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 bim 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 overruled 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 position, whatever might be the manner in which he acquitted himself of his oath; whilst when a witness deposed againat 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 subpoenaed 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.

1 Dowl. P. C. 157. A party coming up on Habeas Corpus, is protected from seizure during his return, as well as during the coming and staying. Rex. v. D'Laval 1. W. Black, 415. 3 Burr, 14 34.

Worship, place of. In the case of Zion Chapel, 1830, the Trustees having shut up the building, for want of revenue to pay the interest on the advances they had made, amounting to £660, and the current expences of celebrating divine worship there. in, the Pastor and two Deacons endeavoured to effect a forcible entrance, on which one of the Trustees interjected the Clameur de Haro; and on the action instituted against him by the said Pastor and Deacons to see the said Clameur set aside, the co-Trustees, were allowed to intervene,and the Court by the casting vote of the Bailiff held that the Trustees being in lawful possession of the said Chapel in virtue of an hereditary contract, discharged defendant from the action, and adjudged plaintiffs to the penalty and costs. Appeal was demanded and granted. See Trusts.

Writ of Error.-This is unknown to the Jersey Court. The judgment of the inferior tribunal can only be suspended by an appeal to the full bench, which must be demanded at the time of trial, and sureties entered into, to satisfy the judgment in default of prosecuting the appeal within the time allowed by law. Motion for a new trial is rarely or never allowed in the Court below, and even if granted by the Council above, and the party be referred back, for a rehearing, some manoeuvre or other is usually adopted to nullify it. In the case of re Whitfield, their lordships granted leave for the Petitioner's case to be reheard before the Full Court, on payment of the costs of the former proceeding to the Court, or their Agent, when taxed by the Greffier. [See re-opening of a case.] On his making a lawful tender of the money to the Bench in open Court, they refused to receive it, alledging that the Court was not the place to receive money; and on his demand, that they would inform him who was their Agent, authorised to receive the same, they refused to name him, also to re-open the case, until the money had been paid, and he should produce a receipt for the same! Petitoner's counsel demanded, that the fact of his having made the tender, and of their refusal to name their agent should be mentioned in the act of the Court. The Court refused: he then moved that a day should be appointed for the re-hearing of the case, which was also refused. This was not the only manoeuvre adopted on that occasion, the Bill of Costs was actually taxed without defendant's being privy thereto, so that he was prevented having any opportunity to raise objections either to the items or the charges.