Juratores super Sacramentum suum praesentant not dicunt there being as much difference between praesentant and dicunt as betwixt a known truth and the report and fame of a fact done And this will the better appear if it be well observed what Grand Jurors write or Indorse upon the back of those Bills they find for though they Indorse such Bills Billa vera yet they never Indorse upon those Bills they do not find Billa falsa as if one were true and the other false for should they do so it would be like an Accusation against the Prosecutor that prefers the Bill and a great discouragement to the Kings Evidence but they modestly write Ignoramus which signifies to the Court they are ignorant of the matter in the Bill and that they find no cause either from what they have heard from the Witnesses or know of their own knowledge to commend it to a farther Enquiry the Verb Ignoro coming from Ignarus not to know to be ignorant And this doth further evince that the Grand Jurors Presentment cannot properly be called a Verdict because a Verdict doth in Law either convict or acquit which neither their Billa vera nor Ignoramus doth the first is always put to a farther enquiry the last is no acquittal to the party for although there be many Ignoramus's against any person yet may more Bills be preferred against the same person for the same offence for it may be they did not find the Bill in regard some Witnesses were absent or corrupted or the matter in the Bill mistaken happily it may be no Felony but something done in jest or in the nature of a Trespass or a Natural death instead of a Murther or the Witnesses of no Credit or the like But if there be any thing of Truth in the Bill proved to them to make a Crime although not so fully as is laid in the Bill they must not in such case write Ignoramus as if they knew nothing of a Crime as if it be a Murther in the Bill and the Proof reacheth but to an Infortunium or se defendendo or to any degree of unlawful killing they must not write Ignoramus upon the Bill or if Burglary and the Proof makes it but a single Felony and no Burglary they must not Indorse it Ignoramus but in all such cases where they are in any doubt the best way for them will be to advise with the Learned Judge to move the Court for directions therein It is too great a Scandal to a Grand Jury Persons in that quality highly to be esteemed to say that their Ignoramus that is their Ignorance is their Verdict It is very safe for Grand Jurors before they find an Ignoramus to examine every Witness produced but if they have many Witnesses in Murder or Felony if any one Witness induce a strong and pregnant Presumption it is enough without perplexing themselves in hast of business they need not examine any more but put Billa vera unto it If a Grand Jury find upon an Indictment of Murther that A. killed B. what is it to them as hath been said before whether it be Murther or Manslaughter whether it were done Ex malitia praecogitata per Infortunium se defendendo in loco tempore belli or otherwise this is Special matter and Special matter ought to be found when it is at Issue by another Jury and must arise I mean the truth of it super totam materiam of the Evidence or proof on both sides which can never be found and determined by a Grand Jury that hear but one side for very seldom is matter of Fact truly stated in a matter of difficulty by one side and therefore as before is said the Statute of Gloucester provides that every Man-slaughter per Infortunium or se defendendo shall be found per Patriam after the Prisoner hath joyned Issue with the King and put himself de bono malo of good or evil that is either for his Acquittal or Conviction super Patriam to be tried by his Country And the Jurors of Life and Death themselves are not tied as not strictly to the form of an Indictment so not to the whole matter of it not to the form as it was well urged by Sergeant Montague Reader at the Arraignment of the Earl of Somerset for Murther by poysoning of Sr. Thomas Overbury in the Tower who told the Jury That they must not expect visible Proofs in a work of darkness that many things were laid in an Indictment only for form that they must not look that the proof should follow that but only that which is substantial and the substance in that Case must be this Whether my Lord of Somerset procured or caused the poysoning of Sr. Thomas Overbury or not The Lord Coke then Chief Justice and other Judges present at the Trial stood up and said The Law is clear in this point that the Proofs must follow the Substance not the Form that the Law gives forms in Indictments but substance in proofs And yet this was spoken to a Jury of Life and Death who are more carefully to look into Circumstances and Forms because their error is incurable if they Convict a man to lose his life wrongfully than Grand Jurors are And I cannot but further observe in this Case of Sr. Thomas Overbury that which I would have all Grand Jurors and Jurors of Life and Death observe