as Edward, duke of Buckingham, late of N. in the county of G. (r).

But, in case of the lesser nobility, such as baronets and knights, the description is different, and runs thus-A. B. late of M. in the county of N. knight, &c. (s).

An addition after an alias dictus is insufficient (t), it must be subjoined to the first name; and after an alias dictus it is unnecessary (u). Though several defendants have the same addition, it should be repeated after each; (x) where both the name and addition are the same, there should be some further description added for the sake of distinction (y). It is laid down, by Serjeant Hawkins, that a defect as to the addition of one of several defendants will vitiate the indictment as to all (z); but this seems to be erroneous and unreasonable, for the law considers the indictment as several against each of the several defendants (a).

With respect to the addition of the party's mystery, the following are sufficient.

Labourer (b), husbandmen (b), merchant (c), broker (d), taylor (e), hostler (f), smith (g), miller (h), carpenter (¿),

(r) 2 Ins. 669. So where one is named of a city, which is a county of itself, as J. S. baker, of London, in the county of the city of London, but J. S. of London, baker, would be sufficient. 4 E. 4. 10.

(s) 2 Ins. 669.

(t) 2 Ins. 669.

Semple's case, Leach, 469. Cro. Eliz. 583. Dyer, 88. Cro. Eliz. 249. 198. Staunf. 68. 2 Hale, 177. (u) 2 Haw. c. 25. s. 70.

(x) 2 Haw. c. 25. s. 70. (y) 2 Haw. c. 25. s. 70. (z) 2 Haw. c. 25. s. 70. 1 Bulstrode, 183.

(a) Hale, 177. 14 H. 6. 15. (b) 2 Ins. 668.

(c) Br. Add. 44. 50.

(d) B. Add. 8. 9 H. 6. 65.
(e) B. Add. 15. 39.

(ƒ) B. Add, 35. 21 H. 6. 50.
(g) 21 H. 6. 54,
(h) B. Add. 39. 51.

(i) B. Add, 15. 39.

brewer (k), baker (4), butcher (m), parish clerk (n), merchant (0), fishmonger (p), dyer (q), schoolmaster (r), scri

vener.

The following are insufficient:

Maintainer (s), extortioner (t), vagabond (u), here tic (x), common informer; so servant, chamberlain, but-, ler, &c. for these do not denote any particular mystery (y) and the addition of farmer is questionable (z).

Of the addition of the town, hamlet, or place, and coun ty It is sufficient to describe the plaintiff as late of such a place (a); but he must be plainly averred to be of the place, as of London, or of Norwich; and it has been holden to be insufficient to describe him as mercator de London (b). If there be two towns of the same name, he ought to be named of one of them with certainty; thus, if there be D. magna and D. parva, the addition of D. alone would not be good (c), and the defendant might plead, that there are two dales in the same county, called Great Dale and Little Dale, and none without an addition.

So if the same place be sometimes called North Dale and sometimes South Dale, but never Dale simply, the defendant may plead that there is no such town, because

(s) 9 H. 6. 65. 2 Ins. 668. H. 7. 4. Rast. 47. 3 H. 6. 8.

a part of a name is not equivalent to the whole (d). But if there be two towns of the same name, without any addition to distinguish them, it seems sufficient to describe the defendant of that place generally (e).

So it seems, that to describe the defendant as A. parson of D. is insufficient, since he may be parson without resi dence (f).

Where a hamlet is part of a town, and therefore an inhabitant of the former is also an inhabitant of the latter, the defendant may be described to be of either (g).

The statute uses the general term, place; if, therefore, the defendant live in any place which has a certain name, it is sufficient to describe him to be of that place, though it be neither a town nor a hamlet (h); and it is sufficient to describe the defendant by his parish (¿), if it contain no more than one town or hamlet, which will be intended until the contrary appear."

Next as to the county.-Where a city is a county of itself, it seems that it is sufficient to name the defendant of the city or county generally, as to describe him as late of London, or late of Norwich; for though the city and county be not co-extensive, it is to be intended, that he is an inhabitant of both, till the contrary appear (k).

But the county must in all cases be shewn, for the statute mentions the county conjunctively () with town, or hamlet, or place.

(d) 2 Haw. c. 23. s. 121. 3 H. 6, 8. 14 H. 6. 23. cont, 7 H. 6. 23.

(e) 2 Haw. c. 23. s. 121. (f) Com. Dig. Ind. Gr. 1. qu. et vid. 2 Ins. 669. where it is said, that the law will presume residence.

(g) 2 Ins. 669. 35 H. 6. 30. 14 H. 6. 23. So he may be

described of either, if he had two places of residence. 2 Haw. c. 23. s. 103.

(h) 2 Ins. 669.

(i) 2 Ins. 669. 2 Haw. c. 23. s. 120.

(k) 2 Ins. 669. 21 E. 4. 15. 2 Haw. c. 23. S. 120.

(4) Cro. J. 167. 2 Ins. 669. 2 Haw. c. 23. s. 120.

The addition of the wife's place of residence is sufficiently shewn by averring that of the husband, because their residence is presumed to be the same till the contrary be proved (m).

It is a general rule, that a defect of this nature must be pleaded in abatement, and that it is cured by the appearance of the party, and his pleading any other matter; for he is estopped by his plea by that name, and the gaoler and sheriff, who do execution, shall have advantage of the estoppel (n.

(m) 2 Ins. 669.2 Theolal. b. 6. c. 14. s. 6. 2 Haw. c. 23. s. 120.

(n) 2 Hale, 175. 2 Ins. 669. Cro. Eliz. 60.

CHAP. IV.

Of the general Averments of Time and Place.

I. Averment of Time, p. 54.

II. Averment of Place, p. 62.

THE next averments, in the usual order of indictments, relate to the time and place of committing the offence.

The averment of place is partly substantial and partly formal; substantial, since it shews the offence to have been committed within the jurisdiction of those who inquire into it, and formerly it was essential to the procuring a jury to be returned from the neighbourhood; formal, because it is satisfied by proof of the commission of the offence within the county, without regard to the particular vill stated in the indictment. The averment of time is altogether formal, since it is unnecessary to prove the offence to have been committed at the time alleged in the indictment, unless some time be limited for the prosecution, or time itself be material to the constitution of the offence; these averments therefore convey, in general, little of information either to the defendant or his judges. It is, nevertheless, a general rule, that the time and place (a) of every material fact must be plainly and consistently alleged; and such a degree of precision does the law exact in this respect, that any uncertainty or incongruity in the description of time and place will vitiate the indictment.

I. With regard to time, it is requisite (with some exceptions) to shew both the day and the year on which the

(a) 5 T. R. 620. 2 Haw. c. 25. s. 77. F. Ind. 28. Dyer, 164. 2 Hale, 177.