"As the term 'carrying on business,' generally implies the doing so for profit, these words will include all persons who follow any trade, profession, or calling whatsoever, for gain, but not such as live upon their private fortune, without any trading, or calling, or profession whatever. Therefore it would appear that all young ladies and gentlemen, and others, not following any trade or profession themselves, or following it as pupils or apprentices to others, and depending on their parents and friends for their support, whether such friends or no so derive their means from professions or trades, could not be sued in the County Courts as persons carrying on a business,' though of course they might as persons dwelling,' if such they were. (Vide ante, Jurisdiction, as to Persons, by Common Law, Dwelling.') So perhaps servants and all persons working as servants to other persons, and not in business for themselves, could scarcely be deemed persons coming within the common acceptation of the term carrying on their business,' though these again might of course be liable to be summoned as persons dwelling,' if such they were. (Sed quære.)

6

"So, no doubt, in order to constitute a carrying on of business,' it is necessary that there should be a repeated practice of so doing, or a commencement coupled with an intention to continue it, for a single act or transaction, though otherwise of the nature required, would not be sufficient. Thus in order to constitute a trading so as to render a party liable to the bankrupt laws, he must commence such trading with an intention of continuing it, and a mere isolated transaction will not be sufficient. (See the Cases in Archb. Bankr. 10 ed. 52.) But if this intention exists, the extent of the trading, or semble amount of business so carried on, matters not. (Ibid.)"

"With respect to what shall be said to be an arising of the cause of action within the district, great and frequent difficulties might have arisen, if the words' Cause of Action did not wholly arise' only had been used, as it so frequently happens that, in jurisdictions limited as to place, the promise is made within it, but the consideration, performable or performed, without it, or vice versâ; and in actions sounding in damages the trespass or unlawful act committed in a place without the jurisdiction, though the damage occurred within it. (Vide post, Jurisdiction, As to Place, By Common Law.) But as the words or in some material part' were added to those above, this difficulty has been in a great measure done away with, for so long as any one material part occur without that jurisdiction in which the defendant is then dwelling, &c., the plaintiff's right to sue in the Superior Court will arise."

"As before observed, at Common Law, in all Inferior Courts it is necessary that every part of that which is the gist and substance of the action, must have arisen within the jurisdiction. (Peacock v. Bell, 1 Saund. 73.) And this will be the general rule as to the New County Courts, though it is greatly modified by the statute, and must be considered here. Besides, as before observed, the

cases relative to this point will serve to show what is a material point,' so as to give the Superior Courts jurisdiction under the 128th clause. And first of all, the promise must have been made within the jurisdiction, for that of course is part of the gist of the action. Thus where an action was brought in an Inferior Court, on a bond made without the jurisdiction, and judgment and execution obtained thereon, and an action for escape brought against the officer, it was held that the whole proceeding was void, and that the officer was not liable, since the man was never lawfully in his custody. (Vin. Abr. Vol. 7, p. 20.) So the promise must have been performable, or performed within the jurisdiction. Thus where one promised to pay when he came to A. and the declaration did not aver A. to be within the jurisdiction of the court, the court held it bad. (Cro. Car. 571; Jon. 451.) So it was held an error in a judgment, in an Inferior Court, that in an action on a bond, no place was mentioned in the condition where the money was to be paid, and that, therefore, it did not appear on the record whether the contract was performable within the jurisdiction. (Masterman's Case, Styl. 2.) And from these cases it would appear that the contract must be performable within the jurisdiction, and that money, when averred as payable, must be averred as payable within the jurisdiction. And this is important, since it would appear from the forms (see Hennell's Forms,) and the practice of the Inferior Courts as far as the author has been able to observe, that the practice is in general at variance with the above cases, and probably bad. So the consideration of the promise must have been performed and have been performable within the jurisdiction. Thus where plaintiff declared in the Palace Court that defendant had promised, within jurisdiction of the court, to give him 101. if he would procure a certain house for him in Holborn, without averring it was situated within jurisdiction of the court, the judgment was set aside by the Court of King's Bench. (1 Lev. 50.) So where a contract was made within limits of a Borough Court, for a ship to go from such a place, situated without its jurisdiction, to another place without its jurisdiction, a judgment in the Inferior Court obtained thereon was reversed, (Vin. Abr. 7, 20, pl. 2.) For the promise was not to take place within jurisdiction of the court, but in Hamburgh, and therefore the court could not inquire whether it was performed."