as an Instance to guide them in other Cases of like nature that although it was laid in the Indictment That the ninth of May Anno 11 Jac. Regis Richard Weston who was procured by the Earl of Somerset gave to the said Sr. Thomas Overbury a poyson of green and yellow colour called Rosacre in Broth and the first of June Anno 11 Jac. Regis supradict gave him another poyson called white Arsenick and that the tenth of June Anno 11. supradict gave to him a poyson called Mercury sublimate in Tarts and the fourteenth day of September Anno 11. supradict gave him a Glister mixt with poyson called Mercury sublimate Vt praedict Thomam Overbury magis celeriter interficeret murdraret Et praedictus Thomas Overbury de separalibus venenis praedictis operationibus inde a praedictis separalibus temporibus c. graviter languebat usque ad 15. diem Decembris Anno 11. supradict quo die dict Thomas de praedict separalibus venenis obiit venenatus c. And albeit it did not appear or could appear of which of the said poysons he died yet it was Resolved by all the Judges of the Kings Bench that the Indictment was good for the substance of the Indictment was whether he was poysoned or not and it appeared that Weston within that time aforesaid had given unto Sr. Thomas Overbury divers other poysons as namely the powder of Diamonds Cantharides Lapis Causticus and powder of Spiders and Aquafortis in a Glyster And it was resolved by all the said Judges that albeit all
the said poysons were not contained in the Indictment yet the Evidence of giving them was sufficient to maintain the Indictment for the substance of the Indictment was as before is said Whether he were poysoned or not And when the cause of the Murther is laid in the Indictment to be poyson no Evidence can be given of another cause because they be distinct and other causes So if the Murther be laid by one kind of Weapon as by a Sword Dagger Stilletto Stick Tobacco-pipe Knife Sheers or other like Weapon it makes no difference the Evidence will be sufficient if the party be slain by any of these because they are all under one Classis or cause And afterwards Anne Turner Sr. Gervase Elwys and Richard Francklyn a Physician Purveyor of the Poysons were Indicted as Accessaries before the fact done And it was Resolved by all the said Judges that either the proofs of the poyson contained in the Indictment or of any other poyson although it were out of the Indictment were sufficient to prove them Accessaries for the substance of the Indictment against them as Accessaries was Whether they did procure Weston to poyson Sr. Thomas Overbury or no So that it may be observed here what in the Case above was observed by the Lo. Coke that Jurors were not to expect a direct and precise Proof in every point laid in the Indictment shewing how impossible it were to Convict a Poysoner who useth not to take any Witnesses to the composing of his slibber-sawces neither do other Murtherers to the contriving of their malice and manner of killing another but keep the fire burning in their own bosoms until it break out Nor in all Cases of Murther is it material that express Malice be proved to the Jury of Life and Death though they be to Convict the Prisoner much less or not at all is it material to prove it to the Grand Jury who are but to present it not to the Jury of Life and death in any case where the Law only implies it for such proof is in the Judgment of the Court and not in the Jury which the Jury must submit unto and be over-ruled in much less is this implied Malice to be proved to the Grand Jury for it lies not in the proof of Witnesses but in the construction of the Law as is said before and yet the Grand Jury must find those words Ex malitia praecogitata c. as if they were proved expresly unto them by Witnesses or otherwise the Jurors of Life and Death cannot enquire of the offence as Murther And the Jury of Life and Death in such a Case must find those words expresly although they cannot be proved unto them but are only implied and supplied by Law or else the party accused can never be Convicted of Murther as might be instanced in very many cases take some for all viz. One in prison kills his Keeper and makes an escape where no malice or falling out can be proved a stranger or other person kills a Watchman Constable or other Officer that hath good warrant to stay him though happily there be no cause for his stay being an Innocent person or another person and not the same they intended here 's no Malice yet this is Murther ex malitia praecogitata c. One goes into the Street or High-way and kills the first man he meets although he did never see him before The Father or Mother takes their sucking Child and dasheth out the Brains of it against the wall Two persons are fighting a Duel together upon cool blood upon premeditate malice and a third person comes to part them and is killed by one of them this is Murther ex malitia praecogitata in him that killed him if not in both although neither of them