and they refused the rule. Lewis v. Newton, 3 Cr. M. & R. 732. Also, the words in the statute "where the defendant shall be or shall be supposed to be," are holden to be satisfied, by directing the writ to him at his last place of residence, or, in an action on a bill or note, at the place mentioned as his residence on the face of it. Norman v. Winter, 5 Bing. N. C. 279. It is not necessary, however, to give the defendant any addition of degree or mystery in the writ or copy; the statute does not require it. Morris v. Smith, 2 Cr. M. & R. 120.

And by R. G. M. 3 W. 4, s. 1, the writ "shall contain the names of all the defendants, if more than one, in the action, and shall not contain the name or names of any defendant or defendants in more actions than one." Formerly when writs were stamped, you could include only four defendants in one writ; and where there were more than four defendants in an action, you were obliged to sue out a writ for every four. You must now, however, include all the defendants in one action in the same writ; for if your declaration be against more defendants than are named in one writ, the court upon application will set it aside for irregularity. On the other hand, if you declare against one defendant only, where there are two in the writ, it will not be irregular; Coldwell v. Blake, 2 Cr. M. & R. 249. Stables v. Ashley, 1 B. & P. 49; but you cannot afterwards declare against the other, in a separate action. Pepper v. Whalley, 1 Bing. N. C. 71, 2 Dowl. 821. See post, tit. "Declaration."

The names also of the plaintiff and the defendant should be stated correctly; but a mistake in this respect, in non-bailable actions, is not very material, as no objection can now be made for misnomer until after the plaintiff has declared, and then only by application to a judge at chambers, to compel the plaintiff to amend and pay costs. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 11. And a description of the defendant by the initial letter of his christian name, is within this statute. Rust v. Kennedy, 4 Mees. & W. 586, 8 Law. J. 85, ex. But if the action be upon a bill of exchange, promissory note, or other written instrument, in which the defendant is described by the initial letter, or a contraction of his Christian or first name or names, it shall be sufficient in the writ to designate the defendant by the same initial letter or contraction of his Christian or first name or names, without stating such Christian or first name or names in full. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 42.

Teste and duration of the writ.] The writ "shall bear date on the day on which it is issued, and shall be tested in the name of the lord chief justice or lord chief baron of the court from which the same shall issue, or in case of a vacancy of such office, then in the name of a senior puisne judge of the said court." 2 W. 4, c. 39, s. 12. And it " shall not be in force

more than four calendar months from the day of the date thereof, including the day of such date." Id. s. 10. If the writ bear date on a Sunday, it is wholly void. Hanson v. Shackleton, Har. & W. 342, 4 Dowl. 48: And the writ is now deemed the commencement of the action; therefore where an assignment of a bail bond was taken on the 10th, and a writ of summons sued out on the same day, but the bail bond was not in fact forfeited until the 11th, the court upon application set aside the proceedings as irregular, although the writ was not served upon the defendants until the 11th. Alston v. Underhill, 2 Dowl. 26.

Cause of action, &c.] The form of the writ given in the statute, describes the nature of the action thus "in an action on promises, or as the case may be." As to the action of assumpsit, it must be described strictly as in this form; and therefore where the writ described it as "an action of trespass on the case upon promises," the court set it aside for irregularity. King v. Skeffington, 1 Cromp. & M. 363. So, "action on the case promises," has been holden bad. Youlton v. Hall, 4 Mees. & W. 582, 8 Law. J. 147, ex. But where it was an "action promises," omitting "on," Littledale, J. held it sufficient. Cooper v. Wheale, 1 Har. & W. 525, 4 Dowl. 281. describing it as an "action of libel," Pell v. Jackson, 2 Dowl. 445, or an action of slander," Davies v. Parker, 2 Dowl. 537, or 'an action of trover," see Collaghan v. Harris, 2 Wils. 392, has been deemed sufficient.

So

Care must be taken to state correctly the cause of action for which you intend afterwards to declare; for if you declare in any other form of action than that described in your process, the court will set aside the declaration for irregularity, upon the ground that there is no process to warrant it. But the court will not interfere in such a case, until after declaration, although there be a variance between the writ and the particulars of demand. Davies v. Jones, 1 Cr. M. & R. 582. But where the writ was in trespass on the case, and the declaration in trover, it was holden regular. Bate v. Bolton, 4 Dowl. 160. And where the writ was, to answer the plaintiff in "a special action," but the declaration was on promises, and the application was to set aside the declaration: the court discharged the rule, saying that the irregularity was not in the declaration but in the writ. Moore v. Archer, 4 Dowl. 214.

