Odger's English Common Law

WHAT DECISIONS ARE BINDING. 69
opinion should be expressed, its expression is not binding
on the Court in any subsequent case, though it may receive
attention as being the opinion of an eminent judge.
The opinions of some judges deserve more attention than those of
others. Moreover, some reporters are more reliable than others, so that
some series of reports carry more weight than others. Thus, the series
still known as Modern Keports (1669—1732) is not treated with respect in
our Courts. Nor is the whole of the same series always of equal value : the
twelfth volume of Lord Coke's Reports, for instance, is of questionable
authority ; it was issued after his death and compiled by some one else from
papers which Lord Coke had neither digested nor intended for the press. 1
Hence it may sometimes be necessary to read all the various reports of the
same decision. 2
Next, let us suppose that the opinion of the practitioner or
the judgment of the Court depends upon the proper inter-
pretation of a statute or of a series of statutes. Construing
statutes ought to be an easier task than reconciling conflict-
ing decisions ; but this is not always so, for statutes are not
always well drafted. Certain canons have been laid down
for the construction of statutes. The object of these is to
ascertain the intention of the Legislature—not to control that
intention, or to confine it within limits which the judges may
deem reasonable or expedient. The leading rules may be
briefly stated thus :—
(i.) A statute must be taken to mean what it says. 3 " The
best expositors of Acts of Parliament are the Acts of Par-
liament themselves." 4 " The meaning must be collected from
the statute itself, which is the best exposition." 6 The
intention of the Legislature must be gathered from the
language which it has employed in the Act, and not from
any extraneous source, such as statements made during the
debates in either House, or conjectures as to the policy of
1 See the remarks of Mr. Hargrave, 2 Howell's St. Tr. at p. 381; of Holroyd, J.,
in Lewis v. Walter (1821), 4 B. & Aid. at p. 614 ; and of Parke, J., in M'Pherson
v. Daniels (1829), 10 B. & C. at p. 275.
2 Contrast, for instance, the varying reports of the judgments in Young v.
Macrae (1862), 32 L. J. Q. B. at p. 8 ; 11 W. E. at p. 63 ; 3 B. & S. 264 ; 7 L. T.
351 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 539 ; and in Pullman v. Hill $ Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. at pp. 529,
531 ; 7 Times L. B. at p. 174.
s See the judgment of Lord Esher, M. R., in Hornsey L. B. v. Monarch, $0.,
Society (1889) 24 Q. B. D. at p. 5 ; and Algoma Central Mi/. Co. v. R., [1903] A. C
478; Sharpness Xem Docks v. Att.-Gen., [1915] A. C. 654 ; MacConnell v. Prill $ Co.,
["19161 2 Ch. 57.
* Per Lord Coke in Boiiham't Case (1610), 8 Rep. at p. 11 1 a.
• Per Atkins, J., in Lord Ivwnsend v. Hughes (1676), 2 Mod. at p. 1«3.