admitted to be a solicitor or attorney in all or any of the Courts in the act mentioned, without payment of any further stamp-duty in pursuance of that act. It is true that section only speaks of admission, and omits all mention of inrolment: but the following proviso or condition is subjoined" subject nevertheless to all and every the provisions prescribed by law with relation to the admission of solicitors and attornies in such Courts respectively before the passing of that act." This refers us back to the prior statutes regulating the admission of attornies and solicitors, which make the inrolment imperative; and we cannot construe the later statute, which is merely an act passed for revenue purposes, as operating a repeal of the former ones. The 1st and 2nd sections of the 2 Geo. 2, c. 23, are clear and unambiguous: the former section enacts that no person shall be permitted to act as an attorney, or to sue out any process, or to commence, carry on, or defend any action or actions, or any other proceedings either before or after judgment obtained, in the name or names of any person or persons, in his Majesty's Courts of King's Bench, &c., unless such person shall be sworn, admitted, and inrolled in the said respective Courts in such manner as is thereinafter directed; and by the latter section the Judges of the said Courts respectively are authorized and directed to administer to such person the oath in that act directed to be taken by attornies, and, after such oath taken, to cause him to be admitted an attorney of such Court, and his name to be inrolled as an attorney of such Court. The 18th section prescribes the person by whom and the manner in which the inrolment shall be made. And the 24th section enacts, that, in case any person shall, in his own name, or in the name of any other person, sue out any writ or process, &c., &c., as an attorney or solicitor, without being admitted and inrolled, every such person shall forfeit and pay 50l. and be incapable to maintain or prosecute any action or suit in any Court of law or

1834.

HUMPHRYS

v.

HARVEY.

1834.

HUMPHRYS

v.

HARVEY.

equity for any fee, &c. I am of opinion, that, when the fact of the defendant's attorney having omitted to cause himself to be inrolled is brought before the Court, and the client is not prejudiced, we ought not to lend our aid to enable the defendant to recover costs from the plaintiff, inasmuch as his attorney is not in a condition to sue him.

The rest of the Court concurring,

Rule absolute.

In an action on

a bail-bond, or

it is not necessary to indorse

ROWLAND v. DAKEYNE and Others.

THIS was an action upon a bail-bond. A summons had

a replevin-bond, been obtained to set aside the proceedings, on the ground that the debt and costs had not been indorsed upon the process pursuant to the rule of 2 Reg. Gen. Hilary Term, 2 Will. 4, and 5 Reg. Gen. Michaelmas Term, 3 Will. 4, It was heard before Mr. Justice Alderson at chambers.

the amount of debt and costs pursuant to 2 Reg. Gen. Hilary Term, 2 Will. 4, & 5 Reg. Gen.,Mi

On the part of the defendant, it was argued, that chaelmas Term, wherever any sum appeared to be due, that sum ought to be indorsed, and consequently that the penalty ought to have been indorsed in this case.

3 Will. 4.

On the part of the plaintiff, it was contended, that, as the action was for breach of the condition of a bond, that condition being to put in and perfect special bail, the action could not properly be considered "for the payment of any debt." If the intention of the rule was to inform the defendant of the amount of debt and costs, which he was required to pay, in order to prevent additional expense, the penalty was the only sum of money which appeared upon the bond; and the indorsement of the penalty as the amount of debt and costs claimed could not meet the intention of the rule, as such indorsement would demand

much more than the Court under the 4 & 5 Anne, c. 15, s. 20, would allow to be recovered.

ALDERSON, J., postponed his decision, and, after consulting the other Judges of the Common Pleas, and also those of the King's Bench and Exchequer, he dismissed the summons, and made the following indorsement upon it "No Order." A majority of the Judges held, that, under the circumstances, the indorsement was properly omitted.

(a) This decision having been cited to the full Court, in answer to an application to set aside pro

Summons dismissed (a).

ceedings on the same ground in
an action on a replevin-bond, the
Court discharged the rule.

1834.

ROWLAND

บ.

DAKEYNE.

REGULÆ GENERALES.

IT IS ORDERED, that, from and after the last day of this term, where such parts of the affidavit verifying the certificate of acknowledgment, taken in pursuance of the late act of Parliament respecting fines and recoveries, as state 'the deponent's knowledge of the party making the acknowledgment, and her being of full age,' cannot be deposed to by a commissioner, or by an attorney or solicitor, the same may be deposed to by some other person whom the person before whom the affidavit shall be made shall consider competent so to do.

And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that, where more than one married woman shall at the same time acknowledge the same deed respecting the same property, the fees directed

Supplemental

rule of the Court

of Common Pleas relating to ac

knowledgment.

1834.

by the said rules to be taken shall be taken for the first acknowledgment only; and the fees to be taken for the other acknowledgment or acknowledgments, how many soever the same may be, shall be one half of the original fees; and so also where the same married woman shall at the same time acknowledge more than one deed respecting the same property.

And where, in either of the above cases, there shall be more than one acknowledgment, all such acknowledgments may be included in one certificate and affidavit.

In every case the acknowledgment of a lease and release shall be considered and paid for as one acknowledgment only.

INDEX

TO THE

PRINCIPAL