How indorsed.] There must be two indorsements on the writ: the first as to the name and address of the attorney or plaintiff who sues out the writ, and which is required by stat. 2 W. 4, c. 39, s. 12; the second, as to the claim for debt and costs, and which is required by R. G. H. 2 W. 4, r. 2, “upon the copy of any process served for the payment of any debt.”

But the omission of these will not render the writ or copy void, but it may be set aside as irregular. R. G. M. 3 W. 4, 8. 10. The forms of these indorsements are as follow:

This writ was issued by E. F. of - attorney for the said A. B. Or, This writ was issued in person by A. B. who resides at [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.] 2 W. 4, c. 39, Sch. No. 1. If there be no indorsement of the name, &c., of the attorney, the court will set aside the process for irregularity. See Sheppard v. Shum, 2 Tyr. 742. Where the indorsement of the name, &c., of the attornies was "Poole & Gamlen, Gray's Inn, London,” it was holden sufficient, although Gray's Inn, is in fact in Middlesex; Engleheart v. Eyre, 2 Dowl. 145. S. P. Jelks v. Fry, 3 Dowl. 37; and this has since been holden good with respect to an indorsement by a plaintiff in person. King v. Monkhouse, 2 Cr. & M. 314. So "James Robertson, 10, Gray's Inn Square, Holborn," has been deemed sufficient. Youtton v. Hall, 7 Dowl. 175, 8 Law, J. 147, ex. And where the writ is sued out by two or more attornies in partnership, it is in all cases sufficient to state the name of the firm, without giving the Christian and surnames of each of the partners. Pickman v. Collis, 3 Dowl. 429. Hartley v. Rodenhurst, 4 Dowl. 748. But "No. 32, Great James Street, Bedford Row," without more, was holden insufficient. Lloyd v. Jones, 5 Dowl. 161. So "Southampton Buildings," without more, has been deemed bad. Rust v. Chine, 3 Dowl. 565. The indorsement must also state for whom the person indorsing is attorney. And, therefore, where the indorsement left a blank for the name, the court set aside the writ for irregularity. Ward v. Lloyd, et al. 9 Dowl. 213, 10 Law, J. 182, ex. Where the attorney was described as attorney "for the said plaintiff," instead of "for the said A. B." as in the form of the indorsement given by the statute, it was holden sufficient. Hennah v. Whyman, 2 Cr. M. & R. 239. Where the plaintiff, who sued in person, was described as “of -" instead of "who resides at ," as in the above form, it was holden sufficient. Yardley v. Jones, 4 Dowl. 45, 1 Har. & W. 332. See Lewis v. Davison, 3 Dowl. 272. And where attornies, who were plaintiffs in person, described themselves as "R. & C. Arden, who reside at No. 1, Clifford's Inn Passage, Fleet Street, in the city of London," without mention of the parish, it was holden sufficient. Arden v. Jones, 4 Dowl. 120, S. C. nom Arden v. Garry, 1 Hodg. 197. So "W. H. King, who resides at 7, Gray's Inn Square, London," was holden sufficient. King v. Monkhouse, 2 Cr. & M. 314. Where the indorsement was of the name of one, who was an attorney, but not an attorney of the court, it was holden not to be an irregularity, but the court stayed the proceedings, until an attorney of the court should be appointed. Constable v. Johnstone,

1 Cr. & M. 88. If the attorney, whose name is indorsed, deny that it was issued by his authority, all proceedings upon it shall be stayed until further notice. R. G. M. 3 W. 4, s. 14.

By R. G. M. 3 W. 4, s. 9, "when the attorney actually suing out the writ, shall sue out the same as agent for an attorney in the country, the name and place of abode of such attorney in the country, shall also be indorsed upon the said writ." The indorsement in this case may be thus: "this writ was issued by John Smith, of No. 3, Elm Court, in the Temple, London, agent for James Walker of Beverley, in the East Riding of the county of York, attorney for the said John Nokes." Where a writ is indorsed with the name of an attorney as agent for a plaintiff who sues in person, it has not as yet been decided whether the plaintiff's address shall also be given in the indorsement with the same particularity as is above required: the point was in one case before the court, but the agent's own description being insufficient, the point was not decided. Lloyd v. Jones, 5 Dowl. 161. It is no objection, however, that the agent, and not the attorney, appears afterwards in the declaration as the attorney. Armstrong v. King, 8 Dowl. 297.

