Dundas objected to any evidence being given of questions and answers which were not reduced to writing. Sir G. 4. Lewin and R. Hall.-The examination is not taken down in question and answer. The material answers alone are taken down; and it sometimes happens, that answers which at the time seemed immaterial, afterwards become material. The answers which it is now proposed to give in evidence were given after the examination had concluded in the first instance; but they also were reduced to writing. Williams, J.—“ I cannot receive parol evidence of any answers to questions that were put to the bankrupt before the commissioners subscribed their names to the examination. I must presume, that all the answers prior thereto that were material, were taken down and included in the examination before their signatures were affixed to it*. But answers to questions put subsequently to such examination may be given in evidence.” In Rex v. Warlters, 5 Car. & P. 142, it was proved, that what the bankrupt said upon his examination was not taken down. Busby, for the prosecution, submitted that he might give parol evidence of what the bankrupt said; and, in support af his argument, he referred to Sect. 36 of the Bankrupt Act (6 Geo. 4, c. 16), which empowers the commissioners to examine by parol. The indictment charged, that the prisoner feloniously did conceal and embezzle "twenty promissory notes for the payment of money, the said promissory notes being due and unsatisfied," &c. Ante, p. 77. Dundas objected to the uncertainty of the description of the notes*. Park, J.-" I can receive no evidence of the examination but in writing. The examination is required to be in writing by the act of parliament; and that part which relates to the examining by parol, applies only to the questions which may be either put by parol or by written interrogatories."— Worcester City Assizes, July 20, 1831. * R. v. Forsyth, R. & R. C. C. 274. In this case the indictment alleged, that the prisoner "did conceal and keep secret a bed, six tables, &c., and one hundred other articles of household furniture, and a certain debt due from one J. T. to the said prisoner, to the value of twenty pounds and upwards." It was objected, that the household furniture, as well as the debt concealed, &c., were not stated in the indictment with sufficient certainty, the former being and “one hundred other articles," &c.; and the latter, "a certain debt due from one A. B." The foundation of this objection was, that "it is of the essence of the offence that the whole of the goods embezzled should be of the value of 204;" and it was argued, that if that part of the household furniture and debt (which it was assumed were clearly not described with sufficient certainty) were rejected, the Court could not know the value of the residue, inasmuch as no value was laid separately to the different articles specified. In Easter Term, 1814, all the judges (except Dampier, who was absent,) held the indictment bad," on the ground Williams, J.—“I shall not stop the case on that account." The indictment charged the concealment and embezzlement to have been done with intent to Ante, p. 76. defraud the 'creditors' of the said bankrupt. Dundas objected that there was no evidence of more than one creditor. He contended, that in an indictment for uttering a forged note, it was usual to lay the intent in all possible ways, both as regarded partnerships and individual members. That here a part only of the intent was proved, whereas they ought to prove the whole. Williams, J.-" They have proved one creditor, because it was necessary to make out the bankruptcy; as to any other creditors there is only no evidence affirmatively that there are such." "The cases of intent alluded to are not parallel cases; and as to partnerships, they are quite distinct from the case of individual members. I think the evidence sufficient." Dundas then objected, that neither count of the of the property not being all specified, and no distinct value having been put upon the articles enumerated." Note.-If a "bed" be a sufficient description, without saying whether it be a feather-bed or mattrass, it seems reasonable that "a promissory note for the payment of money" should also be sufficient, without alleging it to be of a particular bank, or made by a particular person. indictment concluded with the averment "against Ante, p. 76. the form of the statute." s. 20. He contended, that 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 20 *, did 7 G. 4, c. 64, not cure the total omission, though it provided for the case of "statutes" being used instead of "statute," and vice versa, which was in itself an implication that the averment was necessary. words, against the words, against the words, against the s. 20. "And that the punishment of offenders may be less 7 G 4, c. 64, frequently intercepted in consequence of technical niceties, be it enacted, That no judgment upon any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanour, whether after verdict or outlawry, or by confession, default, or otherwise, shall be stayed or reversed for want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved, nor for the omission of the words, 6 as appears by the record;' or of the words, with force and arms;' or of the peace;' nor for the insertion of the form of the statute,' instead of the form of the statutes;' or vice versa: nor for that any person or persons mentioned in the indictment or information is or are designated by a name of office, or other descriptive appellation, instead of his, her, or their proper name or names, nor for omitting to state the time at which the offence was committed, in any case where time is not of the essence of the offence, nor for stating the time imperfectly, nor for stating the offence to have been committed on a day subsequent to the finding of the indictment or exhibiting the information, or on an impossible day, or on a day that never happened, nor for want of a proper or perfect venue, where the court shall appear by the indictment or information to have had jurisdiction over the offence." Ante, P. 75. 7 G. 4, c. 64, 3. 21. Sir G. A. Lewin and R. Hall.-" Enough appears upon the face of the indictment to satisfy the words, contra formam statuti.' The allegation that the bankrupt, not regarding the laws and statutes of this realm, nor the pains and penalties therein contained after he became bankrupt &c., feloniously did conceal and embezzle &c.,' is equivalent. There is no magic in the words 'contra formam statuti,' to distinguish them from words of similar import; neither is it necessary that they should appear at the conclusion of the indictment more than in the body. Here it is alleged that the party has violated the statutes of this realm, and disregarded the penalties contained in them. The words contra formam statuti' imply nothing more. But assuming that, under the old law, it would have been a valid objection, it is cured by the 21st section of 7 Geo. 4, c. 64*, *"And be it further enacted, That no judgment after verdict upon any indictment or information, for any felony or misdemeanour, shall be stayed or reversed for want of a similiter, nor by reason that the jury process has been awarded to a wrong officer upon an insufficient suggestion, nor for any misnomer or misdescription of the officer returning such process, or of any of the jurors, nor because any person has served upon the jury who has not been returned as a juror by the sheriff or other officer; and that where the offence charged has been created by any statute, or subjected to a greater degree of punishment, or excluded from the |