in force for the period during which the original writ in such action shall be in force.' The costs of these concurrent writs, if not specially provided for by the rules of court, will probably follow the rule adopted where alias writs were issued; that is, they will be allowed against the defendant, if the circumstances were such as in the judgment of the taxing master justified their being issued against him. (Dax's Pract. 72; Angus v. Coppard, 3 M. & W. 57.) The renewal of these writs is provided for by sect. 11, infra. The above provisions refer to all the writs of summons to be issued, and the different classes, according to the division already mentioned, will now be detailed. (1.) Writ against Defendant within the Jurisdiction, but not bearing the special Indorsement. The first of these classes is where the defendant resides or is supposed to reside within the jurisdiction of the courts, and the special indorsement is not adopted. sides within tion. 2. "All personal actions brought in her Majesty's Where desuperior courts of common law, where the defendant is fendant reresiding or supposed to reside within the jurisdiction of the jurisdicthe said courts, shall be commenced by writ of summons. in the form contained in the schedule (A.) to this act annexed, marked No. 1, and in every such writ and copy thereof the place and county of the residence or supposed residence of the party defendant, or wherein the defendant shall be or shall be supposed to be, shall be mentioned; and such writ shall be issued by any one of the officers of the said courts respectively by whom like process hath been heretofore issued from such court, or by such other officer as the court shall direct. The form in the schedule is as follows: No. 1. Writ where the Defendant resides within the Jurisdiction. in the county of To C. D.,t of We command you, that within eight days after the service of this writ on you, inclusive of the day of such service, you do cause an appearance to be entered for you in our court of $ in an action at the suit of A. B.; and take notice, that in default of your so doing the said A. B. may proceed therein to judgment and execution. Witness, &c.§ Memorandum to be subscribed on the writ.|| N. B.-This writ is to be served within [six] calendar of such renewal, including the day of such date, and not afterwards. Indorsement to be made on the writ before service thereof.¶ This writ was issued by E. F., of , attorney for the said plaintiff, or this writ was issued in person by A. B., who resides [mention the city, town or parish, and also the name of the hamlet, street and number of the house of the plaintiff's residence, if any such]. at Indorsement to be made on the writ after service thereof. This writ was served by X. Y. on L. M. [the defendant or one of the defendants], on Monday, the day of 18 X. Y. * As to the title of the sovereign, supra, 6. As to the name of the defendant, supra, 6. The description required is “the place and county of the residence, or supposed residence of the party defendant, or wherein the defendant shall be, or shall be supposed to be. This is in terms the same description as was required by 2 Will. IV. c. 39, s. 1; but it is by no means improbable that the courts in future will be less willing to allow objections on the ground of misdescription, whether made to gain time or to harrass the plaintiff with costs. Not only does the general observation occur, drawn from the spirit of the statute (supra, 4), that objections beside the merits should be discouraged; but the only reason for which the county was mentioned, viz. to point out where the writ was to be served, has ceased to exist, since, by sect. 14, the writ may be served in any county (see Pilbrow v. Pilbrow's Atmospheric Railway Company, 3 C. B. 734); and it is difficult to see what evil can arise from any alleged mistake or insufficiency in the description of the residence of the defendant, if he is in fact served. Even under the former act the total omission of the county was an irregularity only, and was waived by not applying to the court within reasonable time. (Ross v. Gandell, 7 C. B. 766; 18 L. J. 224, C. P.) According to the old decisions it will suffice if the residence described be correctly described, whether the defendant ever resided there or not, because he may be supposed to have resided there (Windham v. Fenwick, 11 M. & W. 102); but an incorrect description of the actual residence will be bad. (King v. Hopkins, 13 M. & W. 685.) In any application on the ground of misdescription, the correctness of the description given must be distinctly negatived; for where the writ described defendant as of Symond's Inn, Chancery Lane, in the city of London, and the affidavit only stated that defendant was informed and believed that no part of Symond's Inn was situate in the city of London, but that it was situate in the county of Middlesex, the objection to the writ was over ruled (Lewis v. Newton, 2 C. M. & R. 732; see also Balman v. Sharp, 16 M. & W. 93.) "Of Clapham, in the county of Surrey," has been held sufficient. (Toulmin v. Bowditch, 2 B. C. R. 89.) So "of Tufton Street, in the county of Middlesex." (Cooper v. Wheale, 4 Dowl. 281.) Of a particular town in a county would suffice, but of London would not. (Cotton v. Sawyer, 10 M. & W. 328.) The description should not be ambiguous, as "now or late of." (See Pilbrow v. Pilbrow's Atmospheric Railway Company, 3 C. B. 730.) A corporation may be described as of the place where its functions are exercised. § As to the court and date of the writ, see supra, 7. As to the memorandum, see supra, 8. ¶ As to the indorsements, see suprd, 8, and infra, 13. 