As to the indorsement of the debt: it is required by R. G. H. 2 W. 4, r. 2, that upon the copy of any process 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 process, copy and service, and attendance to receive debt and costs; and that upon payment thereof within four days to the plaintiff or his attorney, further proceedings will be stayed: but the defendant shall be at liberty, notwithstanding such payment, to have the costs taxed, and if more than one sixth shall be disallowed, the plaintiff's attorney shall pay the costs of taxation. The indorsement must be in this form:

"The plaintiff claims [£30 10s.] for debt, and [ll. 17s. 6d.] for costs; and if the amount thereof be paid to the plaintiff or his attorney within four days from the service hereof, further proceedings will be stayed." It is not necessary in an action for a trespass or tort. It has been holden not to be necessary even in an action upon a bail bond or replevin bond; Rowland v. Dakeyne, 2 Dowi. 832. Smart v. Lovick, 3 Dowl. 34; or in debt on a statute for penalties. Davis v. Lloyd, 6 Dowl. 173, 3 Mees. & W. 69. Nor is it necessary, where the plaintiff's claim consists not only of a debt, but of a cause of action for damages also. Perry v. Patchett, 1 Cr. M. & R. 87. But in cases within the rule, the indorsement is necessary, although the defendant be an attorney. Tomkins v. Chilcote, 2 Dowl. 187. And where the indorsement left a blank for the amount of the costs, the court set aside the service of the writ for irregularity. Truslove v. Whitechurch, et al. 1 M. & Cr. 426. But a claim of £20 for "for debt, with interest thereon from the 10th

day of March last, and £3 for costs," has been holden to be sufficiently certain. Coppelo v. Brown, 3 Dowl. 166, S. P. Sealy v. Hearne, Id. 196. Where the indorsement required the defendant to pay the debt within four days from the arrest or service hereof, the court held it sufficient, as the words "arrest or," might be rejected as surplusage. Sutton v. Burgess, 1 Cr. M. & R. 770.

The court will not amend the indorsement, by altering the amount of the debt mentioned in it; and they have holden that a judge at chambers has no power to do so. Trotter v. Bass, 1 Bing. N. C. 516, 3 Dowl. 407. Nor will they allow it to be amended in any other respect. And if the attorney alter the writ himself, without getting it resealed before service, the writ will be void. See Siggers v. Sansom, 2 Doul. 745. Green v. Wilks, 4 Dowl. 322.

How sued out, &c.] Write upon plain paper a præcipe in this, or the like form :

Middlesex: Writ of summons for John Nokes against Joseph Styles, of Somer's Place, Hendon, in the County of Middlesex, in an action [on promises].

A. B., attorney,

184-.

Get a blank writ on parchment, and as many copies on paper as there are defendants, from the stationer's; fill up the writ very carefully, with the indorsements, &c., and the copies exactly in the same manner; then get the writ signed, (but see Burt v. Jackson, 2 Dowl. 747), and sealed. Care must be taken that there is no variance between the copy and the writ: at least, that the copy is correct. Chalkley v. Carter, 4 Dowl. 480. Edwards v. Collins, 5 Dowl. 227. But no advantage can be taken of any variance between the writ and the præcipe. See Boyd v. Durand, 2 Taunt. 161. Usborne v. Pennell,

2 Dowl. 801.

How served.] By stat. 2 W. 4, c. 39, s. 1, every writ of summons may be served in the manner heretofore used, in the county therein mentioned, or within 200 yards of the border thereof, and not elsewhere;" and the manner " heretofore used," was by serving a true copy of the writ on the defendant personally. Vide infra. And the writ itself must be shown to him if he demand to see it, otherwise the service will be set aside for irregularity, whether the demand be made at the time of the service, (Thomas v. Pearce, 2 B. & C. 761. Petit v. Ambrose, 6 M. & S. 274), or within a reasonable time afterwards. Westley v. Jones, 5 Moore, 162. But merely leaving it with the defendant's shopman, Thompson v. Pheney, 1 Dowl. 441. See Rhodes v. Innes, 7 Bing. 329, or at his house or place of