OF AUSTRALIA. 549 ondent for an answer. That being so, I have come to H.C. or A. sonclusion that I must dismiss the petition. I order the 1910 itioner to pay the respondent's costs to the extent of £100, Grovcn d the £50 deposit to be applied towards payment of the costs. os Ozanne. in a . . . Cont Je Petition dismissed with costs, °° = Solicitors, for the petitioner, Strongman & Crouch. ~ Solicitors, for the respondent, McCay & Thwaites. BL. ee a ae (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA] STIGGANTS APPELLANT ; DEFENDANT, AND _ JOSKE RESPONDENT. INFORMANT, Dentist—Person "recorded" by the Dental Board—Use of word ' Dentist"— 4 ©. op A, Words implying that he is practising dentistry—Dentists Act 1898 (Vict.) (No. 491], 1595), sec. 7*—Dentists Act 1910 (Vict.) (No. 2257), see. 13 +. * Sec. 7 of the Dentists Act 1898 pro- _words "' dental company " or "dental {EEBOURNEs _ vides that :—No person other than a legally qualified medical practitioner or other than a person registered under the Dentists Act 1887 or under this or the Principal Act shall, nor shall any company (other than an associa- tion consisting wholly of registered dentists), take or use or by inference institute" or 'dental hospital" or Oct. 9, 10, *« dental college" or "college or school of dentistry " or " mechanical dentist" Griffith C.4., or any name title word letters addition {arton and, or description implying or tending to °Com™F 9. the beliet that he or euch company is registered under the Dentists Act 1887 adopt the name title word letters addi- tion or description, of "dentist" or "dental practitioner" or 'dental surgeon " or "surgeon dentist," or use or have attached to or exhibited at his or its place of business or residence (either alone or in combinations with any other word or words or letters) the or under this or the Principal Act or that he orsuch company is qualified to practice dentistry or is carrying on the practice of dentistry or is entitled to or to use such name title word letters addition or description, +See. 13 of. the Dentists Act 1910 provides that :— 'H: C. or A. 1911. ae Sriccants v JosKE, HIGH COURB The prohibition in sec. 7 of the Dentists Act 1898 (Vict.) against 'the any person other than a legally qualified medical practitioner or registered under the Dentists Acts, of the title ''dentist" or "dental titioner" or 'dental surgeon" or "surgeon dentist," applies to pe recorded by the Medical Board of Victoria under sec. 13 of the Dentists . 1910. But, notwithstanding the prohibition in sec. 7 of the Act of 1 against the use by any person other than those specified of any name, tit implying or tending to the belief that he is registered, or that he is q to practice dentistry, or is carrying on the practice of dentistry, a recorded under sec. 13 of the Act of 1910 is entitled to use, in addition words ' Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria," words which wile: to the public what it is that he is recorded as being permitted to vided those words do not imply that he is registered. . Appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria (Madden C.J.): Josh 'Stiggants, 33 A.L.'T., 80, dismissed, but on different grounds. Apprat from the Supreme Court of Victoria. At the Court of Petty Sessions at Fitzroy, on 9th August 1911 George Edwin Stiggants was charged on the information Ernest Joske, Registrar of the Dental Board of Victoria, "fo that he not being a legally qualified medical practitioner nor person registered under the Dentists Act 1887, nor under th Medical Act 1890, Part IL, nor under the Dentists Act 1910 at Fitzroy on 14th July 1911, at his place of business at Gertrud Street have exhibited a title to wit 'Dentist' implying that h was registered under the Dentists Act 1887 or under the Dent Act 1898 or under the Medical Act 1890, Part IL." Board under sec. 18 of the Dentists Act 1910, and that he on his door a brass plate on which were inscribed the words "G. E. Stiggants, Dentist, Recorded by the Dental Board of Victori (1) Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act any person who has attained the age of twenty-one years and who has practised dental surgery or dentistry in Victoria for a period of at least three years immediately prior to the commencement of this Act may on application within six months there- after to the Dental Board and on proof that he has so practised and on paying the prescribed fee be entitled to have his name recorded by such Board. _ (2) Thereupon such person shail con- tinue to have the same rights and pri- oe vileges which he possessed immedi before the commencement of this so far only as the practice of surgery or dentistry is concerned he shall not take or use or have attacl to or exhibited at his place of busi or any premises the word " registe (either alone or in combination wit any other words or letters) or any oth word or sign implying or tending to th belief that he is registered as a den other than the words ''Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria-" OF AUSTRALIA. mn the grounds that there was no evidence of the offence ed in the information, and that