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

ST. JOHN V. CHAN! iNZYS.

A Rule was obtained last Term to set aside an an,
nuity deed granted by the defendant to plaintiff for
.valuable consideration. This annuity was negotiated
by Howard and Gibbs; a part of the consideration
money was returned by the defendant, and the object
lof the present application was to set aside that Rule.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGIIAN contended that the de-
scription of the witnesses to the deed was sufficient
under the regulation of the 5.3 d of Geo. 111. The
Court of King's Bench, in Darwin and Lincoln, Smith
and Pritchard, p. 1452 and 717 Bainewall and Al-
derson's Reports, held that a witness to he properly
described must have his place of abode affixed to his
Raffle, otherwise that it is no sufficient desct iption. *But
with all deference to that opinion, he considered the
reasonable interpretation of the clause regulating the
description of the witnesses to any such deeds or
bonds, went to support his view ; namely, that de-
scribing the party as the servant of known persons
living in a public situation, was a much better
tido iption than that of stating the place where the
servant retired to rest, or, in other words, where
he domiciled. _ _

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Upon the reason of the
matter we might agree, but when a statute is to re•
gulate us we are bound by its terms.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN considered; as to the de.
' scription, that he had gone far enough, and pro-
ceeded to argue against the exercise of a summary
jurisdiction by the Court in cancelling the annuity
deed; such summary jurisdiction being only created
by the 58d Geo. 111. under circumstances of a dif-
ferent nature from those which appeared in this case.
He also begged to add that there was new an action
pending upon the covenants in the deed, so that the
party considering himself aggrieved had his remedy.
Mr. Serjeant LAWIS and Mr. Serjeant PEAKE, in
support of the Rule, contended that the Act of the
3d Geo. IV. was a complete answer to their argu-
ments. The deeds in question were executed before
the 53d Geo. 111. and if those two Acts were to have
an ex post facto operation, their view of the case they
considered to be correct; and that the deeds must be
cancelled.

Mr. Serjeant Neste was proceeding with his ar-
gument at two o'clock, when the Court rose, the
Judges having to attend at the Exchequer Chamber.
Mr. Seijeant PEAKS, in continuation, on the next
day, contended that the present case should be de-
cided independently of the 3d Geo. IV. as a clause
had been added to that Statute after Sir T. Champ-
neys was heard by Counsel at the Bar of the House
of Lords, which clause declared that in the Act then
about to be passed no motion or trial then pending
should be affected by it until the Ist of May to the
present year. This motion was made before the pass-
ing of the 3d Geo. IV. and must therefore be de-
cided by the 53d Geo. 111. the schedule to which Act
evidently sheaved that the Legislature intended that
the residence and occupation of the attesting witnesses
should be added to their signature.
This day (Tuesday) the LORD CHIEF JUSTICR pro-
ceeded to give his judgment. It is admitted on all
sides, said his Lordship, that General St. John, the
holder of this annuity, had no privity whatever with
the conduct or the misconduct, as it may be, of
Howard and Gibbs. In substance, the dealing with
the plaintiff bas been fair and honourable, and the
objection taken upon a part of the money being re-
turned, is now given up. The only objection then
remaining to be disposed of is, that the abode of the
attesting witness was not affixed to his name, but
only the place where such witness was daily em-
ployed. It is not denied that the witness could
not be found, and there, now remains but a form
against the substance and the justice of the case: this
form, however, is not the less entitled to considera-
tion in a Court of Law, and this case is of such a de-
scription as to resolve itself merely into one of form.
—The great question here is—whether the descrip-
tion of the subscribing witness, not giving his place
of residence, but giving his place of occupation, is or
is not a sufficient description? In order to dispose
of this question, it will be necessary to look to the
different Statutes regulating the grants of deeds of
annuity and other securities, to the 17th and 53d
Geo, 111. and 3d Geo. IV. I shall for the moment
reverse the order in which they have passed, and,
looking to the Sd Geo. IV. ask if it is not a declara-
tory Act, and if whether it is not, as such, retrospec-
tive? If it be declaratory, then there is an end to
the question new before the Court. Is it. a retrospec.