all the property of the plaintiffs therein became, by such capture and condemnation, forfeited to the queen, and vested in her.

But the plaintiffs contend that the replication, by the facts therein disclosed. shews that the service of the defendant Charles Napier under the Queen of Portugal, by virtue of which service alone he justifies the seizing of the steam vessel, is made illegal by an English statute, viz. the statute 59 G. 3, c. 69, and that such illegality of the service prevents him from making any justification under the Queen of Portugal, and renders *him liable to all the damages which the plaintiffs have sustained by reason of the seizure. [*796 And whether the conclusion which the plaintiffs draw from these premises is the just conclusion or not, is the question between these parties. The seizure by the Queen of Portugal must be admitted to be justifiable; no objection can be taken against the forfeiture of the property in this vessel to the queen, under the sentence of condemnation. The plaintiffs, therefore, in contemplation of law, have sustained no legal injury by reason of the seizure. Again no one can dispute the right of the Queen of Portugal, to appoint in her own dominions, the defendant or any other person she may think proper to select, as her officer or servant, to seize a vessel which is afterwards condemned as a prize; or can deny, that the relation of lord and servant, de facto, subsists between the queen and the defendant Napier. For the Queen of Portugal cannot be bound to take any notice of, much less owe any obedience to, the municipal laws of this country. Still, however, notwithstanding the loss by seizure is such, as that no court of law can consider it an injury, or give any redress for it; and that the service and employment of the defendant is a service and employment de facto; the plaintiffs contend they can make the servant responsible for the whole loss, only by reason of his being obnoxious to punishment in this country, for having engaged in such service. No case whatever has been cited which goes the length of this proposition; the authorities referred to establishing only, that where an act prohibited by the law of this country has been done, the doer of such illegal act cannot claim the assistance of a court of law in this country to enforce such act, or any benefit to be derived from it, or any contract founded upon it. To the full extent of these authorities, we entirely accede; but we cannot consider the law to be, that *where the act of the principal is lawful in the country where it is done, and the authority under which such act is done is complete, binding, and [*797 unquestionable there, the servant who does the act can be made responsible in the courts of this country for the consequence of such act, to the same extent as if it were originally unlawful, merely by reason of a personal disability imposed by the law of this country upon him, for contracting such engagement. Such a construction would effect an unreasonable alteration in the situation and rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs would, without any merit on their part, recover against the servant the value of the property to which they had lost all claim and title by law against the principal; and the defendant, instead of the measure of punishment intended to be inflicted by the statute for the transgression of the law, might be made liable to damages of an incalculable amount. Again the only ground upon which the authority of the servant is traversable at all in an action of trespass, is no more than this; to protect the person or property of a party from the officious and wanton interference of a stranger, where the principal might have been willing to waive his rights. It is obvious that the full benefit of this principle is secured to the plaintiffs by allowing a traverse of the authority de facto, without permitting them to impeach it by a legal objection to its validity, in another and foreign country. And we think there is no material difference between the third and the first and second special pleas on this record. For as we hold that the authority of the queen of Portugal to be a justification of the seizure "as prise," there is as little doubt but that she might direct a neutral vessel to be seized when in the act of breaking a blockade by her established, which is the substance of the first special plea, or of supplying warlike stores to her enemies,

*which is the substance of the second. We therefore give judgment on the first three special pleas, for the defendants.

As the determination on these pleas in effect decides the main question in the cause in favour of the defendants, it becomes unnecessary to consider the special pleas which are fifthly pleaded by each defendant, and to which the plaintiffs have demurred, except so far as the costs of those pleas may be concerned in the inquiry.