the acts of the defendant ged to have constituted the offence were authorized by the itists Act 1910, was discharged by Madden, C.J. (Joske v. Stiggants (1) ). The defendant now by special leave appealed to the High Trvine K.C. (with him Lewers), for the appellant. Before the entists Act 1898 persons other than legally qualified medical ractitioners and registered dentists were not prohibited from practising dentistry, but they could not sue for fees. [He referred to the Dentists Act 1887, secs. 2, 16, 17, 18; Medical Act 1890, 'Part IL, secs. 38, 52, 53, 54).] Under the Dentists Act 1898 those persons might still practise dentistry, although they could not sue for their fees, and by sec. 7 they were absolutely pro- _ hibited from using the title "dentist," among others, and from : using any other words which might imply that they were regis- Z tered, or were qualified to practise dentistry or were carrying on _ the practice of dentistry. By the Dentists Act 1910, sec. 4, "recorded" persons to prac- tise dentistry. Sec. 5, which prohibits any person from carrying m dentistry except in his own name, implies that a person who is entitled to practise dentistry may tell the public that he is so practising. Sec. 11 gives to " recorded" persons all the rights as = ako practising dentistry which a registered dentist has. It recog- nizes the right of a " recorded" person to practise dentistry, and _ therefore recognizes his right to inform the public that he is doing so, provided he does not inform them that he is registered. Sec. 7 of the Act of 1898 therefore can have no application to "recorded" persons for whom special provisions are made in sec. 13 of the Act of 1910. Even if the first prohibition in sec. 7 applies to "recorded" persons so as to prevent the use by them of the word "dentist"; the second prohibition, namely, that as to the use of words implying registration or that a person is carrying on the practice of dentistry, is inconsistent with the (1) 33 A.L.T., 80. permission was given to certain order nisi to review this decision obtained by the defend- H. ©. or A. 1911. os SriccanTs vw JosKE, H.C. or A, 1911. SH SrigcaNntTs os JOsKE. Oct. 10. HIGH COURT provisions of the Act of 1910 so far as " recorded" pet concerned, and is to that extent abrogated. The word " dentast," although in the Acts it means a r dentist, when used in the collocation in which it is used appellant, does not imply that he is registered, but n indicates that he is carrying on a lawful business, so tl conviction was bad. [He referred to Joske v. Lubrano (1). Duffy KC. (with him Mackey and Schutt), for the respon Under the Act of 1898 the only right that persons other | medical practitioners and registered dentists had was to p dentistry, and the effect of sec. 7 of that Act was to prohibit from advertising or otherwise informing the public that | were practising dentistry. By sec. 13 of the Act of 19 same rights were preserved to " recorded " persons that th under the Act of 1898, and the only other right they were was to use the words "Recorded by the Medical Board toria." The prohibition against informing the public that are practising dentistry is removed to the extent only of pe ting them to announce that they are "recorded." There implied repeal of any part of sec. 7 of the Act of 1898 for whole of it can stand consistently with sec. 13 of the Act of 1 Sec. 11 of the Act of 1910 shows that no repeal of sec. 7 intended, for it amends that section as from 15th November The use of the word "dentist" is absolutely prohibited by s of the Act of 1898. That word in itself implies that the pr using it is a registered dentist, so that the information and viction are good as they stand. [He referred to Bellerby v. worth (2); Byrne v. Rogers (3); R. v. Registrar of Joint Companies for Ireland (4). Irvine K.C., in reply. Cur. adv. vult. Grirrita C.J. In this case the appellant was charged wit breach of sec. 7 of the Dentists Act 1898. That section, as ¥ () 4 CLR, 71. (3) (1910) 2 L.R., 220. (2) (1910) A.C., 377. (4) (1904) 2 LR., 634, OF AUSTRALIA. ct prohibitions. The first is that "no person other than a red under the Dentists Act 1887 or under this or the ipal Act shall, nor shall any company . . . take or use r by inference adopt the name title word letters addition or eription, of 'dentist' or 'dental practitioner' or 'dental eon' or 'surgeon dentist.'" That is the first prohibition. The e is that "no person" (with the same exceptions) "shall use have attached to or exhibited at his or its place of business or sidence (either alone or in combination with any other word or ls or letters) the words ' dental- company' or ' dental institute' tal hospital' or 'dental college' or 'college or school of istry ' or 'mechanical dentist' or any name title word letters ion or description implying or tending to the belief that he company is registered under the Dentists Act 1887 or this or the Principal Act or that he or such company is ied to practise dentistry or is carrying on the practice of ntistry or is entitled to or to use such name title word letters dition or description." The charge