Odger's English Common Law

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. 75
(ix.) Again, any statute which derogates from the common
law will be construed strictly. Erom very early times the
judges, as we have seen, 1
were loath to admit that the
common law required amendment ; and therefore refused to
enforce any statute which altered the common law, unless its
terms were so clear and explicit as to be imperative. The
same strictness will be applied to the construction of any
Act which creates a new criminal offence or imposes any
fresh burden on the people.
" Acts passed under such circum-
stances should be construed strictly against the parties
obtaining them, but liberally in favour of the public." 2
In addition to these rules the practitioner has also the
Interpretation Act, 1889, 3 to assist him iu construing a
statute. The first Interpretation Act was brought in by
Lord Brougham in 1850 ;
4
it was a painstaking effort in
a new field, but it was far from complete, and was repealed
by the present Act in 1889. This Act has done much to
ensure reasonable conciseness in the wording of statutes,
besides supplying many useful definitions, such as :
" Words importing the masculine gender shall include
females." 5
" Words in the singular, shall include the plural, and words
in the plural shall include the singular." 5
" The expression ' person ' shall, unless the contrary
intention appears, include a body corporate." °
" The expressions ' oath ' and 'affidavit' shall, in the case
of persons for the time being allowed by law to affirm or
declare instead of swearing, include affirmation and declara-
tion, and the expression ' swear ' shall, in the like case,
include affirm and declare." 7
see S. v. Smith (1870), L. R. 1 C. 0. R. 266, 271 ; Barton v. Muir (1874), L. R.
6 P. C. 134; Williams v. Eeans (1876), 1 Ex. D. 277; Lamb >. Brewster (1879),
4 Q. B. D. 607 ; Cotton r. Vogtm $ Co., [1896] A. C. 457.
1 Ante, p. 61.
2 Per Tindal, C. J., in Parker v. G. W. By. Co. (1844), 7 Scott, N. R. at p. 870 ;
and see the remarks of Lord Macnaghten in The Metropolitan Water Board y.
The New River Co. (1904), 20 Times L>. R. at pp. 689, 690.
3 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63.
4 13 & 14 Vict. c. 21.
« S. 1, sub-s. 1 ; but see Chorlton. v. Lings (1868), L. K. 1 C. P. 374.
6 S. 2, sub-s. 1.
• S. 3.
—