case his majesty advocate for Scotland on behalf OF his majesty appellant  alexander late lord pitsligo respondent that January a act of attainder  against Alexander Lord pitsligo be valid against Alexander Lord Forbes of  pitsligo it not be allege or prove that any other person be and parliamentary  proceed sometime by the name of Lord Forbes of pitsligo and sometime by that  of Lord pitsligo for the description in the act though incomplete in point of  strict form be not repugnant to truth decree of court of session reverse see  foster crown law by stat Geo cap entitle a act to attaint Alexander earl of  Kelly etcetera it be recite that the several person therein name and among  other the respondent by the name of Alexander Lord pitsligo do on or before  the that day of April in a traitorous and hostile manner take up arm and levy  war against his majesty within this realm contrary to the duty of their  allegiance and be flee to avoid be apprehend and prosecute accord to law for  their say offence and therefore it be enact that if the say brown Alexander  Lord pitsligo etcetera shall not render themselves to one of his majesty  justice of peace on or before the that day of July and submit to justice for  the treason aforesaid then every of they the say Alexander Lord pitsligo not  render himself and not submit to justice as aforesaid shall from and after the  say that day of April stand and be adjudge attaint of high treason to all  intent and purpose whatsoever July the respondent not have comply with the  condition of the act become attaint of high treason he be then and have be  long before as his ancestor have also be seize of a real estate call the land  and barony of pitsligo from whence his title of honour be take and which be  forfeit by his attainder in consequence of this attainder and by virtue of the  authority give to the court of exchequer in Scotland by stat Geo cap the say  land and barony of pitsligo be survey by order of that court and seize for the  use of his majesty December to these land and barony a claim be give in before  the brown er p court of session by John Dickie clerk to the signet for and on  behalf of the respondent by the name of Alexander Lord Forbes of pitsligo set  forth that his ancestor be ennoble by letter patent bear date the that of June  and create a baron by the style and title of Lord Forbes of pitsligo which  title be now descend to the claimant that sir Alexander Forbes of Foveran have  acquire right to the estate of pitsligo by purchase in the encumbrance upon it  do resign the same into the hand of his late majesty king George I in order  that a new infeoftment may be grant to the claimant that a charter be accord  grant by his say late majesty bear date the that of July convey to the  claimant by the name of Alexander Lord Forbes of pitsligo the say land and  barony to hold the same to he in liberan baronia leodo et inheritance in  continuous upon which he be infeoft regular and the respondent by his say  claim insist that none of the person attaint by the act before recite be seize  or possess of or interest in or entitle unto the say estate and therefore pray  that the same may be adjudge to belong to he the say claimant in support of  this claim several write be produce on the part of the claimant in which he  have be name and describe by the same title give by the patent to this claim  the appellant in behalf his majesty give in answer in which he admit the  patent of creation as state in the claim but allege that the respondent be the  person mean and sufficient describe by the act notwithstanding every word of  the description in the patent be not transcribe into it and for this purpose  insist that pitsligo be his true proper title that the present lord and all  his family ever since the creation of the title have consider it as such and  that he brown and his ancestor have be on all sort of occasion name and  describe by the title of Lord pitsligo and to show this the appellant do in  his answer specify several instance wherein the respondent and his ancestor  claim title under this patent have act be know and distinguish by the title of  pitsligo in act of parliament roll and minute of parliament private deed and  instrument suit proceed and adjudication or judgement in court of justice  videlicet on the that of June the cause come on to be hear by all the lord  when it be argue for the respondent that in all judicial proceed especial in  those infer the high penalty the Christian name and surname of the party ought  to be true set forth that name of dignity be parcel of the name and that the  respondent name and title be Alexander Lord Forbes of pitsligo he be not  affect by a act attaint Alexander Lord pitsligo that not be his name his  majesty advocate rely on the follow fact and argument saint that the  respondent and his ancestor have be common know and describe by the  appellation of Lord pitsligo and have by that name sign their private letter  dly that they have be so name in the act of the scot parliament appoint  commissioner of supply and visitor of college etcetera of which several  instance be quote dly that they have be so name in the roll or minute of the  parliament of Scotland when their attendance happen to be mark down in the  listen of lord baron thly that they have be so name in adjudication or  judgement by default obtain against the estate of the family in the court of  session of which fifteen instance be specify and that many of the bind on  which those adjudication proceed be grant and subscribe by the single title  pitsligo and that in the conveyance or disposition make to the respondent in  by sir