preferred against the appel- was under the second prohibition in that section, in these , "that he not being a legally qualitied medical practitioner a person registered" and soon,"did . . . . at his place of business . . . . have exhibited a title to wit 'dentist' implying that he was registered" under the Acts. That is, he not charged simpliciter under the first prohibition with ing the title dentist, but with exhibiting a title implying that as registered, and the title "dentist" was brought in under the videlicet. The words that the appellant actually used were "Dentist recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria." The appel- it contends that he was entitled to use those words by virtue of certain provisions of the Dentists Act 1910, to which I will wards refer, and that in that view, even if he was guilty of any offence, it was against the first prohibition of sec. 7, and not the offence of using a title implying that he was registered. I hink that contention is sound, and that the conviction could not e supported without amendment. With an amendment it might Q) 4 CLR, 71. 'Vou. xn. 33 d out in the case of Joske v. Lwhrano (1), contains two H- ©. or A. 1911. — qualified medical practitioner or other than a person griccants Ca JosKE, Griffith C.J. H.C. or A. 1911. =, StTicGantTs 2. JoskE, Griffith C.J. HIGH COURT be supported as a breach of the first prohibition Having re to the provisions of the Act of 1910 I think the words ac! used did not imply that he was registered. But the substan question desired to be determined, and which the Court thou sufficiently important to justify granting special leave to app is whether the word " dentist" may be used at all by perso the position of the appellant. Before referring in detail to the Act of 1910, I should me that by sec. 52 of the Principal Act it was provided that the coming into operation of the Act no person other legally qualified medical practitioner should be entitled to. himself a " dentist," or " dental practitioner," or "dental surge or "any name title addition or description implying that registered under the Dentists Act 1887 or under this Part of this Act or that he is a person specially qualified to practise tistry " unless he was registered under the proper Act. See. provides that a person registered under the provisions for 1 tration of dentists and every legally qualified medical practiti should be entitled to practise dental surgery and dentistry ina part of Victoria, and to sue for the recovery of his fees for s vices in dentistry, but that no other person should be entitled to recover any fee or charge in any Court of law for any services. Before the Act of 1910 the law did not make it unlawful to practise dentistry for fee or reward, but it did not allow an aetio to be brought in a Court of law to recover fees. There however, in the Act of 1898 a provision that no person not b a legally qualified medical practitioner or a registered dentist entitled to use words implying or tending to the belief thal was carrying on the practice of dentistry. So that any person was allowed to carry on the practice of dentistry prov that he did not use any words suggesting that fact. How it done I do not know. Then came the Act of 1910, which provides by sec. 4 that' 1 person who is not registered as a dentist or recorded as after provided shall except as hereinafter provided pi dental surgery or dentistry for fee or reward, or for exp tion of fee or reward." The provisions referred to by OF AUSTRALIA. ns of the age of 21 years who had been practising dental or dentistry in Victoria for at least three years immedi- ; prior to the passing of the Act, and who had proved that the Dental Board within six months, should be entitled to their names recorded by the Board. The second paragraph the section is as follows :—" Thereupon such person shall con- ue to have the same rights and privileges which he possessed ediately before the commencement of this Act so far only as wactice of dental surgery or dentistry is concerned but he not take or use or have attached to or exhibited at his of business or any premises the word 'registered' (either yr in combination with any other words or letters) or any rd or sign implying or tending to the belief that he is red as a dentist other than the words 'Recorded by the joard of Victoria.' " The person so recorded was to have same rights and privileges as he had before, that is to say, he lawfully entitled to carry on the practice of dentistry, but he J not sue for his fees. Before the Act he was not allowed to any words or sign intimating to the public that he was carrying on the practice of dentistry, but under this Act he was entitled to use the words "Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria." Sec. 5 provides that no "person shall practise ntal surgery or dentistry except in his own name." What ms to follow so far is that here is a lawful occupation recog- zed. It is to be carried on in his own name. He is to be titled to intimate to the public—as he was not before—that he carrying on that practice. But he is not entitled to use any rds implying