The act of 1706, Ch. 8, which has been mentioned in the note to 1 James 1, Ch. 11 declared, that
the act of parliament, 1 W. and M. Ch. 18, commonly called the toleration act, should be in force in
the province.  One part of the message spoken of in that note, related to the person suffering a quaker
conventicle to be kept in his house, the answer to which, referred to the act concerning religion.
That act passed in 1702, and in the 21st section, provided that the dissenters, called quakers, should
have the benefit of the statute 7 and 8 W. 3, Ch. 34, entitled, " An act, that the solemn affirmation and
declaration of the people called quakers, should be accepted, instead of an oath in the usual form,"
and also that the protestant subjects should have the benefit of the toleration act; so that it is not
easy to perceive why it was again declared in force in 1706, unless it was for the purpose of introducing
the several penal acts of parliament, mentioned in the said toleration act, which was also
done by the act of 1706.  These penal acts were 23 Eliz. Ch. 1; 29 Eliz. Ch. 6; a branch of the
statute 1 Eliz. Ch. 2; 3 James 1, Ch. 4, and 3 James 1, Ch. 5.  The toleration act mentioned likewise,
" the several laws made against papists and popish recusants, and also the statutes, 25 Car. 2,
Ch. 2; 30 Car. 2; 13 Eliza. Ch. 12; 17 Car. 2, Ch. 2; 22 Car. 2, Ch. 1; 13 and 14 Car. 2, Ch. 4; 5
Eliz. Ch. 1; 13 and 14 Car. 2, Ch. 1, and 35 Eliz. Ch. 1."  This statute (as well as the others) was
of course, declared in force in the province, subject only to the exceptions and qualifications contained
in the toleration act; but there is no instance found of any prosecution under them.  We have
now no occasion for such statutes.  See the note on 11 and 12 W. 3, Ch. 4.

    See the note above.
 

    This statute is mentioned in the letter from S. Chase, which has been referred to, and therefore
may be presumed to have been un use, but it does not appear to have been entirely consistent with
the habits of the people, or the laws of the province on the same subject.  The statute related to
tradesmen or handicraft men keeping shop books, and declared that they should not be allowed to
give them in evidence, in actions for wares to be delivered, or work to be done above one year
before the action brought, and there was a proviso that it should not extend to any intercourse of
traffic, &c.  In the case of Pitman, against Maddox, (2 Salheld 690,) lord Holt stated, that though the
statute said, a shop book should not be evidence after the year, it was not of itself evidence within
the year; and Espunasse who cites this case, states that if the person is living, who delivered the
goods, he must be produced.  The act of assembly, providing what should be good evidence to prove
foreign and other debts, &c. under which accounts were generally proved, was passed in 1729,
(Ch. 20,) and it repealed an act with the same title, which had passed in 1715, (Ch. 29.)  There had
been an act to prove foreign debts in 1692, and an act to prove foreign and other debts in 1704.
The act of 1729 was repealed (subject to the provisos mentioned) by 1785, Ch. 46, directing what
should be good evidence to prove foreign and other debts; so that this statute, supposing it to have
been in force in the province, would not be proper to be incorporated, &c.