case mill against Wilkins Hilary term will roll and Michaelmas term whether  roll the misrecital of the title of a statute be immaterial for the title be  no part of the statute S c salk S c salk S c holt trespass for take several  skin from the plaintiff the defendant justify as a officer by virtue of the  statute of James c for well tan of leather set forth the title thereof variant  from the record and aver that the skin be not dress accord to the intent and  meaning of the statute without show any particular defect two exception be  take to the plea first that there be no such Act entitle as they set forth and  though it be unnecessary for they to set forth the title of the Act or to  recite it particular yet since they have take upon themselves to do it they  must do it true at their peril for by their particular description of the Act  they tie up their justification to the statute they describe keb cro car a to  this exception it be offer for answer that the title be no part of the Act and  that a Act may be without any title at all as most of the ancient act be and  therefore a variance in the title be nothing and for this be quote the say of  my Lord hale in HardresHard cro sand b and a opinion of the whole court in  common plea in the case of chance v Adam Hilary term will roll c ground upon  that of hale holt chief justice it be true the title of a Act of parliament be  no part of the law or enact part no more than the title of a book be part of  the book for the title be not the law but the name or description give to it  by the maker just as modern er p the preamble of a statute be no part thereof  but contain general the motive or inducement thereof and therefore it be not  necessary to set forth the title or preamble but general that at a parliament  session hold such a time c it be enact though some have be so overcautious as  not only to set forth the title of the Act but also modern to do it in English  but sure that be too much caution and the true way to set it out if at all be  in Latin and by set out the title special you tie your justification to a Act  so entitle and if you can produce one you be go and he say the say of hale be  sudden if at all and notwithstanding his great veneration for his opinion be  can not agree with he gold justice agree with the chief justice Powell justice  only declare that he have concur with the rest in the common plea sole upon  the opinion of hale report in Hardres and upon this exception the the  plaintiff have judgement a second exception take be that they do not show  wherein the defect be that the court may judge whether it be contrary to the  Act or not and to this it be answer that the seizure be not as a absolute  forfeiture but to try the sufficiency and it will be hard to put a officer at  his peril in such a case to know and to set forth the defect