that he is registered except the words " Recorded the Dental Board of Victoria." The learned Chief Justice of toria thought that those were the only words that could be ed—that it might not be suggested for what purpose a person s recorded by the Dental Board. If nothing more was said, might be that he was recorded as a manufacturer of artificial th. On the Act of 1910 the appellant contends, in the first place, at the provisions to which I have referred are inconsistent with the whole of sec. 7 of the Act of 1898 so far as relates to persons "recorded" are contained in sec. 13, which provides that H.C. or A. 1911. ——) Sriccants v. JosKE. Griffith C.J. H, C, or A. i911. a Srigcants w JosKE, Griffith C.J. HIGH COURT recorded under the Act of 1910; and, secondly, he contend at any rate, so far as these persons are concerned, the prohil in sec. 7 which prohibits them from intimating to the public they are carrying on the practice of dentistry are no applicable, and are abrogated. As to the first point, the question whether the whole of s is abrogated, it does seem strange that a man should be aut ized to carry on the practice of dentistry, and still should no allowed to use the word " dentist." But I find the provisi the Act of 1910 too strong to admit of the construction con| for, and in particular the provisions of sec. 11 of the Act of 191 which amend sec. 7 of the Act of 1898. It is true that se does not come into operation until 15th November next, but may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the inten of the legislature. The contention is that there is an i repeal of sec. 7 so far as relates to those persons who are reco1 On 15th November sec. 7 will read, "No person other tl 12 person registered as a dentist shall," and then the section folloy as before. So that from 15th November the legislature hi that no person other than a person registered as a dentist s use the name of "dentist," &. I do not see how that exp prohibition is to be escaped from. So that the appellant technically guilty of an offence against that provision of see.' which was not the offence with which he was substan' charged. But sec. 13 of the Act of 1910 does not say, as learned Chief Justice of Victoria seems to have thought, person recorded may not use any other words than " recorded the Dental Board of Victoria." It says that he shall not use other words "implying or tending to the belief that registered as a dentist." He is entitled by necessary impli to tell people that he is carrying on the business of a den although he is forbidden to use that word, or to tell them he is registered as a dentist. In my opinion, he is entit publish to the world the fact that he is carrying on a lay profession, provided that he does not transgress the posi prohibition that he must not use the forbidden word, or them that he is registered. I think I am justified in say OF AUSTRALIA. zed to carry on the practice of dentistry," or "as author- ria, neither of those expressions would to any person at all ant with the subject imply or tend to the belief that he is ered as a dentist. He is therefore not within the prohibition 13 of the Act of 1910 in using those words, nor of sec. 7 Act of 1898, which to that extent is abrogated by sec. 13. , therefore, that the appellant was technically guilty of an ce, though not the offence charged, but he has practically da substantial amount of relief by this appeal. The al must be formally dismissed. w J. Lalso think that the appellant has in strict tech- by committed an offence which, though it is not in substance hich he was charged in the information, nevertheless cover which the information and conviction could be I do not intend to go over the whole ground of the ites to which his Honor the Chief Justice has referred ciently. For my purpose it is sufficient to draw attention to first branch of sec. 7 of the Act of 1898, which says, cutting words down to those which are material, that no person other person registered shall take or use or by inference adopt name of "dentist." That portion of the section is not accom- by the words "implying or tending to the belief that" person using the name is qualified to practice dentistry. If information had been laid precisely upon that branch of the , and if the legislation had proceeded no further, there plain prohibition of the use of that word "dentist" which is wullified by the fact of its use in the connection in which it ars on the appellant's plate. it then we were referred to the Act of 1910, sec. 4 of which ides that:—[His Honor read the first paragraph of the ion]—with a proviso which does not affect this case. Sec. 13 says that [His Honor read paragraphs (1) and (2) of the ion.] The question has arisen whether secs. 4 and 13 effect plied repeal of sec. 7 of the Act of 1898 or of any part of and, failing the conclusion that they do effect an implied ded by the Dental Board of Victoria" words such as "as H. ©. or A. 1911. — practise dentistry," because, having regard to the law of gqicgants v. JOSKE, Griffith C.J. Sriccants v JosKE, Barton J. - repeal, the question is whether this. legislation makes an