Governor Thornton v. Godfray, in 1831, defendant recused the Bailiff, Messrs. De Carteret, Nicolle, Benest, De Ste Croix, and D'Auvergne, in fact all the Jurats excepting four, and mostly on the allegation that they bore enmity towards him, that an ill feeling subsisted between their families and his; and because he was, by general rumour, supposed to be the author of certain articles which had been published in a local journal called Le Constitutionnel, which articles animadverted on their magisterial conduct, and because they had taken undue parts in the matter then pending. By this manoeuvre defendant obtained picked Judges to hear that case, and as a necessary consequence had everything his own way. In Messervy v. Godfray, 1835 for the Constableship of St. Martin's before the full Court, defendant recused the judgment of three Magistrates who had on various occasions shown hostility towards him, and plaintiff recused the judgment of the Magistrates who decided the case in the first instance, and also Mr. Marett, because he had shown partiality towards defendant, thus, the whole bench were challenged; in consequence of this, the Attorney General (acting) concluded that the Court should signalize their reprobation of plantiff's conduct by fining him £10, but inasmuch as they objected one and all to give any opinion on the case in consequence of the recusations, the Bailiff referred the matter to the Privy Council. In Nicolle v. Le Lievre 1835, defendant recused the Bailiff on the ground that he had been concerned in preparing before trial, the judgment of the Court in the case of Lieutenant Governor Thornton v. Le Breton, and on the presumption that he must necessarily have prejudices against him on account of several severe articles animadverting on his conduct which had appeared in Le Constitutionnel, the paper published by defendant, the Jurats of the day Messrs. Marett and Bertram held the recusation to be valid and ordered it to be sent to proof In Macdonald v. the Parochial assembly of St. Helier, 1835, complaining that he had been surcharged in his assessment to the public rate, plaintiff recused the judgment of Judge Nicolle on the ground that he being a rate payer and member of the assembly had an interest in the cause,and consequently was not a competent judge, which was held to be valdi. In Judge Le Couteur v. Aubin, 1836, for defamation,defendant recused the Judges Marett and Bisson, on the ground that they were personally interested in the question.-The Court decided that they could not judge in the case. In the Attorney General v. Nicolle, exAgent of the Impost, 1836, defendant recused the Jurats on the ground that they had already prejudged the case by pronounc

ing against him in the States, as administrators of the Impost, and besides which they had an interest in the issue: recusation overruled. In Constable of St. Brelades v. Benest, 1837, defendant challenged the competency of Judge Marett as he was farther in law of the plaintiff, but inasmuch as the action was to recover payment of a parish rate, in which he was not personally interested, the recusation was overruled. In the case of Godfray (Greffier) v. Nicolle (Judge) 1831, an action for damages, defendant recused Judge Pipon, because he had declared in the presence of witnesses, that on a former occasion, he decided a cause against defendant through party spirit. The Court held the recusation to be valid. In the Crown v. Hue and Amy, 1837, which was a prosecution to recover penalties for falsifying an affidavit for the exportation of corn, Judge Le Maistre who signed the document having given evidence for the Crown,in which he declared, that the affidavit was falsified, and thereby prejudged the cause, defendants challenged his competency to determine the case, but the Court considering he acted in his magisterial capacity when he attested the affidavit, and as a private individual when he gave evidence, ruled that the recusation could not be received. In the Att. Gen. v. Nicolle, 1837, defendant recused the Jurat Bertram inasmuch as he was a witness and had given his desposition against him, thereby prejudging the matter, but the full Court, by the casting vote of the Bailiff De Veulle held that the rescusation did not lie.

Recusation of Witnesses.-According to recent judgments of the Court, persons within certan degrees of relationship cannot be called to give testimony either for, or against, a Prisoner, and the effect of those decisions has been, that in several instances the Attorney General has been obliged to abandon the prosecution of offenders, for want of sufficient evidence of strangers to ensure a conviction. By the civil law and custom of Normandy, as also by the modern French Code, consanguinity is a good objection to the competency of a witness; but by the English law, with more reason, it only affects his credibility. The ground of exclusion is evidently based upon the presumption that persons nearly related, if permitted to give testimony, might be tempted to commit perjury; but to suppose that the mere accident of being a degree more or less distant, can produce any such consequences, is a complete delusion. As the interests of Society require the punishment of those who have transgressed the laws, and there must neces. sarily arise very many cases where the nearest relations alone can have any knowledge of the facts, it is therefore high

