Star.
London, England, 1822-11-20 00:00:00

tivs Act? Then the point now contended for dons
not-come within the savieg or provisions of the Statute.
The-present case happening before the passing of the
Statnte S Geo. IV. should be left. xactly on the sanse
footing as it would have been
,plaPed before its enact-
ment. If the Statute be retrospective, then thete
would be no occasion to save ank case out of its ra.
visions. I consider that this. case was meant to be
excepted, and therefore to be left to the operation of
the law as it stood before. By the preamble as I
clauses of the 17th Geo. 111. it appears that the la :lc-
tice which previously prevailed in taking annuities
was extremely vicious, and required certain forms to
put an end .to the secrecy , with which they were
grant..d. Now let us see what it was which in a mo-
ment of jealousy and anxiety the Legislature requited,
Not the place of abode or the occupation of any sill:-
scribing witness, but the pante or names merely
affixed to 'the memorial. Then came the 33d
, 111. and in the interim between that and the 17th
the same King, crowds of cases started up, which'
some degree justified an observation made by aar,. •
of the Bar, that those Annuity Acts rather works.;
injustice than any public benefit. In the enaetin
clause of the 53d Geo. 111. only the names
witnesses are required, at the same time that I ant
ready to admit the necessity of the enacting clause
agreeing with the form in the schedule. A. B.C. L.
are in columns; and in cases of lease and relea-e, the
word " of" is added, but not the place of ab de tux
the place of occupation of the subscribing u irne, ;
all this being left to be modelled by the
circumstances of each case. Where the Statute tly:u
is so open, it must be left to a reasonable interpr,:t.s.
Lion, to suppress wrong and advance a remedy. 'f
proceed, however, by steps: as to attestation to I
deed, it means nothing, except that by finding a wit-
ness he may be able to say w hat passed at its mei:-
, tion. But be it of the lightest or the most solemn
nature, the abode or the occupation of the subscribing
witness is not required. Ca:.es of this.lescriition mu •
be taken on different grounds; notice of bail, service ot
process, and other cases of stale a hat the same nature,
must all be regulated by the esige.lcies of each latiti-
cular case, anc must depend on the reculiaritiesot eaci
The case of Hazlop v. Thorn, alluded to by Counst.l,
is not exactly like this now before the Court; fa
there the question turned upon what was the
vailing practice of the Conic as to the desciirtion cf
the subscribing witness. Even admitting (and 1 butts!
the case strongly against my own view of it)—but
even admiring the term " abode" was placed aitcr
the word " of," yet Lord EllenborouFh held, t'aaz
abode meant the office or place ,altere tke party was
employed, rather than the lodging to a hii:ll he re-
tired for rest. Upon the reason of the thing, and as
far as authority goes, the description of a witness is
more certain when it states the place of his occupation
than the place where he sleeps. It was said, ha X.
ever, that on application at the office °I the employer,
they might refuse information. In the fast place,
why anticipate this? May not the same thing happen
at an obscure lodging? So far there appears to me
nothing in that objection. In a case Ist Bosanquet
and Puller, 798, an objection was taken to notice ei
bail, because one of the bail was ee,cribed as of Cop-
pice.row, where he carried on his business, his do-
micile being in Southampton-row; but then t:: e Court
held the description to be fully sufficient. The sta-
tute itself must have a reasonable construction ; and
if the party is bound to describe himself at all, his
abode not being such description, it is not necessary.
Where a blank is left for what is to be done, I think
the attestation as in this case quite sufficient. We
were very much pressed with two decisions in the
Court of King's Bench. No one, I may say it, !!..s
a more unfeigned reipect for the Judges of that Cea:t
than I have: but it is now by no means necessary
for us to put ourselves in the same situation with tl'a
Court; and I shall state my reasons. When thole
decisions took place, they were principally if rat
wholly founded on the 53d Geo. 111. but since then
came the declaratory Act of the 3d Geo. IV. The
i3d Geo. 111. was so obscurely worded that parties
might be misled by it, if they did not know exactly
what it meant; and how could that be known when
the Act itself speaks in doubt of what is the law ?--
These two cases stood on doubtful grounds, and to ex-
pound and do away these doubts came the Statute of
3d Geo. IV. In the 53d Geo. 111. the abode of the
witness is not required—in the last Act it is act re-
quired ; and the law now says, that neither the abd!:,
nor place of occupation is required ; but the name
names only. Here, then, all doubts are taken asray.
Here is the 3d Geo. IV. explaining the 53d Geo.
and on general grounds of reasoning this must be :Te
construction of the declaratory Act. Seeing, on :Le
whole view of the case, that to satisfy justice the Le-
gislature requires the names only, I am of opinica
that there is as little of objection in this case to its form
as there manifestly is to its substance.
Justices PARKE and Burtftoucen concurried with
the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, and the Rule. was dis-
charged, with costs.