MICHAELMAS TERM, 23 VICT. complied with when the bill of sale was filed containing such a description. The description should be that which existed at the time the bill of sale was given; otherwise the creditor might have no power to complete his security, since the debtor might leave the country. This construction would satisfy both the language and the object of the Act. If the description in the bill of sale was false, it would be equivalent to no description, and the creditor would lose his security. In Routh v. Roublot (a) the affidavit omitted to state that the person described in it was an attesting witness; and it was held that the fact might be proved aliunde. That case is an authority to this extent, that the entire of what is required by the Act need not appear in the affidavit. H. James replied. POLLOCK, C. B.-We are all of opinion that the objection is well founded; and that there is no affidavit of the occupation of the party giving the bill of sale as required by the statute. Mr. Philips contends that there is no occasion for such an affidavit; but the words of the Act are express, that every bill of sale shall be accompanied with an affidavit of the time it was made or given, and a description of the residence and occupation of the person making or giving the same. Certainly, this affidavit does not contain in itself any description of the occupation of the party giving the bill of sale; but then Mr. Philips argues that it contains such a description by reference to the bill of sale. It is only necessary to read the affidavit (b) to see that it does not. The affidavit states that the document which it professes to verify is a true copy of the bill of sale, and that it was executed by "the said John Bretz, of No. 9, (a) 28 L. J., Q. B. 240. (b) Antè, p. 9, note. 1859. PICKARD v. BRETZ. ret is res n he ty of London, in the said I am requiring these three things to be fis not for the Court to je moteria I can well underteen scd require a description of I may be but two persons of the same = te sme douse. is. r instance, father and A by TT Lẻ fferent occupations. I agree with ded the affidavit shews the occupa De ill of sale, that would be sufficient. Hives act: it neither states what the > nur vieder the occupation mentioned in If se scurger We should fritter away the Act mis need not be done, when the statute No of opinion that there is no is a rogued by the statute. I confine MICHAELMAS TERM, 23 VICT. myself to the fact that there is no description in the affi- The opinion of the Court having been 1859. PICKARD v. BRETZ. CORNFORTH v. SMITHARD. Nov. 4. DEBT for goods sold, work done and materials provided, The follow and on accounts stated. ing letter, Plea (inter alia).-That the causes of action did not ledgment accrue within six years before suit.-Issue thereon. At the trial, before Erle, J., at the last Warwick Assizes, the sale and delivery of the goods being admitted (a), in order to rebut the defence under the Statute of Limitations, the following letter, written in answer to one sent by the from whence so as to rebut In reply to your statement Limitations: of account received, I am ashamed the account has stood so long. I must beg to trespass on your kindness a short_time longer till a turn in trade takes place, as for some time things have been very flat.-Yours, J. S." (a) It did not appear at what time the debt accrued. 1859. PICKARD ຫ. BRETZ. EXCHEQUER REPORTS. George Street, Minories, in the city of London, in the said bill of sale mentioned;" but it does not say that he is of the occupation there described. No doubt he had some occupation, and it is consistent with every fact stated that he may have given one occupation in the bill of sale, and that his true occupation was quite different. WATSON, B.-I am entirely of the same opinion. The Act was passed for the purpose of preventing frauds on creditors by secret bills of sale; and it requires, amongst other things, that there should be filed an affidavit of the time the bill of sale was made or given, and a description of the residence and occupation of the person making or giving the same. Therefore, three things are to be stated in the affidavit: first, the time the bill of sale was made or given: secondly, the residence; and thirdly, the occupation of the party making or giving it. The legislature having passed an Act requiring these three things to be done for the prevention of fraud, it is not for the Court to say that any one of them is immaterial. I can well understand why the legislature should require a description of the occupation. It may be that two persons of the same name reside in the same house, as, for instance, father and son, but they may have different occupations. I agree with Mr. James that, provided the affidavit shews the occupation by reference to the bill of sale, that would be sufficient. But this affidavit does not it neither states what the occupation is, nor whether the occupation mentioned in the bill of sale is correct. We should fritter away the Act. by saying that this need not be done, when the statute requires it. CHANNELL, B.-I am also of opinion that there is no such affidavit as is required by the statute. I confine MICHAELMAS TERM, 23 VICT. myself to the fact that there is no description in the affidavit of the occupation of the person giving the bill of sale. There is, certainly, no statement of it directly; nor is there any, by reference, to supply the absence of a direct statement. At first I thought that this case was within the principle of the decision in Routh v. Roublot; but, on looking at it more carefully, and listening to the observations of Mr. James, I am convinced that this case is not governed by that. First, the point there raised related to the description of the attesting witness; here it is as to the description of the occupation of the person giving the bill of sale. In the next place, there were statements in that affidavit which are not in this. The opinion of the Court having been reported to Martin, B., at Chambers, he 1859. PICKARD v. BRETZ. CORNFORTH V. SMITHARD. Nov. 4. DEBT for goods sold, work done and materials provided, The follow and on accounts stated. ing letter, Plea (inter alia).-That the causes of action did not ledgment accrue within six years before suit.-Issue thereon. At the trial, before Erle, J., at the last Warwick Assizes, the sale and delivery of the goods being admitted (a), in order to rebut the defence under the Statute of Limitations, the following letter, written in answer to one sent by the from whence so as to rebut Li Limitations:- of account ashamed the account has stood so long. I must beg to trespass on your kindness a short time longer till a turn in trade takes place, as for some time things have been very flat.-Yours, J. S." (a) It did not appear at what time the debt accrued. |