By the fifth plea, the defendants set up on their part, as a bar to the plaintiffs' right of action, certain facts and circumstances from which it appears that the plaintiffs had themselves been guilty of a violation of the statute 59 G. 3, c. 69, whereby the steam vessel "became and was forfeited to his majesty." Now one of the objections taken to this plea was, that the defendants shew no authority to seize the vessel. And we are of opinion that the plea is insufficient upon this ground. No case can be cited in which a justification in trespass is made under the right of another person, without alleging an authority from the principal, under whose right the act complained of was committed. If the defendant justifies breaking a close, on the ground that it is the freehold of another, he is bound to state that he did so enter, by the command and as the servant of the owner of the close: Chambers v. Donaldson, 11 East, 65. So where a man justifies seizing a heriot, where the property is in the lord of the manor, he shews his authority from the lord. For in these, and similar cases, non constat, that the party entitled would have ever insisted on his right, and there can be no reason, if he thinks proper to waive it, why a stranger should justify himself in standing in his place. The case of Wilkins and others *799] v. Despard, 5 T. R. 112, has been cited as an authority to shew, that where a ship has been forfeited by breach of the provisions of an act of parliament, the owner cannot maintain trespass against the party seizing it, although the latter do not proceed to condemnation; for as it is said by the court, by the forfeiture the property is devested out of the owner. But the plea in that case will be found to stand clear of the objection urged against that which is now under consideration. In the case cited, the plea alleges that the defendant "seized the ships as forfeited to the use of his majesty and of himself the defendant." The defendant therefore was not a stranger, but had authority to seize in right of himself as to part of the ship. Here the forfeiture is given to his majesty only; and the plea is so far from stating that the defendant was authorised by his majesty to seize, that it does not even state that it was seized for the use of the king, or even as forfeited. Upon this ground we think the judgment of the court on the plea fifthly pleaded by each of the defendants must be against the defendants.

Upon the whole, the general judgment of the court is for the defendants. Judgment for defendants.

REGULATIONS.

*For the examination ef persons applying to be admitted as attorneys *800] of the Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, pursuant to the Rule of Court made in Hilary Term.(a)

WHEREAS by a rule of the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, made in Hilary Term, 1836, it was ordered that the several masters aud prothonotaries for the time being of the said courts respectively, together with twelve attorneys or solicitors, should be appointed by a rule of court in Easter Term in every year, to be examiners for one year, of persons applying to

(a) See ante, page 611.

be admitted attorneys of the said courts, any five of whom (one whereof to be one of the said masters or prothonotaries) should be competent to conduct the examination; and that from and after the last day of the present Easter Term, subject to such appeal as therein-after mentioned, no person should be admitted to be sworn an attorney of any of the said courts, except on production of a certificate signed by the major part of such examiners actually present at, and conducting, his examination, testifying his fitness and capacity to act as an attorney; such certificate to be in force only to the end of the term next following the date thereof, unless such time should be specially extended by the order of a judge. And it was further ordered that the examiners so to be appointed, should conduct the said examinations under regulations to be first submitted to, *and approved by, the judges; and that, until further order, such examinations should be held in the hall or building of the Incorporated Law [*801 Society of the United Kingdom in Chancery Lane, on such days (being within the last ten days of every term,) as the said examiners, or any five of them, should appoint; and that any person not previously admitted of any of the three courts, and desirous of being admitted, should give a term's notice of his intention to apply for examination, by leaving the same with the secretary of the said society at their said hall.

And whereas, by a rule of all the said Courts made in this present Easter term, it was ordered that the several masters and prothonotaries, for the time being, of the said Courts respectively, together with Thomas Adlington, Jonathan Brundrett, George Frere, James William Freshfield, James Hall, Bryan Holme, William Lowe, Edward Rowland Pickering, Samuel White Sweet, William Tooke, Richard White, and Edward Archer Wilde, gentlemen, attor neys, should be, and the same were thereby appointed examiners for one year then next ensuing, to examine all such persons as should desire to be admitted attorneys of all or either of the said Courts from and after the last day of that term; and that any five of the said examiners (one of them being one of the said masters or prothonotaries,) should be competent to conduct the said examination in pursuance of, and subject to, the provision of the said rule in Hilary term last.

In pursuance of the said rules, the following regulations for conducting the said examinations have been submitted to, and approved by, the judges of the said Courts:

I. That every person applying to be admitted an attorney of any of the said Courts, pursuant to the said *Rules, shall, within the first seven days of the term in which he is desirous of being admitted, leave, or cause [*802 to be left, with the secretary of the said Incoporated Law Society, his articles of clerkship duly stamped, and also any assignment which may have been made thereof, together with answers to the several questions hereunto annexed, signed by the applicant, and also by the attorney or attorneys with whom he shall have served his clerkship.

