gives a variety of instances prior to 1555, in which changes of name had been made without authority, and without any solemnity. He then proceeds, "Mais comme cette licence de changer ainsi de nom et d'armes produisait les plus grands abus, le Roi Henri II. y remédia par une Ordonnance donnée à Amboise le 26 mars, avant Páques, 1555, art. 9."

The right, therefore, to bring a civil action in Saint Lucia for the usurpation of a Family name. must be founded either upon this Ordonnance of 1555, or upon some law subsequently passed and introduced into the Island. The Ordonnance of 1555 gives no right of civil action for an unauthorized change of name; and, according to Merlin, in the passages just cited, such an action could hardly have been previously maintained. The Ordonnance subjects the person changing his name without authority to penal consequences only. It says, "Pour éviter la supposition des noms et des armes, défenses sont faites à toutes personnes de changer leurs noms, et leurs armes, sans avoir obtenu des lettres de dispense et permission, à peine de 1,000 livres d'amende, d'étre punis comme faussaires et étre exautorés et privés de tout degré et privilége de noblesse.”

There seems to be great doubt whether this Ordonnance of 1555 ever had any practical operation, even in France. Merlin, in his Répertoire, tit. "Promesse de changer de Nom," says, the Ordinance not having been registered, never became law in France. But Dalloz, in his Dictionnaire, tit. "Nom et Prénom," after mentioning this opinion of Merlin, says, "Mais la Jurisprudence est contraire à cette opinion." At all events, it is not shown that this unregistered Ordon

1869.

V.

nance ever formed part of the law of Saint Lucia. DU BOULAY It is to be observed, that the Chief Justice of Saint DU BOULAY. Lucia founds his judgment in favour of the Appellants upon a different Ordonnance, never referring to the Ordonnance of 1555 as having any existence, or, at least, as having any bearing upon his decision. He says, "In France, under the Law De mutatione nominis,' names were changed according to the whim or caprice of individuals, without any solemnity or formality; but such an unrestrained license brought forth great confusion; names of living families were arbitrarily taken, and towards the commencement of the nineteenth century, on the 11th of April, 1803, a Law was made to check that dangerous system.' And he adds, "It is not amiss to observe that that Law is not only still in force in this Colony, but has been retained entire by the modern Legislators of France, and now forms part of the existing Laws of that Country."

Notwithstanding the opinion of the Chief Justice, that the Ordonnance of 1803 is in force in Saint Lucia, it may fairly be questioned, whether it ever became part of the Law of the Island before it was taken by this Country on the 23rd of June, 1803. On that day a Proclamation was issued which assured and guaranteed to the inhabitants the full enjoyment of their property, under the laws which existed in the Island at the time immediately prior to the last cession.

It is not very probable that the Ordonnance of 1803 was one of these Laws. It was passed in France a little more than two months before Saint Lucia was brought under British dominion, and not being of any peculiar local importance, it was not likely

1869.

DU BOULAY

in the critical position of the French West Indian Colonies at this juncture that any care would be taken to transmit it, in order that it might form part Du BOULAY. of the Law of the Island.

If the Chief Justice is right in saying, that this Law was made to prevent persons arbitrarily taking the names of living families, it would seem to show that before 1803 no civil action could be brought, or, at all events, that none was ever brought, to protect a family name from usurpation.

If the Law of 1803 is out of the question, it is difficult to see upon what other foundation the Appellants can rest their right to maintain the action. The old French Law, on which their learned Counsel mainly relied, has already been considered. The Ordonnance of 1555, or one of a similar description made in 1629, was the only law upon the subject of changes of name at the time of the French Revolution. That Ordonnance fell with the Kingly authority. In 1794, during the Revolutionary Government, an Ordonnance was passed which absolutely prohibited any change of name, but the learned Counsel was unable to show that this Ordonnance, any more than that of 1803, ever had the force of Law in Saint Lucia. He failed altogether in his endeavour to prove that the existing Law of the Island entitled the Appellants to maintain their action, whether he relied upon the old French Law independently of the Ordonnances, or upon proof that the Ordonnances ever formed part of the Law of Saint Lucia, or, even if they did, that they gave a family a right to proceed by civil action against a person calling himself by the family name without authority, and to compel him to discontinue to use it.

V.

1869.

DU BOULAY

Their Lordships are unwilling to dispose of the case without adverting to the question arising from DU BOULAY. the delay of the Appellants in instituting their suit. Supposing an action of this kind to be maintainable, there must be some reasonable limit within which a family ought to be bound to proceed. In the present case, the family of Du Boulay, resident in Saint Lucia, could not have been ignorant that for ten years the Respondent had been carrying on business openly under the name of Du Boulay, that he had been recognized by that name in public acts, and that he had undoubtedly acquired the name by reputation. At what time some of the Appellants were absent from Saint Lucia, and when they returned, is left in uncertainty; but the head of the family appears to have been continually resident in the Island, and no sufficient reason is assigned for his not taking earlier steps to protect the family name from the Respondent's alleged unauthorized assumption of it. Under these circumstances, whether any other member of the family might have questioned the title of the Respondent to call himself by the family name is unnecessary to be considered, but all the Appellants have placed themselves under a personal exception by standing by (as it is called) and permitting the Respondent to become known to the world by the name of Du Boulay. After their long acquiescence, it would be unreasonable and unjust to sanction the attempt of the Appellants to deprive the Respondent of his right to use a name which he had acquired by reputation, and by which alone he had been known in the Island during the whole period of his residence there.

Their Lordships will recommend to Her Majesty that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

1869.

The High Court of Ad

THIS was an appeal from an Order of the High 14th June, Court of Admiralty, made on a motion by the Respondent (the Plaintiff) to reject the admission of a petition filed by the Appellants (the Defendants) objecting to the jurisdiction of that Court in a cause of damage for personal injury instituted by the Respondent against the Ship" Beta."

miralty has jurisdiction, under the 24 Vict. c. 10, s.7,

in a cause of

damage instituted against

a Ship for personal injuries.

Order of

the Court of Admiralty rejecting the admission of

The petition set forth, that on the 18th of September, 1866, the Steamship "Beta," of which the Defendants were the Owners, came into collision with the French Brig, the “Xiste," which was then lying at anchor off Broadstairs, on the coast of Kent; that the Plaintiff was, at the time of the collision, the Mate on board the " Xiste;" that he sus- affirmed, on tained certain injuries to his person by reason of appeal. the collision, which were occasioned by the " Beta,” and the negligence of her Master and crew, the servants of the Defendants, in the navigation of the

* Present :-Lord Romilly (Master of the Rolls), Sir William Erle, Sir James William Colvile, and Sir Joseph Napier.

a petition objecting to such jurisdiction