Page 2

Sec 1 Rob. Pr. [2 (?)]. 416th; 1 (?) Gen, Pr. 775: 2 (?) 148;

In the Consideration of time for Stat. (?) the
day on which the cause of action [asumed?] is
to be included, as an action might have
been commenced that day. (?)
Williams, 15 Mar. 193; (Bac?) (Alv?)(Liion?) of [?]
[D], p 376

When (Compn?) of time is to be made from
an but done, the day on (?) out is done
is to be included. Bac, Abr. (?) [Q]
p 804.

There was a review of the previous cases by Sir W Grant
in [?] v [?] 18 Ves, 255 etc. and the conclusion was
that there was no general, that is "invariable" rule of com-
penstation but that the first day was (?) in either ex-
clusion or inclusion, as the justice reason the case might
require; but says that 'great pledge' "I rather think it wd be
more easy to maintain on testimonial reasoning, that the
day of an act done, or an event happening, ought in
all cases to be [?}] than that it shd in all cases
be included". In that case the day was [?] and the
M.R. appeared to think, whilst he disdained any attempt to
establish a general rule that the day from which the computa-
tion is made is always to be excluded, unless to include it
is (useful?) to give effect to the intention.

In [?] [?] [?] 5T.R. 283 it was held in ( [?]
mity with Thomas v Popham, 2 [?] 218 & 2 Inst. 674) that when
a State. reqd a deed to be enrolled within 20 days of its execution
the day of its ex'on must be [excluded?], and [?] Kenyon sd "Suppose
the direction of the act had been to enrol the memorial within
one day, cd it be pretended that this meant the same thing
as if is were sd that is shd be done on the same day on the act
was done? If not, neither can it be continued exclusively, when
a greater no. of days is allowed".

This cased indeed (?) o Fox Hall 1 Ball, 193, and (?)
(?) 12 House [40 E.C.H.] 635 and in (?) Pellow (?) (?)
a (?) 134, (?)