a Judgment, and takes refuge in Jersey, the Plaintiff or his Attorney may action him before the local Court, on the Judg. ment, as may he seen by the following case :-Gaylor and Wife v. Opey and others, (1836.) This case was to recover satisfaction of a judgment in an action brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of Common Pleas, in England, against the Defendants, for a brutal assault, in which a verdict was given for £100 damages and costs. Immediately after the trial, the defendants sold out of the English funds about £2,000, and absconded to this Island. The Plaintiff's Attorney, Mr. John Tucker, of No. 40, Basinghall-street, London, having fortified himself with the necessary authority, and an office copy of the Judgment, followed the defendants to Jersey, where they were arrested, and one of the firm of the Commercial Bank became bail for their appearance in Court on the day of trial. It was understood that the money brought over by the defendant Opey was invested, through those gentlemen, in the French funds. The Solicitor General appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. Advocate Godfray for defendants. The latter gentleman in his argument, raised several legal objections to the jurisdiction of the Jersey Court to enforce a Judgment of the Courts of Westminster, as well as to the sufficiency of the Power of Attorney, and the Office copy of the Judgment, all of which objections were overruled by the Court: the defendants were condemned to satisfy the judgment and costs, . and, in default of payment, committed to prison. The following is a translation of the Act containing the reasons assigned by the Court for disallowing the objections and confirming the

arrest.

"At the Royal Court of the Island of Jersey.

"The year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six, the thirteenth day of August; between Mr. Abraham Opey and Elizabeth Opey, his wife, and Mr. James Opey, on the one part; and John Tucker Esq., Procureur of Mr. William Robert Gaylor, and of Sophia Gaylor, his wife, on the other part; actioning them to see confirmation of the arrest of their persons by the Officer, in virtue of a certain Order of Justice, to them signified; shewing that by the verdict of a jury rendered agreeably to the forms of the English Law, at Guildhall, in the City of London, before Sir James Allan Park, one of the Judges, and in virtue of the Judgment of the Court which followed dated the 19th day of July, 1836, Mr. Abraham Opey and Elizabeth Opey, his wife, and Mr. James Opey, have been condemned to pay to the said William Robert Gaylor and to the said Sophia Gaylor, his wife, the sum of

one hundred and forty-five pounds, and ten shillings, sterling, for damages, costs, and expenses that the said Abraham Opey, Elizabeth Opey, and James Opey have quitted England, without paying the said sum of one hundred and fortyfive pounds and ten shillings, sterling, which they owe to the said William Robert Gaylor and Sophia Gaylor, his wife, and have taken refuge in this Island and praying, that the said Abraham Opey and Elizabeth Opey, his wife, and James Opey, may be condemned to pay to the said Remonstrant, for and in the name of his said Constituents, the said sum of one hundred and forty-five pounds and ten shillings, sterling, money of Great Britain; the whole as is more fully set forth in the said Order, on the penalties contained therein. And to hear record of the said arrest. On the demand of the said Defendants, that the Plaintiff produce his procuration, the Court, considering that the said Defendants have not made this demand until after having pleaded relatively to the authenticity of the Judgment in question, have judged that they came too late to make the said demand; from which sentence they are allowed to appeal en fin de cause before a greater number. And on the pretension raised at first by the said Defendants, that they were not seizable in virtue of the document that was produced, and that were it authentic they could not be pursued in this Island, for a matter which originated in England; considering, that the document in question, being certified by the signature of the Clerk of the Treasury, is suffi ciently authentic and that by the custom of the country every British subject, though not a native of Jersey, can be pursued in this Island, for the recovery of a debt contracted in England, the Court putting aside the said pretension of the Defendants, have judged that they must plead to the merits; from which sentence the said Defendants are allowed to appeal en fin de cause, before the greater number. After which the arrest of person of the said Defendants remains confirmed, and they are condemned to the demand and to the costs, and in default of their paying the same, they are committed to prison. From which sentence the said Defendants are allowed to appeal before a greater number: in consequence of the said appeal, the Plaintiff is allowed to protest against all losses, prejudices, interests and damages, and the officer of Justice is authorised to receive bail to reproduce the said Defendants, and to answer to the action, whenever called upon, on pain of satisfying the judgment. CHAS. DE STE. CROIX, Commis-au-Greffe.' -The appeal was not prosecuted, [See Jurisdictions, &c.]

Judgments of Colonial Courts enforced in England.-An action is not maintainable on a colonial judgment, unless it appear that the defendant was regularly served with process, and had an opportunity of defending the suit, even although it appear to be the practice of that Court not to give a personal notice. Buchanan v. Rucker, 9 East., 192. 1 Camp. 25. For the law will not raise an assumpsit upon such a judgment obtained by default against to have been summoned by nailing up a copy of the declaration at the Court house door: it not appearing that he had ever been present in the Colony, or subject to the jurisdiction of the Colonial Court at the time the suit commenced and afterwards, although by a law of the Colony, if a defendant be absent from the island, and without an attorney, manager, or overseer there, such mode of summoning him shall be deemed a good service.—Ibid. An action will not lie in the courts of Westminster upon a judgment of a foreign court, unless it clearly appear by the transcript of the proceedings that the defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, and that the judgment pronounced against him was final, and for a definite sum. Obicini v. Bligh, 1 M. & Scott, 477; 8 Bing. 335, overruling Malony v. Gibbons, 2 Camp, 504. An action is maintainable without declaring upon or proving the cause of action upon which judgment was given. Crawford v. Whittal, 1 Dougl, 4, n. ; Lofft. 154. Or the ground of the judgment. Walker v. Witter, 1 Dougl. 1. Unless the contrary be shewn, the court will presume that the decision in a foreign judgment is consonant to the justice of the case. Arnott v. Redfern, 3 Bing. 353; 11 Moore, 209; 2 C. & P. 88. An action for debt will lie upon the decree of a colonial court of equity, for the balance of an account between partners. And in such an action, the Court will look at the substance, without regarding the form of the proceedings upon which the decree is founded. Henley v. Saper, 2 M. & R. 153; 8 B. & C. 16. A foreign judgment cannot be questioned in the Courts of Chancery in this country. Therefore, a bill for a discovery and a commission to examine witnesses abroad, in aid of the plaintiff's defence to an action brought in this country on a foreign judgment, is demurrable. Martin v. Nicolls, 3 Sim. 458. To render a foreign judgment void, on the ground that it is contrary to the law of the country where it was given, it must be shewn clearly and unequivocally to be so. Becquet v. MacCarthy, 2

