directing or refusing its issue, became by degrees clearly defined, so that Lord Eldon, L.C., said: ‘This Court, if not bound _ex debito justitiae_ (and I do not say it is so bound), is bound in the exercise of a sound discretion to grant the writ, if the case be a case in which the writ ought to be granted.’... Again, ‘if the Court, having granted time for payment of money, is satisfied before the time arrives that the party is going abroad to prevent payment of the money, it will undoubtedly interpose.’... Under the present practice, in order to obtain the writ, the applicant must show (1) that the circumstances are such that the Court of Chancery would have granted the writ, and (2) that the case is one which falls within sect. 6 of the Debtors’ Act, 1869.”[21] Imprisonment for debt is nearly as old as the hills--under the Roman _régime_, as will be seen, it literally flourished--but it is not wanted in this country at this time and by a fictitious process, too, which is regarded with disfavour by many of the judges empowered to employ it. FOOTNOTES [20] Lord Mackenzie. [21] _Oswald on Contempt, Committal and Attachment._ CHAPTER VI THE NEED FOR THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN SURNAMES A very anomalous side of the law is to be found in connection with the use of surnames: their variation, their complete change, etc. John Smith may freely call himself John Montmorency or John Plantagenet, or any other name in keeping with his fancy. He may even go a step further, and call himself Baron Montmorency or Viscount, or Count, or Marquis or Duke, or whatever else he likes. So long as the name and title do not cause persons to give him credit which they would not give him as John Smith, he is comparatively immune from the meshes of the law. The whole question therefore evolves itself into a simple issue--_i.e._, is the assumption of the title or surname with a view to imposing on people, and does it in fact so impose upon them that they are led to part with goods or money on the strength of the success of the imposition?[22] Many Jews and other aliens on becoming established in this country drop their patronymics, which may end with a “stein” a “berg” or a “ski” and call themselves instead, “Gordon,” or “Howard” or something else equally reassuring. That such a loose state of affairs should be permitted is an indirect incitement to fraud. Admittedly, “Cohen” or “Solomon” is not, perhaps, an incentive, _primâ facie_, to business relations, whereas “Harris” or “Langton” may be.