20. costs to be The following section is in substance the same as the rule Indorsement of H. T. 2 Will. IV. r. 2, and M. T. 3 Will. IV. r. 5, and applies of debt and strictly to cases of debt, or sum certain arising out of a con- made on the tract between the parties, and existing at the time of issuing writ and the writ. (Hobbs v. Young, 2 D. & L. 474; 14 L. J. 4, Q. B.) 8. "Upon the writ and copy of any writ served for the payment of any debt the amount of the debt shall be stated, and the amount of what the plaintiff's attorney claims for the costs of such writ, copy, and service, and attendance to receive debt and costs, and it shall be further stated that upon payment thereof within four days to the plaintiff or his attorney, further proceedings will be stayed; which indorsement shall be written or printed in the following form or to the like effect: for debt, and £ 'The Plaintiff claims £ But the defendant shall be at liberty, notwithstanding copy. Where damages are sought, either alone or besides the To what cases debt, the indorsement is not necessary. (Perry v. Patchett, 2 not appliDowl. 667.) Nor in an action on a bail bond or replevin cable. bond (Rowland v. Dakeyne, 2 Dowl. 832; Smart v. Lovice, 3 Dowl. 34), nor in a qui tam action, because the penalty may be sued for by anybody. (Hobbs v. Young, ut supra.) debt, The object of this provision is to enable the defendant, if he Amount of pleases, to settle the action at once, and, therefore, the exact sum claimed should be indorsed; not a greater sum, as the court would, on a prompt application and clear proof of the writ being wrong, stay the proceedings on payment of the Costs. Staying proceedings. amount really claimed and the costs of the writ (Elliston v. A.D. day of because interest means legal interest. (Allen v. Bussey, 4 D. & L. 430.) Where the claim for interest omitted the year, the copy and service were set aside for irregularity. (Bardell v. Miller, 7 C. B. 753; 18 L. J. 249, C. P.) The costs may be waived, but if so the words "£ for costs" should be struck out, as leaving the amount in blank would be irregular. (Truslove v. Whitechurch, 8 Dowl. 837.) The indorsement only limits the plaintiff's claim provided the payment be made within the four days, and a stay of proceedings afterwards is a matter of favour and not of right. It has recently been held that if the plaintiff chooses to be satisfied with less than the amount indorsed, the defendant cannot compel him to receive more as a condition to a stay of proceedings. (Arnold v. Goodered, 16 Jur. 41, Q. B.) To entitle the defendant to tax the costs, the amount of debt and costs indorsed must either be paid, or, if a less sum be paid off, the deduction must appear to have been in respect of the debt. (Young v. Crompton, 2 D. & L. 557, per Patteson, J.) In Hunter v. Russell (6 Sc. N. R. 627), however, the taxation was ordered, although less than the sum claimed for costs was paid, and it is apprehended that at any rate the taxation might be ordered under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73. The costs of two attendances to serve the summons have been allowed. (Tapping v. Greenway, 9 M. & W. 224.) The payment of a larger sum than that indorsed would not entitle the defendant to the costs of the taxation under this section, if more than onesixth of the whole sum so paid was struck off. (Ward v. Gregg, 5 Dowl. 729.) But the defendant will not of necessity be compelled to pay the costs of the taxation, even where less than one-sixth is taken off, for the wilful insertion by the attorney of any one item which he must know ought not to be charged, would deprive him of the costs of the taxation. (Holderness v. Barkworth, 3 M. & W. 341.) The Writ of Trial Act being still in force, and applying only where the sum indorsed upon the writ is less than 20%., care should be taken not to indorse that sum, or more, in any case intended to be tried before the sheriff, as in Trotter v. Bass (3 Dowl. 407) an amendment in such a case, so as to give the sheriff jurisdiction, was refused, and such an amendment could hardly be called "necessary for the purpose of determining In other re the question in controversy" under sect. 222. Unless renewed under s. 11, infra, the writ must be served Service. 14. "The writ of summons in any action may be where served in any county." served. 17. "The service of the writ of summons, wherever it How served. may be practicable, shall, as heretofore, be personal; "but it shall be lawful for the plaintiff to apply from time to time, on affidavit, to the court out of which the writ of summons issued, or to a judge; and in case it shall appear to such court or judge "that reasonable efforts have been made to effect personal service, and "either that the writ has come to the knowledge of the defendant, or that he wilfully evades service of the same, and "has not appeared thereto, "it shall be lawful for such court or judge to order that the plaintiff be at liberty to proceed as if personal service had been effected, subject to such conditions as to the court or judge may seem fit." Service will, therefore, be personal, or such as under the circumstances the court or a judge may think sufficient, with or without conditions as to the subsequent proceedings. Personal service will be by delivering a copy of the writ to the defendant personally, and showing to him the original if required. (Goggs v. Lord Huntingtower, 12 M. & W. 503.) Personal service was requisite to obtain permission to enter an appearance sec. stat., and latterly the courts would allow no equivalent to personal service. Thus, in Christmas v. Eicke (6 D. & L. 156), the party endeavouring to serve the |