B. & Adol. 951.

We now give other cases to show, that even after an arrest in Jersey or Guernsey on a judgment, if the party escapes

without satisfying the same, he may be arrested again in England.

After an arrest in a foreign country upon a judgment obtained there, the defendant, having escaped, may be again arrested here in action on that judgment. Aliven v. Furnival, 1 Dowl. P. C. 614. A defendant, who had been arrested in America, may be again arrested here for the same cause of action. Maule v. Murray, 7 T. R. 470. There is no objection to an arrest here, after an arrest in a foreign country, where it does not distinctly appear that the defendant could have the same redress and benefit by the proceedings abroad as here. Imlay v. Ellefsen, 2 East, 453. Semble, where under process from the supreme court of New South Wales, (established by act 4 Geo. 4, c. 96), the goods of a defendant are attached and rendered to the plaintiff in execution, or bail are put in to pay the condemnation money, he cannot be arrested for the same cause of action in this country. Naylor v. Eagar, 2 Y. and J. 90.

The arrest of course is founded on affidavit, which if made abroad, must contain all the requisites that are essential to an affidavit made in England. The court will take cognizance of affidavits sworn before foreign magistrates, if properly authenticated. Dalmer v. Barnard, 7. T. R, 251. An affidavit of debt made by a plaintiff residing abroad, before a foreign magistrate, whose signature to the jurat, and his authority to administer oaths and take affidavits there, are verified in this country, is a sufficient foundation for a judge's order to hold to bail. Omealy v, Newell, 8 East, 364. The court refused to discharge on common bail a defendant held to bail on a judge's order granted upon the copy of an affidavit of debt made at Hamburgh, authenticated by the magistrates of that city, and corroborated by persons here, to the credit of the party making the affidavit. Bovara v. Bessessti, 3 Dougl. 336. Semble, that an affidavit made before a British vice-consul abroad, in the absence of the consul, is sufficient. Anon. I Chit. 463, 721. An affidvait, though made in Ireland, if made for the purpose of being used in this country, ought to contain all those requisites that are essential in an affidavit made in England. Nesbitt v. Pym, 7 T. R. 376, n.

The affidavit must set forth the amount of the claim in Pounds Sterling of British money: An affidavit on an Irish judgment must shew the value of Irish money. Storie P. Ball, 3 Chit. 16. An affidavit made before a British consul in a foreign country, stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain number of pounds sterling:-Held, by three

justices, that the affidavit was insufficient, inasmuch as it did not appear with certainty, whether the defendant was indebted in British or Irish sterling money. Abbott, C. J. diss. It ought to have said "pounds sterling English." Pickardo v. Machado, 7 D. and R. 478; 4 B. and C. 886. An affidavit stating that defendant was indebted to plaintiff, as liquidator of an estate duly appointed by the law of France," is defective for not shewing that plaintiff, as liquidator, is by the law of France entitled to sue. Tenon v. Mars, 3 M. and R 38; 8. B. and C. 638.

Judgments abroad, how proved in England.-The sentence of a foreign court, of competent jurisdiction, is evidence of res judicata, and is not to be called in question in a collateral cause in the courts of this kingdom. Hamilton v. Dutch E. I. Comp. 8 Bro. P. C. 264. A foreign judgment is prima facie evidence of a debt, and that every thing was done in the Court in which it was obtained that was necessary to support it. Arnot v. Redfern, 11 Moore, 209; 3 Bing. 353; 2 C. & P. 88. To prove an examined copy of an Irish judgment, it is not enough for the witness to say that he examined the copy with a record produced to him in the room over the four courts at Dublin, where the records of the superior Irish courts are kept, without seeing whence the record in question was taken, or knowing the person who produced it to be an officer of the court. Adamthwaite v. Sygne, 4 Camp. 372; 1 Stark 183Ellenborough. The English courts cannot take notice of any judicial act done in a foreign country, without evidence of the laws of such country. Ganer v. Lanesborough (Lady), Peake, 18-Kenyon. In an action on a foreign judgment, it is not sufficient to prove the judge's handwriting subscribed to it, without proving that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of the court. Henry v. Ady, 3 East, 221;4 Esp. 228. If a colonial court possess a seal, it must be used for the purpose of authenticating a judgment of the court, although it is so much worn as no longer to make any impression. Cavan v. Stewart, 1 Stark. 525-Ellenborough. In an action on a foreign judgment, the judgment produced at the trial must be authenticated by the seal of the foreign court, or evidence must be given that the court has no seal; and then the judgment may be established by proving the signature of the judge. Alves v. Bunbury 4 Camp. 28-Ellenborough. In assumpsit on two judgments recovered in the supreme court of Jamaica, copies of the judgments purporting to be signed by the clerk of the court, and certified by him to be true copies, accompanied by a certificate of a notary public of his being clerk of the said court, and by