326 
for there a party, whio feels aggrieved 
at the decision of a tribunal, may ap- 
peal to a higher tribunal, and the sen- 
tenee may be reversed. We are’ far 
from thinking that in Turkey and 
Algiers justice is not frequently at 
least done, but it is not that kind of 
administratien of justice to which our 
feelings ean be reconciled. Of that 
justice the judge alone decides, and 
from his decision there is no appeal, 
even to himself. There is not that 
wholesome check, which ordinary des- 
potisms provide, by which a judge is 
made to feel, that if he decide from 
prineiples of justice peculiar to him- 
self, he may suffer the shame of having 
his decisions severely commented upon 
and reversed. 
It is true, that there is a written 
code of laws, agreeably to which it is 
the duty of the judge to be regulated ; 
but, whilst the facts arc left to his deci- 
sion, and he is the absolute interpreter 
of the law, and his views of what he is 
pleased to consider to be the law can- 
not be submitied to anotier revision, 
there is little other check but his own 
conscience ; and the decisions will, in 
general, be found the very same as if 
no law existed onthe subjeet. 
So harshly does the British legisla- 
ture think of the purehasers of annui- 
lies, that it has placed their property 
under an administration of justice 
aliogether despotic in its principle, 
and which the unsullicd purity of 
British judges can alone keep from 
being a source of fraud and oppressien. 
Hitherto mest of the deeisions which 
have been given in annuity-cases may 
have been perfectly just ; but the prin- 
ciples of that justice it has in some 
eases been difficult to comprehend ; 
and, if these matters, like ordinary 
suits at law, had been Icft to twelve 
honest men, there is every reason to 
believe they would have’ stupidly 
blundercd into an opposite way of 
thinking. 
That, however, the judges have in 
some cases been misled, and have put 
# wrong interpretation on the law, and 
have in error decided to the destruction 
of property in annuities, we have the 
authority of an Act of the Jegislature, 
of 3 Geo. IV. cap. 92.; and, although 
that Act does not reverse decisions 
already made by the judges, it orders 
them to decide differently in all time 
to come. 
‘Po prevent all frauds and conceal- 
On Usurious Annuities. 
[Nov. I, 
ment, in regard to the nature or con- 
ditions of any annuity, a clause is 
enacted in regard to enrolments, 
which points out the particular form 
to be used. Column 4 of the formula 
of enrolment, for the names of the 
witnesses, is—E. F. of 
G. H. of 
Would any person unacquainted with 
law, merely by the aid of reason and 
common sense, have ever destroyed 
valuable property, and given such 
decisions as might, if applied to aH 
similar cascs, have destroyed many 
millions, merely on an argument 
founded on the little word of, in the 
above formula. Yet we have the 
authority of an Act of Parliament to 
prove that the judges actually did do 
so. It arose in this way: A witness, 
being usually a lawyer’s clerk, wrote 
his name, and subjoined to it, “‘ Clerk 
to My. A. B. of such a place,” giving 
the number and street of his employer. 
The same was entered in the enrol- 
ment, Iwas contended, that instead 
of the description being in that way, it 
ought to have been of such a number 
and street, stating where the said wit- 
ness lodged. It was argued that a 
lawyer’s clerk was usually on a low 
salary, and lived in an obscure place, 
and often changed his residence, and 
nobody knew where he went: it was far 
more to the purpose to state, when he 
subscribed tbat he was clerk to such 
a person, and then he could at any 
time be traced out; and that this was 
in conformity to the Act, which re- 
quired the enrolment to be ‘‘in the 
fori: or to the effect following.” But 
the judges decided that mode of enrol- 
ment to be fatal, and thereby destroyed 
in toto several annuities; and, as in 
annuity matters they have a summary 
power, without appeal, these annuities 
are for ever lost. ‘To stop such deci- 
sions, the Act referred 10 was passed. 
The sixth clause of the same Act 
has been the cause of much more 
destruction ; and in this ease the legis- 
Jature has left the judges in tull 
power, as before. The grantor, by 
viriue of that clause, makes an affida- 
vit, that part of the consideration- 
money has been retained; and the 
grantees are called upon to put in afli- 
daviis in answer. Upon these the 
counsellors argue, and the court de- 
cides. It has been held by the Court 
of Commen Pleas, that ihe act of the 
ageut is the same as if the act of the 
principal, 