Alexander Forbes of Foveran upon which be find the charter of the  estate in the respondent be many time name Alexander Lord pitsligo and not  once Alexander Lord Forbes of Pitshgo whence it be argue that the name or  title of Lord pitsligo be that by which the respondent and his ancestor have  be know and which they have assume to themselves it can only apply to the  respondent and consequent that he be proper describe by that name in the act  of attainder to this it be reply on behalf of the respondent to the saint that  however in case of common person a name acquire by reputation may be  sufficient yet that rule do not hold as to name of dignity which be name of  record be not subject to alteration by usage or common parlance brown er p and  as to the respondent subscribe letter by the word pitsligo that it be usual  for person to write their name short brown and often their Christian name by  the initial letter and yet it can not be contend that if a person be so  describe in a outlawry or act of attainder such description will be good  though agreeable to his usual manner of subscribe to the d that the act  appoint commissioner of supply etcetera be pen with great inaccuracy the same  peer be sometime name by different title and peer old son by their title of  courtesy sometime different Christian name be give to the same person and at  other time it be total omit and several person be describe without Christian  name or surname by relation only to another person as the factor or  chamberlain of such gentleman or lady of all which particular instance be  specify and it be argue that such description will be hold erroneous in a  common process and much more go in penal proceed to the d that the roll or  minute of parliament refer to be no other than short note of the clerk or his  deputy intend only to mark what member be present that accord they be very  incorrect take down sometime the same peer be name by different title thus  Lord hay of yester be sometime style Lord hay and at other time Lord yester  and the same diversity appear with respect to the title of Lord Chrickton of  Sanqubar Lord herries of Terregles Lord Lindsai of Byers and many other peer  that these minute never mention the Christian name of any of the member and  describe some by their office and other by their borough without any name at  all that it can not be imagine that such inaccuracy can alter the title of  peer but the respondent and his ancestor as well as those lord who have  similar title have take care to insert they proper as confer by the crown in  all act of record such as retour or inquisition post death grant confirmation  or remission from the crown and ratification in parliament of which various  instance be produce to the that that with respect to adjudication obtain  against the estate of the family by the designation of Lord pitsligo it be  observe that adjudication be judgement in absence or by default obtain at the  instance of creditor but that in adjudication as well as in deed the  designation be both way no inference can be draw either the one way or the  other that deed or grant between particular person be not vitiate by mistake  or erroneous designation where the identity of the person appear from  circumstance the law permit a latitude in such instrument which be not indulge  in criminal proceed where the person to be affect must be identify by insert  his true name in the record and not by any thing collateral upon this debate  the lord give no opinion but direct information to be give in by both party  which be do accord brown and listen be exhibit for the respondent saint of  designation of peer take from the minute of parliament which verify what be  before assert as to their name be very incorrect set down in those roll or  minute dly of ratification in parliament to lord have title similar to the  respondent dly of the grant confirmation escheat and remission to such lord  thly of inquisition post death or retour of such land to their ancestor in all  which the full title be insert accord to their creation and also instance be  specify from the supply act to verify what have be assert as to the defective  or erroneous description of commissioner therein name the cause come on again  to be argue before the court of session on the that of November when the lord  of session proceed to give judgement twelve of they be present be equal divide  in opinion the lord precedent and five other judge declare that the respondent  be attaint by the say act of parliament but the other six be of the contrary  opinion their opinion prevail since by the constitution of that court the lord  precedent have no voice but in case of a equal division of the other judge the  interlocutor pronounce be in these word the lord have hear the claim of  Alexander Lord Forbes of pitsligo with the answer make thereto brown er p by  his majesty advocate condescendances of write produce and party procurator  thereon they find that by the act of parliament of the that of his present  majesty entitle a act to attaint Alexander earl of Kelly and other therein  name of high treason if they shall not render themselves to one of his majesty  justice of the peace before the that day of July and submit to justice the say  Alexander Lord Forbes of pitsligo be not attaint and therefore sustain his  claim and order the sheriff depute of the shire of Aberdeen or other proper  officer to cause possession to be deliver to the claimant of the land barony  and other by he claim and decern and declare accord from this interlocutor the  appellant on behalf of his majesty present his petition of appeal and urge d  rider W Murray the