ex HIGH COURT from sec. 7 of such a character as to take the offence, ¥ otherwise the appellant would have committed against the fi branch of sec. 7, out of the operation of that section. I do 1 think that that is so. It is quite clear that there is no im repeal. And having regard to its scope and purpose I do not think that the provisions of sec. 4, which relates entirely to practice of dentistry or dental surgery for fee or reward, h the effect of making an exception, so far as taking or usi g the name or title of " dentist" is concerned, to the provisions of sec. The matter is carried no further by sec. 18 of the Act of But there is in sec. 11 (4) a provision that [His Honor read ¢ sub-section and continued]. That provision, although it does n come into operation until 15th November next, shows the i tion of Parliament to maintain sec. 7, except so far as th amendment might extend. After the amendment the appell was as much within the prohibition as he was before it. I find that the appellant has technically come within the by taking the name or title of "dentist." He has offended agai that prohibition of see. 7, but it does seem absurd that where | has used in addition to the word "dentist" the words " Recorde by the Dental Board of Victoria," which addition shows that! was only promulgating his right to practise dentistry by re: of his being recorded, nevertheless he should be fined. But whe you find a prohibition like that in sec. 7 in express terms witho any qualification, it is the duty of the Courts to bow to the w of Parliament, and therefore it is our duty to hold that appellant falls within the prohibition. It is true, as has pointed out, that sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 1910 says that a pel recorded shall not take or use the word "registered" "or other word or sign implying or tending to the belief that registered as a dentist, other than the words ' Recorded by t Dental Board of Victoria'." But it is quite clear that that OF AUSTRALIA. ke w which prevents his using terms to amplify the meaning of H- e words " Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria." He is is registered as a dentist. If the words that he adds do not mply that he is registered as a dentist, he is,in my opinion, titled to use them. Although by the technical provision of sec. ment of the conviction to pay a fine, there are means open to him and others, who by the express provisions of the law are entitled to practise dentistry, of saying to people or showing on their door plates that although they are not registered, they are entitled to practise dentistry. I agree, although with reluctance, 'that the appeal should be dismissed. O'Connor J. The information and conviction as they stand at present do not bring out the real matter in controversy between the parties, and I agree that the Court on this appeal should consider them in a form so amended as to raise the real question which the parties came here to have decided. I take it that the al question in issue is whether a person who comes within the class described by sec. 13 of the Act of 1910 is entitled to use the word "dentist" in connection with the words " Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria,' which he is authorized to use by sec. 13. This is one of those cases in which it is impossible to arrive _ at the meaning of the latest Act in this series of Acts without considering what the policy of the whole body of legislation x regarding dentists has been. The scheme by which the legisla- ture has dealt with the question is perfectly clear from the three Acts brought before us. The first step was that given effect to by all the Acts before 1910, and it was to regulate the profession _ of dentistry by providing for the registration of persons properly qualified to practise, and to protect the public against attempts to impose upon it by persons not registered or not qualified, by prohibiting anything like the assumption of titles, or the repre- sentation of titles, which implied or tended to induce the public to believe that practising dentists not registered were registered, C.or A. 1911. = t prohibited from using any other words but those, but he is srccawrs v, JosKE. Barton J. SriceanTs v JoskE, O'Connor J. HIGH COURT S and not registered the position was this—they were allowed continue to practise but they could not obtain the assistance the Courts to recover their fees, and they were prohibited, other unregistered persons were prohibited, from using the wor¢ "dentist," or "dental practitioner,' or "dental surgeon," "surgeon dentist" as an addition or title. That prohibition w absolute. They were also prohibited from using any wi implying that they were registered under any of the Dent Acts. But in the Act of 1910 the further step was taken of prohi ing the practice of dentistry by any persons except t registered. It is evident, however, that in carrying out policy there would be a hardship to the public and to a number of practitioners, and, therefore, in order to alleviate hardship as much as possible, sec. 13 was passed. That sectio picks out from the class of persons