Mr. Moseley seems to be of opinion, that the County Court of each county, as altered by the act, has jurisdiction over the whole county, except that, for some purposes, this general jurisdiction is limited to the particular district where the court is directed to be held; and that the several courts which may be held in each county are not so many distinct County Courts, but the same court, that is to say, the County Court held for such and such districts. At first we thought that this general jurisdiction was so reduced by the exceptions, that, practically, whether there was such general jurisdiction, or whether each court extended only over the district assigned to it by the orders in council, would

be a distinction without a difference; but in this we discovered we were mistaken, when, upon further reading, we found the following passages, viz.: "The force of this section" (meaning the 60th section, by which a summons may issue, though the cause of action did not arise in the district) "is to give each court jurisdiction over all cases, with some exceptions, in which the defendant, or one of them, resides or carries on his business within its district, even though the cause of action did not arise there. And this, even though it arose in the jurisdiction of another County Court; for if it only arose within another district of that court, semble the court would, nevertheless, have jurisdiction over it, because, as a general rule, the County Court has jurisdiction over the whole county, though the summons, in any particular cause, must be taken out in the court in which the defendant resides, &c." So, in another part, speaking of the execution of process by the bailiff of the court, it is said, "It may be executed by him to whom it is directed any where within the jurisdiction of the court of that county, which, semble, is the whole county as constituted for the purposes of the act." By the 61st section of the act, process required to be served out of the district of the court from which it issued, may be served by the bailiff of any other court; and Mr. Moseley, writing under the above impression, says

"An important question on the 61st section is, whether, if a summons or other process be issued out of a County Court of A. holden at B.,' and it be required to be served within the same County Court as held for another place, or within the County Court of A. holden at C.,' it must be served by the bailiff of the second court; and this doubt turns a great deal on the meaning of the words 'district of the court,' which has been adverted to in a previous part of the work. For, as before observed, the jurisdiction of any New County Court extends over the whole county except for some purposes, and the officer of the court, or any one else, may serve its process anywhere within such county, by common law, and there is nothing in the statute that expressly negatives it. But, as before observed, it is clear that for some purposes at least the jurisdiction of a New County Court over the whole county is cut up into several smaller districts; and among others for the more convenient service of process, and as all the same ends will be obtained by the process being handed over by the bailiff of the court holden at B. to the bailiff of the court as holden at C., and the evil of the former having to go at a great distance and expense to the parties in the action, as he is to have so much a mile for his trouble, thus avoided, this practice of handing it over to the bailiff of the court as held for such other place, may and should be adopted in such cases."

The question so started is important, as far as it involves a doubt as to the extent of the local jurisdiction of each court as

constituted by the act. We differ from Mr. Moseley, and think that each court district is a distinct court, confined to the limits of that district, and having no operation or power whatever over any part of the county beyond that district, except where expressly so declared by the act. It is but fair, however, to lay before the reader Mr. Moseley's reasons for the position. he has taken, and we prefer giving them in his own words,

"It is submitted," he says, " that there is but one County Court in each county as altered for the purposes of the act, though that court is to be held in and for certain districts. Thus in section two it is enacted, that the queen in council shall have power to divide the whole or any part of any county, including, &c., into districts; and to order that the County Court shall be holden, &c. in each of such districts.

