HYNDMAN-JONES, C.J.

If I felt justified in dealing with this case in a liberal spirit I should be disposed to attach a great deal of weight to Mr. DELAY'S contention on behalf of the holder of the bill of sale. Unfortunately it seems to me on consideration that I am not able to do this, and that I must deal with the matter from a strictly legal point of view. Two points were taken: One was as to the form of the Bill of Sale; the other was as to description of the grantor. As to the first point, the bill of sale was in the form given in the schedule with the exception that in the attestation clause the words were "Signed sealed and delivered" whereas the form runs "Signed and sealed." It was said that the introduction of the words "and delivered" was fatal. With regard to that, our Ordinance requires that a bill of sale should be "in the form" and not as in the English Act" in accordance with the form"; and there have been decisions of this Court-decisions of the Court sitting as a Court of first instance and a decision of the Court of Appeal-in which it was held that those words were to be construed strictly. The first case was that of Menatchy v. Trusty 3 S.S.L.R. 12. It was a case before COLLYER, J., and he felt that having regard to the language of the Ordinance he was precluded from dealing with the case in that liberal spirit to which I have referred. The other case was The Official Assignee v. Koh Kam Neo 5 S.S.L.R. 70, and that case came before my late brother LEACH and myself in the Court of Appeal; in his judgment my brother said,-"The phrase 'in the form' is far more strict than 'in accordance with the form' and it requires the form to be followed verbatim et literatim": in that I concurred. The decisions in those cases were founded on the English cases: e.g., In re Heseltine; Woodward v. Heseltine L.R. [1891] 1 Ch. 472, in which both LINDLEY AND KAY, L.JJ., drew a distinction between the words "in the form" and the words "in accordance with the form," LINDLEY, L.J., citing the case of Thomas v. Kelly 13 App. Cas. 506, in which LORD MACNAGHTEN said: "This section deals with form and form" "only. So purely is it, I venture to think, a question of form that I" "should be inclined to doubt whether a bill of sale would not be void" "which omitted the proviso referring to s. 7, though I cannot" "see that the omission would alter the legal effect of the document" "in the slightest degree, or mislead anybody. It has been held, and" "I think rightly, that s.9 does not require a bill of sale to be a" "verbal and literal transcript of the statutor form. The words" "of the Act are 'in accordance with the form' not 'in the form. "KAY, L.J'S judgment was to the same effect. There is also the case of Ex parte Stanford, in re Barber 17 Q.B.D. 259, in which the judgment of BOWEN, L.J. was based entirely upon the words being "in accordance with the form"; and he also drew a distinction between the words being "in accordance with the form" instead of "i the form." It seems to me that this bill of sale is therefore void as not being "in the form" as required by our law.

Then there is the other point that the description of the grantor was insufficient, the grantor being described in the declaration as merely a "clerk." As to that I was referred to the case of Lamb v. Bruce 45 L.J.Q.B. 538, which was decided in the English Court of Appeal; and the Court held that although the description "clerk" was vague and uncertain inasmuch as it was absolutely correct in the circumstances of that case the description was sufficient. That is no doubt the law in England, but in this Colony we have a decision of Mr. Justice WOOD twenty yeas ago in the case of Duval v. Scully, In re Ho Kim Hock 4 Kyshe 120, in which that learned Judge held that the description of the attesting witness as a "clerk" was insufficient; and he referred to a previous case decided by him in 1882; there seems also to have been a case before SIR THEODORE FORD, C.J.,