practising dentistry all tl over 21 years of age who had been practising dentistry for : least three years before the commencement of the Act and were unregistered—persons who up to that time, although allo to carry on the practice of dentistry, had no recognition | Statute. With regard to that class the legislature enacted sec. ' Now, it is clear that before the Act of 1910 any member < that class would have been liable to prosecution for using th word "dentist" in an advertisement or on his plate, no mati what words were used in connection with it, because the prohi tion of the use of the word "dentist" is absolute. The questio really raised by Mr. Irvine is this:—Whether sec. 13 has dl regard to that class of persons impliedly repealed the prohibitio of sec. 7 of the Act of 1898. It becomes, therefore, necessary examine the provisions of sec. 13. It seems to me that, unless the appellant can show that sec. of the Act of 1898, in so far as the class of persons I have m tioned is concerned, has been repealed, the conviction must stan When I look at sec. 18 I find that all it does is to permit men bers of that class to practise dentistry—to continue to them same rights and privileges as they had before the Act was p so far only as the practice of dental surgery or dentistry is cor OF AUSTRALIA. yr have attached to or exhibited at his place of business or y premises the word 'registered' . . . or any other word or implying or tending to the belief that he is registered as a atist other than the words 'Recorded by the Dental Board of ria.' " Now, it will be observed that in sec. 7 of the Act of two matters are dealt with separately. The first is using name of "dentist," &c., which is prohibited absolutely, and she other is using any word implying registration. It is with - this latter condition of things that sec. 13 deals, and with regard at it renews the prohibition against using any word which iplies registration except the words "Recorded by the Dental Board of Victoria." But sec. 13 makes no mention whatever of earlier prohibition. Under such circumstances the question uurt always has to consider is this:—When you have a negative prohibition—a direct prohibition—against the use of in words, and an affirmative Statute is enacted permitting she use of certain other words, can they stand together? If they the Court will not imply a repeal. Here the question must asked is there anything in sec. 13 inconsistent with the pro- ition in sec.7? It seems to me there is only one answer— re is nothing inconsistent with the two sections standing as ey are. That is to say, there is nothing inconsistent in pro- ing to the class of persons I have mentioned the use of the ds "dentist," &., in any combination of words and at the me time allowing them to publish to the world and to put on heir door-plates the statement of fact that they are recorded by he Dental Board of Victoria. I entirely concur in the observa- s of the learned Chk Justice that the Act of 1910 necessarily implies that there isa right to state in some form or other what it is that the Dental Board records them as being permitted to _ do, and I quite agree that some such form of words as he refers _to may be used—such as the words as "as authorized to practise lentistry," or "as authorized to carry on the practice of dentistry," may very well be used with the words "Recorded by the Dental 'oard of Victoria" in order to give practical effect to the privi- lege which undoubtedly sec. 13 intended to confer upon this particular class of persons. I therefore agree that sec. 13 does erned. Then follows this prohibition :—" He shall not take or H.C. or A. 1911. —e SriaeanTs v JosKE. O'Connor J. 562 HIGH COURT H.C.or A. not take away the prohibition against the use of. 1911. « dentist," and that the appellant has been guilty of th cyawng Which it is to be taken under the amendment has been Sriccants Nae Jove, 2gainst him. I think the appeal must be dismissed. cent 3 Appeal dismissed. Solicitors, for the appellant, Rogers & Rogers. foie eninow Solicitor, for the respondent, Joske. eta (le. ig, Ohm Refd to Epic rte Mildines B ad [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] THOMSON . : : : . ecm VAT. DEFENDANT, AND McINNES . 4 a e is i . REspPonl PLAINTIFF, : ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA. H.C. or A, Contract—Sale of land—Memorandum in writing—Signature of party tobe 6 1911. —Personal act—Contract contained in several documents—Reference fro eee document to another—Instruments Act 1890 ( Vict.) (No. 1108), secs. 208, AGES, Sec. 208 of the Instruments Act 1890 (Vict.) is a transcript of sec. 4 of June 19, 20, 21. Statute of Frauds (29 Car. IL. c. 3), and sec. 209 provides that standing anything in this Act contained no action shall be brought Semin OT contract or sale of lands tenements or hereditaments or any interest i O'Connor JJ. cerning them if the agreement or the memorandum or note thereof such action shall be brought be signed by any person other than the p be charged therewith unless such person so signing be herennto authorized in writing signed by the party to be so charg 4