II. c. 7, in any action of debt or covenant in any American colony, wherein any person residing in Great Britain shall be a party, the plaintiff or the defendant, or any witness, may verify any matter or thing by affidavit in writing, on oath, to be made before the mayor or chief magistrate of the city, &c., in Great Britain, where the deponent may reside, with the formalities required by the Act, and the affidavit is to be received in evidence with the same effect as if the deponent had appeared in open court: Imp. Stat. 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 62, is somewhat to the same effect, extending the provisions of the former Act to other suits, and substituting an affirmation for affidavit. In the cases referred to, the Court remarked on the injustice of these statutes, under which evidence could have been given without an opportunity for cross-examination, but it was not doubted that the Imperial Legislature could so enact (a).

In Low v. Routledge, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 46, Lord Justice Turner alludes to the case of a conflict between an Imperial and Canadian Statute as to copyright. In the same case in appeal, L. R. 3 E. & I. App. p. 113, Lord Cranworth says:

Though the Parliament of the United Kingdom must, prima facie, be taken to legislate only for the Kingdom, and not for the Colonies, it is certainly within the power of Parliament to make laws for every part of Her Majesty's dominions, and this is done by the express terms of the Act now in question. That Her Majesty's colonial subjects are, by the Statute, deprived of rights they would otherwise have enjoyed, is plain, for section 15 prohibits them from printing or publishing, in the colony, whatever may be their own colonial laws, any work in which there is copyright in the United Kingdom."

take the evidence of the witness on interrogatories and cross interrogatories. But now, by Revised Statutes of Ontario, c. 62, parties to suits, and parties in whose behalf suits may be brought, or defended, are (with the exceptions mentioned therein) competent and compellable to give evidence. See also Imp. Stat. 14 & 15 V. c. 99, 88. 7, 11.

(a) See also Penley v. Beacon Assce. Co., 10 Grant, 422, per Vankoughnet C.

Criminal law.

In the case of John Anderson, 7 Jur. N. S. 122, the Court of Queen's Bench in England granted a writ of habeas corpus to bring before them the body of a man then in Canada, in custody of a Canadian sheriff. Since then the Imp. Act. 25 V. c. 20, prevents here the effect of any such writ issued in England.

Under the English Bankruptcy Acts, the real estate in the colonies of a person who under them was adjudged a bankrupt, became vested in the assignee in bankruptcy (a). Lands situate in this Province, and held in trust by a person of unsound mind in England, may be conveyed by deed executed by the committee appointed by the Court of Chancery in England, under Imp. Stat. 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Wm. IV. c. 60 (b).

The introduction of the English Criminal Law into Canada stands on a different footing from that of the English Civil Law; in regard to this the learned Chief Justice says, in the case above referred to, of Doe dem. Todd, " The Criminal

Law having been introduced by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, into the Province of Quebec, as there defined, "was afterwards, by the Statute 14 Geo. III. c. 83, ex-. "tended to the whole territory (including Upper Canada), "which was by that Act made to constitute the Province of Quebec, and has ever since been allowed to continue in "force here, being expressly recognised in Upper Canada by 40 Geo. III., c. 1, and modified by that and many other "subsequent Statutes." The Statute 14 Geo. III., c. 83; Con. Stat. Can. p. 9., which, as above stated, reintroduced the French law, as to civil matters, and enlarged the limits of the Province of Quebec, referred to in the Proclamation, by s. 11, after referring to the introduction of the English Criminal Law by such Proclamation, and its subsequent uniform

(a) 12 & 13 V. c. 106, ss. 142, 143; 24 & 25 V. c. 134, s. 218; Robinson v. MeKeand, 23 U. C. R. 359.

(b) Thompson v. Bennett, 22 U. C. C. P. 393.

administration, enacts "that the same shall continue to be administered, and shall be observed as law in the Province of Quebec," as there defined by s. 1, to the exclusion of every other rule prevailing before 1764.-Con. Stat. U. C. c. 94, consolidating Prov. Stat. 40 Geo. III. c. 1, recites the above Statute 14 Geo. III. c. 83, as introducing and establishing the English Criminal Law in the Province of Quebec (a), and by s. 1 enacts that "The Criminal Law of England, as it stood on 17th September, 1792, and as the same has since been repealed, altered, varied, modified or affected by any Act of the Imperial Parliament, having force of law in Upper Canada, or by any Act of the Parliament of the late Province of Upper Canada, or of the Province of Canada, still having force of law, or by the Consolidated Statutes relating to Upper Canada exclusively, or to the Province of Canada, shall be the Criminal Law of Upper Canada." The result, therefore, shortly is, that in respect to prop- Summary. erty and civil rights, testimony and proof, the laws of England, as they stood on the 17th October, 1792, were then introduced (as above expressed by the Consolidated Statute referred to). It is apprehended that the exception still continues of those English laws unsuited to our then position as a colony.

The English Statutes of Jeofails, of Limitations, and for the amendment of the law, previous to the 17th January, 1822, were then introduced, except those of mere local expediency. The Rules which govern in Equity, and the jurisdiction and power of the Court of Chancery were introduced as before mentioned.

The Criminal Law of England was introduced by the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

(a) Meaning probably the Province, as by that Stat. 14 Geo. III. c. 83, defined and extended beyond the limits given it by the Proclamation of Quebec, since otherwise it would appear incorrect to say the English Criminal Law was introduced by that Act into the Province.

English laws once introduced here by provincial enactment, though repealed since in England, continue in force here. No other Imperial Statutes or laws affect us, unless expressed to apply to this Dominion, or the colonics generally, or unless, perhaps, they are of that general import and weight as that it can be clearly inferred they were intended to apply (the power of taxation being limited as above mentioned); and that, except in so far as the power is so limited, the Imperial Legislature has power to impose laws on us. The Laws of the Dominion, or of any Province thereof, "cannot extend beyond its territorial limits;" and, if repugnant to an Imperial Act relating to the colony, are void.

CHAPTER III.

OF REAL PROPERTY; AND, FIRST, OF CORPOREAL

HEREDITAMENTS.

property.

The objects of the dominion or property are things, as The objects of contra-distinguished from persons: and things are by the law of England distributed into two kinds; things real and things personal. Things real are such as are permanent, Real. fixed, and immoveable, which cannot be carried out of their place; as lands and tenements: things personal are goods, money, and all other moveables; which may attend the Personal. owner's person wherever he thinks proper to go.

In treating of things real, let us consider, first, their several sorts or kinds; secondly, the tenures by which they may be holden; thirdly, the estates which may be had in them; and, fourthly, the title to them, and the manner of acquiring and losing it.

are:

First, with regard to their several sorts or kinds, things Things real real are usually said to consist in lands, tenements, or hereditaments. Land comprehends all things of a permanent, Lands. substantial nature; being a word of a very extensive signification, as will presently appear more at large. Tenement is Tenements. a word of still greater extent, and though in its vulgar acceptation* it is only applied to houses and other buildings, S. 17. yet in its original, proper, and legal sense, it signifies every thing that may be holden, provided it be of a permanent nature; whether it be of a substantial and sensible, or of an unsubstantial ideal kind. Thus liberum tenementum, frank tenement, or freehold, is applicable not only to lands and other solid objects, but also to offices, rents, commons, and the like: and, as lands and houses are tenements, so is an advowson a tenement; and a franchise, an office, a right of