follow reason for the reversal of the say interlocutor I  for that pitsligo be the strict and proper title create by this patent it be  the name of the place erect long before into a barony from whence the title in  question be take and have always be so understand by himself his ancestor the  legislature and all that have have any transaction with they two because if  this be a doubtful point or if the surname alone or with the addition of the  place be to be deem in strictness the title of honour yet as the respondent  have be constant know by the title of pitsligo and with a certainty that  leaves no possibility of doubt that he be mean by that description and the act  have call he by the same title which other act and record of parliament have  confess give he brown as well as his own most deliberate transaction and there  be no falsity in the description it be humble presume this act must have its  effect the objection that have be make all arise from the suppose legal effect  of misnomer either in conveyance proceed in court of justice or similar act of  parliament in all which it be say misnomer have be fatal one answer to all of  they be that here be no misnomer whether the title be consider upon the mere  foot of the construction of the patent or of a title that he have be know by  but to consider each distinct as to conveyance the general tenor of the case  prove the contrary and show it be immaterial by what name either the grantor  or grantee be call provide they be describe so as to be clear know as to  proceed in court of justice it be the know law that a defendant in suit at law  may be name by that name which usage have give he though not the name of  baptism or of his parent or if it be the case of a corporation that be create  by the patent or prescription by which alone it be make to exist and this rule  extend even to criminal prosecution of all kind so that if the defendant plead  in abatement a misnomer though to indictment for the high crime it may be  effectual answer by a averment in the application if the truth be so that the  defendant be common know by that name as to any case where the want of a  addition have be hold fatal they be not applicable to the present case which  depend on the construction of a attainder not by judgement of a court of  justice but by act of parliament and to which the act of the I Henry cap that  alone make addition necessary most clear do not extend but the construction of  a act of parliament depend on no form the sole question be what it mean if the  meaning be plain the judge be bind to declare that meaning to be the law  whenever a case within it come regular before they whether that meaning be  express in technical term or not and therefore it be that the most penal law  have be construe even beyond the word to answer the intent as to the suppose  parallel case upon other act of attainder they will be find to be essential  different from the present as contain description not only contrary to and  inconsistent with the real name but unsupported by any colour of usage by the  respondent the follow reason be assign a Hume Campbell all forester for affirm  the interlocutor complain of brown er p I for that in all judicial proceed the  true name of the party must be set forth and the omission of it can be supply  by any evidence to prove the identity of the person brown two the true name of  peer create by patent be such only as the crown confer by the patent and the  omission of any constituent part of such name be as fatal as the omission of  the whole the remainder not be the true name III the title confer by patent be  Lord Forbes of pitsligo the act attaint Alexander Lord pitsligo title material  different the record differ so essential no collateral evidence can be call in  aid to prove the person ennoble and the person name in the act to be one and  the same objection I the distinguish title or name of dignity in the  respondent family be the name of pitsligo the name of the barony by which they  be ennoble and upon which their peerage principal rest answer the family be  neither ennoble by the name of pitsligo nor by the name of Forbes their  peerage do not principal rest upon the one nor the other but upon both  together as appear by the letter patent which be conclusive upon this point  objection two in case of a common person a conviction or outlawry be good by  the name of reputation or that by which he have be common know though not his  name receive at baptism and ought to hold in the case of a peer answer the  defence be obvious a common person may gain a name by reputation a peer name  arise by record only objection ill act of parliament be to be interpret accord  to the intention of the legislature and therefore a attainder by act of  parliament come not within the narrow rule of construction that hold in  outlawry and other judicial proceed answer the intention of the legislature be  the proper rule to discover what be the subject matter to which a act of  parliament relate but when that appear the rule of law applicable to such  subject take place and govern the application and operation of such act this  therefore be a act to attaint certain person by name must be govern by the  rule of law in similar judicial proceed and accord your lordship after take  the opinion of all the judge solemnly determine that a act of parliament  attaint major general Thomas Gordon Laird of Auchintoule do not attaint major  general Alexander Gordon Laird of Auchintoule see the precede case although no  doubt be or can be make of the person intend by the legislature but the  interlocutor complain of be reverse and the claim disallow