And from time to time to alter such districts.' . . . And to alter the number of districts in and for which the court shall be holden.' So in the order in council, made in pursuance of the above enactments, in the London Gazette' of March 10, 1847, all the counties of England and Wales are divided into districts as thereinafter set out, and the County Court of each of the said counties shall be holden for the recovery of debts and demands under the said act in each of the districts into which such county shall be so divided.' So by the 56th section of the statute, the judge of each district shall attend and hold the County Court at each place where her Majesty shall have ordered.' So by the 49th section, the common gaol of the county is to be used by any court,' semble for the whole county. So by the second order in council of the above date, the title of each court is to be, The County Court of holden at inserting in the first blank space the name of the county, and in the second the name of the town, with the exception of the Metropolitan Courts. So the same order, after declaring within what court district detached portions of parishes, extra-parochials, harbours, creeks, rivers, &c., shall be taken to be, declares, that every place included within the outer boundary of the court districts so specified and described, shall be taken to be within the jurisdiction of the county court, holden for the purposes of the said act for the county in which the city, town, or place is situated where the court is ordered to be holden, or when such city,' &c. And from these enactments and orders in pursuance thereof, it appears that, except as to the Metropolitan Courts, the County Court of each county extends and has jurisdiction over all the county as altered for the purposes of the act, but that the court is to be held at certain places and for certain districts connected with those places."

"And a difficulty thus arises as to what is meant by a court which has a general jurisdiction over a whole county, and yet is to be held for a certain portion of it. And as a general rule, no doubt, a court held for' any given district, is a court having jurisdiction over that district and no other; for the particular mention of that district by presumption excludes all others. But these words, though strong in themselves, must be taken subject to others con

6

tained in the context. And as it would appear clear from the enactments and orders as above referred to, that there is but one County Court in each county, though it is to be held at different places, it is submitted that it was not the intention of the legislature by those words to create so many separate jurisdictions, for there is to be but one County Court for the whole county, but simply to import that the County Court should be held for such districts, that is for the convenience of such districts, and for the carrying out of some particular purposes of the act. But although as a general rule the court jurisdiction of each of the New County Courts extends over the whole of the county for which it is created, there is no doubt that, both by express and implied words of the statute, this general jurisdiction over the whole county for many purposes is limited, or if the term may be used, cut up' into so many sub-divisions as there are districts in such county for which it is to be held.' Thus by the 119th section, a jurisdiction is given to the County Court in actions of replevin, and therefore, by common law, such a cause of action, so long as it occurred within the jurisdiction, might have been followed up by a plaint entered in the County Court wherever it was held, for it is still but the County Court for that county. But by the 121st section, it is expressly enacted, that in every such action of replevin, the plaint shall be entered in the court holden under this act for the district wherein the distress was taken. So that the general jurisdiction of the County Court over the whole county is, as to replevin, limited and cut up, if the term may be used, into so many smaller jurisdictions. And not only in cases of replevin, but the general jurisdiction of each County Court in all matters of debts and damages, is subdivided for some purposes among the several districts for which the court is to be held. For by the 60th section, the summons must be issued, and therefore the plaint must be entered, in all cases, except by leave of the court expressly obtained, in the district (semble out of the court of the district) in which or within which the defendant resides.' And by the word district, as here used, with the context, is probably to be understood such districts as the queen has ordered to be formed out of each county for the purposes of this act, according to the 2nd section. The question however is not entirely free from doubt, as the word district is used in other portions of the statute in reference to whole counties as altered for the purposes of this act."

It appears to us that the doubt and difficulty which has been raised as above will be very much removed by referring to the interpretation clause at the end of the act; it is there said that the words "County Court" shall be understood to mean any court holden under that act, unless there be something in the context inconsistent with such meaning. With this clause for our guide, we think the words " County Court," when occurring in the sections of the act above cited, must not be taken strictly, as meaning the court of the county, or, as of old, the court of the sheriff, but in the limited sense of the court constituted by