II. That in case the applicant shall shew sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the examiners, why the first Regulation cannot be fully complied with, it shall be in the power of the said examiners, upon sufficient proof being given of the same, to dispense with any part of the first Regulation that they may think fit and reasonable.

III. That every person applying for admission, shall also, if required, sign and leave, or cause to be left, with the secretary of the said society, answers in writing to such other written or printed questions as shall be proposed by the said examiners touching his said service and conduct, and shall also, if required, attend the said examiners personally, for the purpose of giving further explanations touching the same; and shall also, if required, procure the attorney or attorneys with whom he shall have served his clerkship as aforesaid, to answer, either personally or in writing, any questions touching such service or conduct,

or shall make proof to the satisfaction of the said examiners of his inability to procure the same.

IV. That every person so applying, shall also attend the said examiners at the hall of the said society at such time or times as shall be appointed for that *803] purpose, pursuant to the said rule, as the said examiners shall appoint, and shall answer such questions as the said examiners shall then and there put to him, by written or printed papers touching his fitness and capacity to act as an attorney.

V. That upon compliance with the aforesaid regulations, and if the major part of the said examiners actually present at, and conducting, the said examination (one of them being one of the said masters or prothonotaries) shall be satisfied as to the fitness and capacity of the person so applying to act as an attorney, the said examiners so present, or the major part of them, shall certify the same, under their hands in the following form, viz:

In pursuance of the rule made in Hilary and Easter term, 1836, of the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, we being the major part of the examiners, actually present at, and conducting the examination of A. B., of, &c., do hereby certify, that we have examined the said A. B. as required by the said rules, and we do testify that the said A. B. is fit and capable to act as an attorney of the said Courts. Signed by all the Judges.

*804]

*QUESTIONS AS TO DUE SERVICE,

To be answered by the Clerk.

I. What was your age on the day of the date of your articles?

II. Have you served the whole term of your articles at the office where the attorney or attorneys to whom you were articled or assigned, carried on his or their business? and if not, state the reason.

III. Have you at any time during the term of your articles been absent without the permission of the attorney or attorneys to whom you were articled or assigned? and if so, state the length and occasion of such absence.

IV. Have you during the period of your articles been engaged or concerned in any profession, business, or employment, other than your professional employment as clerk to the attorney or attorneys to whom you were articled or assigned?

V. Have you since the expiration of your articles been engaged or concerned, and for how long time, in any and what profession, trade, business or employment, other than the profession of an attorney or solicitor?

*8051

*QUESTIONS AS TO DUE SERVICE,

To be answered by the Attorney.

I. Has A. B. served the whole term of his articles at the office where you carry on your business? and if not, state the reason.

II. Has the said A. B., at any time during the term of his articles been absent without your permission? and if so, state the length and occasion of such absence.

III. Has the said A. B., during the period of his articles, been engaged or concerned in any profession, business, or other employment, other than his professional employment as your articled clerk.

IV. Has the said A. B., during the whole term of his clerkship, with the

exceptions above mentioned, been faithfully and diligently employed in your professional business of an attorney or solicitor?

V. Has the said A. B., since the expiration of his articles, been engaged or concerned, and for how long time, in any and what profession, trade, business, or employment other than the profession of an attorney and solicitor?

And I do hereby certify, that the said A. B. hath duly and faithfully served under his articles of clerkship (or assignment as the case may be) bearing date, &c., for the term therein expressed, and that he is a fit and proper person to be admitted an attorney.

In the common law courts, at the Judges' Chambers, and at all the law offices, the following notice was posted up :

[*806

EXAMINATION OF ATTORNEYS UNDER THE RULES OF HILARY AND EASTER

TERMS, 1836.

The articles of clerkship, and answers to questions touching the due service and good conduct of persons applying to be admitted attorneys, are to be left with the secretary of the Incorporated Law Society, at the hall in Chancery Lane, within the first seven days of term (viz. between the 23d and 30th of May inclusive.)

noon.

The first examination will take place at the hall of the Incorporated Law Society, on Saturday, the 4th of June, and commence at ten o'clock in the foreThe applicants are required to attend in the hall at half past nine on the day of examination. Application for further information may be made to the secretary.

R. MAUGHAM.

17th May, 1836.

END OF EASTER TERM.