Wolseley v Worthington

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 April 1863
• Date: 27 April 1863
• Court: Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland)

Ch. Appeal.

WOLSELEY

and

WORTHINGTON.

Dexter v. CustIR 13 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 97.

Miller v. SalomonsENRENR 7 Exch. 475; S. C., 8 Exch. 778.

Hewer v. Cox 6 Jur., N. S., 1339.

Blackwell v. EnglandENR 8 El. & Bl. 541.

In re Fitzgerald 11 Ir. Chan. Rep. 278.

M'Dowell v. Wheatly 7 Ir. Com. Law. Rep. 562.

Crosbie v. MurphyIR 8 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 301.

Blackwell v. England 8 Ell. & Bl. 541.

Woodroffe v. Greene 12 Ir. Chan. Rep. 473.

Re Smith & Ross 11 Ir. Chan. Rep. 397.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 369 1863. Ch. Appeal. Court of apptai in CDourtrp. s - April 27. Tuts case came before the Court upon an appeal from an order The entry, by the officer, of made by his Honor the Master of the Rolls. the party's name, &c., in The case in the Court below is reported supra, vol. 13, p. 341, the roll of judgment, un where the facts are fully stated. der the 8 G. 4, c. 35, s. 8, is not the title of a judgment. Mr. Lawless and Mr. Heron, for the appellant. In such entry, The original affidavit in this case is wholly insufficient, and the jaunddg m ienn t , thee supplemental affidavit does not cure the defect. In the first place, statement p it is a nullity, not having been taken in pursuance of the provisions wofe• rteh edilaiffeirnetnt of the 19 & 20 Vic., c. 113, s. 23, nor of the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 82,°by An affirma- tion, made for which power is given to take an affirmation instead of an oath, in the purpose of registering the certain cases. Those statutes however provide certain forms, which judgment, under the 13 have not been followed here ; and when a form of oath or affirma- and 14 Vic., c. 29, followed tion is provided by statute, it must be strictly followed : Dexter the statement in the judg- v. Cust (a); Miller v Salomons (b). ment-He/d, Thepetitioner here relied on some cases which are based on the tmhaattiotnhewaaffis r- different language of a different Act, framed for a different purpose, the Bill of Sales Act : Hewer v. Cox (c); Blackwell v. Eng- An affirma tion, taken land (d). These decide that if there, be a fair substantive descrip- under the 3 and 4 W. 4, c. tion of the witness to a bill of sale, it will satisfy the requirements 82, stated that a ffimr member et r of was of that statute ; but the judgment mortgage stands on different a reliious sect grounds. The supplemental affidavit can only cure the defect of called Separa, - not, in but aid terms, the original statement having been indirect or referential: In re fol the form...