X

time, that this custom was abolished. In the case of Thomas Manlahore, in 1836, produced at the bar, to hear information deposed against him, upon the accusation of having stolen a watch and other effects from his brother, in the house occupied by Mr. Peter Le Boutilier, of the parish of Trinity, the prisoner recused his brother, who had been brought as a witness for the charge, and the Court having admitted the recusation, the Procureur General declared that the prosecution must be abandoned! In the Crown v. De Gruchy, 1838, indicted for having stolen certain wearing apparel, the property of his brother in law, John Blampied, an objection was taken by the prisoner to the testimony of Blampied as a witness for the Crown, inasmuch as by the custom of the island, relations of a certain degree were not qualified to give evidence either for or against a prisoner, the point was referred to a Full Court, when numer. ous precedents were cited in which a similar objection had been allowed amongst others that of J. Hotton, 1824, charged with murder, when Elizabeth Becquet his niece, a witness for the Crown was recused; and the case of J. Hall charged with steal. ing a watch from his brother whose evidence was also objected to. Although the objection was combatted at great length. and its pernicious consequences pointed out, the Court ruled that the recusation was well laid, in consequence of which the prosecution against De Gruchy failed for want of evidence. In Le Breton v. Ennis, defendant recused John Anley, a witness for plaintiff, because he was on the 20th October, 1836, charged by him, as Attorney-General, with having on the 8th of the same month, passed a false affidavit, for the exportation of corn; and had thereby rendered himself guilty of perjury. At the time of the accusation, a law passed by the States on the 19th June, 1834, was in force, and on the 18th of August, 1837, Anley was discharged from the action, because the law had then expired! Defendant inaintained that plaintiff, as Crown officer, must doubtless have had good grounds for his prosecution, or else he would not have instituted it, and yet he called as a witness, in his cause, the very same person that he had charged with perjury! Defendant demanded, that Anley be withdrawn from the list of witnesses. The Court (Le Quesne and Duhamel) considering that there was no record of conviction, overruled the demand.

Reclamations of Property.-A wife may reclaim at her husband's death, her estate, if sold or encumbered by him without her sanction being ex pressed by a participation in the deed should she die first her heirs have the same privilege. A father cannot give, except during his life, a greater

share of his landed property to any one child, than the law specifies. His donation may be annulled by an action com. menced within a year and a day after his decease. All sales of land belonging to minors may be revoked by them within a year and a day after they come of age.

Reduit au petits depens, (reduced to the small allowance) usually called starvation point, because the allowance is only 22d. per day, when a person is in custody for debt, to enable him to make general cession of his property for the benefit of creditors. See Cession general.

Registrar.-The Registrar shall be entitled to receive te n sous, for the search, writing and signing of each extrac t from the Registry, if the Contracts or documents be of twenty years standing or less, before the time that the extract is demanded; the registrar furnishing paper when they are to be made on paper, and the parties the parchment if they are requested on parchment.

The Contracts shall be delivered to the said Registrar no later than Tuesday before noon preceding the Thursday when the first summons of the Court of Heritage shall be carried, upon pain that the contracts which might be neglected or not delivered in that way, shall be deemed as registered from the said day, and that the persons be they of the same family or others shall have the benefit of the said Contracts and exercise their rights in that respect; and in order that all persons shall be able to obtain a knowledge of the rights which they might acquire, according to the intention of the establishment of the said register, it is ordered that the Wednesday preceding the day the first summons shall be carried each term of heritage, shall be a day on which inspection of the Register shall be permitted to all persons without exception and without paying any thing. All acts of approbation of age, administrationship, of guardianship of interdicted persons and of minors, shall be registered in the public register of this Island, on pain of five livres penalty against those who shall omit it, to which those who neglect to register the acts of Procurations shall be equally subject.-Code, 1771.

Registry Office-All title deeds and mortgages are inserted in a register placed under the care of an officer duly appointed: the neglect of their insertion invalidates the mortgage.

Register of Orders.-The Orders and Ordinances of the States shall be registered in a particular book, aud shall not be mixed with other public affairs of the island, according to the ordinance established for that purpose on the 10th of Sept. 1603. -Code, 1771.

Remittance of Money.-If a debtor is directed by his creditor to remit money by the Post to England, and it is lost, the creditor must bear the loss. [Warwicke v. Noaks, Peake 67 — Kenyon.] But a person so remitting should deliver the letter at the General Post, or a receiving house appointed by that office, and not to a bell-man in the street. [Hawkins v. Rutt, Peake, 186-Kenyon.]

Remonstrance is the preliminary process by which a party recovers compensation in damages for a personal injury, breach of contract, &c. It is a written declaration of the wrong which a party has sustained,addressed to the Bailiff and Jurats, and in which he petitions for redress. It is usually entered before the inferior Court, but if rejected, there is no act made, and consequently no appeal granted. In the case of Vautier and others v. Remon, 1837, where the plaintiffs entered a joint remonstrance, the Court held that their actions ought to be entered separately. A person who presents a Remonstrance against another for assault and battery,can demand the adjunction of the Crown Officer, and as this functionary usually takes the plaintiff's side, damages are generally awarded, and how. ever small, they carry all costs. In the case of Payn v. Messervy, 1834, Plaintiff having interjected a remonstrance by means of his Procureur against Defendant's being sworn into office as Constable of St. Martin, the latter contend ed, that the remonstrance was not admissible: 1st. because a procureur had not a right to action in the name of his constituent as an elector; and 2nd, because the remonstrance was addressed to the Court as coming from. Helier Payn, whilst in reality it was not him, but his procureur, who had signed it. The Court overruled the objections, and admitted the remonstrance. A woman who has been separated from her husband as to property, must, to recover compensation in damages for a personal injury, enter the remonstrance herself, in her maiden name.

Rents are considered as real and not as personal property. There is a difference in the rents. One sort is called rente foncière; this cannot be redeemed, except by consent of par ties; but must remain a charge on the estate or house, on the security of which it was raised. The other is called rente assignable, or rente crée which is redeemable at any time. Rente assignable becomes rente fonciere, after having been paid on the same estate for the space of forty years.

Rents, value of.-Originally a quarter of wheat rent was estimated by the value of wheat, and was paid in kind. The value of wheat being the least, likely to vary from one century to another, as nearly the same quantity of labour, will at one