Quit of amercements. It originally signified a forfeiture or amercement, and is more properly mishering,
mishersing, or miskering, according to Spelman. It has since been termed a liberty of freedom, because, wherever this word is used in a grant, the persons to whom the grant is made have the forf•itures and amercements of all others, and are themselves free from the control of any within their fee. Termes de la Ley, 7.

When the word is used instatutes, it is usually construed as referring to pecuniary ability, as in the construction of Tenterden’s Act (q. v.) ; 1 M. & W. 101.

Contemplates earning capacity as well as property actually owned, to support abandoned wife; State v. Witham, 70 Wis. 473, 35 N.W. 934, Contra, Washburn v. Washburn, 9 Cal. 475.

The ability to buy, required in a purchaser as a condition to the broker’s right to a commission, is the financial 18 ability to meet the required terms of the sale, and does not mean solvency or ability to respond in damages for a breach of the contract. Stewart v. Sisk, 29 Ga.App. 17, 114 S.E. 71. See Able to Purchase.

A voter’s “ability to read” within meaning of election statutes is satisfied if he can read in a reasonably intelligent manner sentences composed of words in common use and of average difficulty, although each word may not be always accurately pronounced, and “ability to write” is satisfied if he can by use of alphabetical signs express in a fairly legible way words of common use and average difficulty, though each word may not be accurately spelled. Williams v. Hays, 175 Ky. 170, 193 S.W. 1046, 1047. But the mere ability to write one’s name and post office address, and nothing more, is insufficient. Murrel v. Allen, 180 Ky. 604, 203 S.W. 313, 314

Lat. (P1., abigei, or more rarely abigeatores.) In the civil law. A stealer of cattle; one who drove or drew away (subtraxit) cattle from their pastures, as horses or oxen from the herds, and made booty of them, and who followed this as a business or trade.

The term was applied also to those who drove away the smaller animals, as swine, sheep, and goats. In the latter case, it depended on the number taken, whether the offender was fur (a common thief) or abigeus. But the taking of a single horse or ox seems to have constituted the crime of abigeatus. And those who frequently did this were clearly abigei, though they took but an animal or two at a time. Dig. 47, 14, 3, 2. See Cod. 9, 37; Nov. 22, c. 15, § 1; 4 Bl.Comm. 239.