bennet versus talbot hill will B R vide title declaration pl page mill versus  Wilkins hill Ann B R refer to Coombes v justice of Berks Q b d Q b d App Cas S  c Mod salk holt hawk p c Title no part of statute but if set out wrong be  fatal vide   cro car Jon cro James ray hard cro sand keb dyer h hob trespass  for take several skin from the plaintiff the defendant as a officer justify on  James cap about tan and set forth the title of the Act mistake a word by which  it vary from the true title and aver the skin be not dress accord to the  intent of the statute to which it be demurrer because no such act as be here  set forth vide cro car keb on the other side it be answer that the title be no  part of the Act that old statute have no title and the opinion of hale c baron  be cite hard vide Hat hob   Inst holt c j the title be not a material part  neither be it necessary to set it forth but yet it be a name give by the maker  and therefore you must describe it accord if you will describe it by its title  and they deny the opinion of my Lord hale say it be a sudden opinion judgement  for the plaintiff a a it may perhaps appear that the rule by which a  misrecital of the title commencement or provision of a Act of parliament which  it be unnecessary to state be fatal shall be confine to those case where the  rest of the plead be so connect by reference with the Act describe as to be  imperfect without such description and the description be false the allegation  of which by reference it form a material part can be true but that where the  plea be independent of the recital perfect and sufficient a variance in the  mere superfluous recital will not be material thus in the report of this case  Mod holt Ch Jus say you tie your justification to a Act so entitle and if you  can produce one you be go so in boyce v Whitaker Doug the defendant have state  with some variance the stat h c relative to sheriff bind and plead that the  bind whereon he be sue be take against the form of the statute aforesaid the  plea be hold have because the word aforesaid tie the party up to a exact  recital in Lutw it be hold that if there be a material variance from a general  statute if the declaration conclude content form stat in ejusm case edit and  not contra form stat pillage it be well so in Wendham v Palgrave fort Str the  declaration recite that by a statute make in a parliament hold the that day of  jul that Ann it be enact c when no such parliament be hold and conclude  general content form stat ejusmod c the court hold that it be well enough but  contrary to the statute aforesaid will tie it up accord in hawk ch S it be say  it seem to be agree that not only a misrecital of the day whereon the  parliament be hold but even a misrecital of the purview of a statute may be  salve by a general conclusion contra form stat without add predict the case  therefore seem to stand upon the same foundation as every other where there be  a error in a immaterial allegation videlicet that if the allegation be so  connect with what it be material to aver that the latter be sole referable to  it and will be defective and imperfect without it the error be fatal but  otherwise not as to which vide savage v smith Bl Rep Bristol v wright Doug  Gwinnett v Philips t r and particular peppin v Solomons t r Salkeld er p  Salkeld statute and the exposition thereof