor, on his account. At the
time of the transfer S. & W. H.
were en déconfiture. A saisee arrét
having subsequently issued by other
of the creditors of S. & W. H., the
75 notes in the hands of the factor
were attached. Held by the Judi-
cial Committee, that the transfer
having taken place before the exe-
cution of the saisee arrét, was valid

The 5th Geo. IV., c. 113, sec. 29,
enacts that no Appeals shall be pro-
secuted from any sentence of any
Court of Admiralty or Vice-Admi-
ralty (with the exception of the
Cape of Good Hope and eastward
thereof) unless an Inhibition be ap-
plied for and decreed within twelve
months from the time of the decree
or sentence being pronounced. By
the 3rd & 4th Wm. IV., c. 41, the
appellate jurisdiction given by the
previous Statute to the High Court
of Admiralty, was vested in the Ju-
dicial Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil; but which Court, from its con-
stitution, had no jurisdiction over
the Appeal until the Petition of
Appeal was referred to them by the

Crown.

The Appellant presented, on the 16th
of July 1841, a petition of Appeal
from a decree of condemnation pro-
nounced on the 12th of August
1840, by the Vice- Adrairalty Court
of Sierra Leone, against a vessel
2 K2

engaged in the Slave Trade, con-
trary to the provisions of the 6th
Geo. IV., c. 113. The Appeal was
not referred by Her Majesty to the
Judicial Committee until the 11th
of August 1841, one day before the
year expired, and notice of such
reference was not given by the Clerk
in Council until the 13th of the
same month, one day after the
twelve months had expired, when
the Appellant applied for and ob-
tained an Inhibition. On protest
against the Appeal; Held,-
1st. That the 5th Geo. IV., c. 113,
was incorporated in the 3rd and
4th Wm. IV., c. 41.

2nd. That the Appellant having failed
to procure, in compliance with the
29th section of the 5th Geo. IV.,
c. 113, an Inhibition to issue within
twelve months from the sentence,
was barred his Appeal; the provi-
sions of that section being impe-
rative, and leaving no discretion in
the Court to relax the operation of
the Act. [Logan v. Burslem] 284
2. The 5th Geo. IV., c. 113, (the
Slave Abolition Act,) sec. 29, enacts
that no appeals shall be prosecuted
from any sentence of any Court of
Admiralty or Vice-Admiralty (ex-
cept in any Vice-Admiralty Court
at the Cape of Good Hope, or to the
eastward thereof), unless an Inhi-
bition be applied for and decreed
within twelve months from the time
of the decree or sentence being pro-
nounced. Held to apply to fo-
reigners as well as British subjects.
Protest against an Appeal sustained;

This Court will not visit a Judge of

an inferior Court with the Penal
consequences of an attachment for
contumacy and contempt, for dis-
regarding an Inhibition, unless such
disobedience is wilful, and proceeded
from improper motives.

An Inhibition to the Judge of the

Vice-Admiralty Court at Gibraltar,
inhibiting him from doing anything
prejudicial to the parties Appellant
pending an appeal, is not to be dis-
regarded at his discretion, although
he may consider that he is acting

for the benefit of all parties.
Decree for a sale of a vessel con-
demned, after Appeal asserted and
Inhibition served personally on the
Judge, held not such a contempt,
under the circumstances of the case,
as to entitle the owners to an at-
tachment against the Judge for
costs and damages incurred thereby.
[Barton v. Field]
- 273

trust, in the first instance, to per-
mit him, the settlor, to receive the
rents and profits thereof during his
life, and upon his death, in trust
to pay out of the rents accruing
from such land, an annuity of £40
to H. A. during his life, and to
pay the residue of such rents to
J. A., her heirs or assigns; and upon
H.A.'s death, in trust to convey
the said lands to J. A. and her
heirs, if then living, or, if she
should be then dead, unto the heir-
at-law of the said J. A., and the
heirs and assigns of such heir-at-
law. R. S. (the settlor) died intes-
tate and unmarried. J. A. died,
leaving H. A. her heir-at-law; then
H. A. died, leaving J. E. T. his
heir-at-law, and who then became
heir-at-law of J. A. Upon a bill
filed by J. E. T. against the sur-
viving Trustee, under the deed, for
the conveyance of the estate. Held
by the Judicial Committee, affirm-
ing the Decree of the Court of
Chancery of the Isle of Man, that
J. E. T. took by purchase under
the ultimate limitation, as the per-
son answering the description of
heir-at-law of J. A. at the death of
H. A.; and a conveyance decreed.
[Cain v. Teare]
249

MARRIAGE.

1. Sentence of nullity of marriage,
causá impotentiæ, pronounced on
confession of non-consummation,
and refusal to undergo inspection.
[Harrison v. Harrison] - 96