ever saw him before and yet no malice to this man One wilfully kicks or wounds a Woman great with Child whereby the Child is wounded in her she is afterwards safely delivered of the Child the Child alive the wound or bruise by the kick or blow appearing upon the Child mortally whereof afterwards it dies this is Murther ex malit praecog and yet what malice had this man to the Child he never did see Divers persons are unlawfully hunting in a Park one of them kills the Keeper after the Keeper had duly according to his Office admonished him to stand all the rest of the Company although a mile off in the said Park and out of sight are guilty of wilful Murther of the Keeper and yet nothing of malice can be expresly proved One is shooting at a Cock or a Hen and kills another person this is Murther his act was unlawful One finding a Gun or Pistol charged lying upon a Table or other place takes it up into his hands draws up the Cock not thinking it to be charged and in a jesting way gives fire at one in the Room the Gun goes off and kills him this is Murther he had nothing to do to meddle with the Gun it was out of his Calling and none of his he must Jest at his peril A Drunken-man gets upon a Horse which a sober person might ride quietly and in a Fair or Market occasions the Horse to run over another person and kills him this is Murther A gives B the lie with many other provoking words as Coward Thief Murtherer whereupon B strikes A and kills him this is Murther ex malitia c. words are not a sufficient provocation for one man to kill another If one killeth another without any provocation actual of the part of him that is slain this is Murther the Law implieth Malice If a man knowing that many People are coming along the Street from a Sermon throw a Stone over a wall or house intending only thereby to fear them and thereupon one is killed with the Stone this is Murther although he knew not the party slain If A assault B to rob him and in resisting A killeth B this is Murther by malice implied although he never knew him If one meaning to steal a Deer in a Park shooteth at the Deer and by glance of the Arrow killeth a Boy that is hidden in a Bush this is Murther the Act being unlawful though here was no intent to hurt the Boy knowing nothing of his being there If a Woman being quick with Child do wilfully with a potion or otherwise intend the destruction of the Child in her womb the Child being born alive dieth of the potion battery or other cause this is Murther If one keep a Mastiff-dog that is used to bite people near the Common Highway or a Bull or Beast that hath hurt any one after notice they kill any one it will be Murther in the Owner although not present when the fact was done and yet in this and the other precedent Cases here is no express Malice to be proved but what the Law construes to be so which can in no
a Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui progredi possit praegredi debet he that will go on in vertue certainly ought principally to be chosen to attend the Courts of Justice It is called Justitia quasi juris statio vel status quod per Justitiam jus stat i. exercetur It is called Justice because it is the Standard of Right misera servitus ubi Jus vagum Justice being one of the Cardinal vertues ought to be attended by none but the virtuoso the most vertuous pious and ingenuous persons probi signifying not only faithful but skilful none can be presumed to be faithful in keeping an Oath that wants skill to know how to perform his duty What expectation can there be of a good Verdict from a bad or ignorant man Can he that is not capable to understand a Cause ever make a right Judgment of it Will a Liar present a truth a Thief convict his fellow thief a Man of blood a Murtherer or Who can expect Justice from him who neither to his God nor to himself is just or true He that believes Judges are quasi Dei Gods as the Scripture calls them or that God sits amongst and is present with Judges in Judgment as in the Scripture sense it is truth and ought to be believed cannot but apprehend how unreasonable it is to bring such a Jury before such a presence to act in a concernment of so high a nature as the life of a Man whose verdict ought to be veredictum a true saying quoddam Evangelium as the Gospel they swear upon dictum veritatis the saying of Truth it self especially as it is the verdict of the Jury of life and death who have the advantage of hearing not only the Accuser and his Witnesses but also the party accused and his Witnesses face to face They are called although a Petty Jury yet a Jury of life and death which the Grand Jury are not although they enquire of the same offence from the great power in their hands to acquit or condemn the life of a man according to their evidence Upon whose verdict the Judge according to Law grounds the Judgment of life or death of acquittal or condemnation and as a Jury may give a just verdict as to themselves upon a false Testimony given to them so may the Judge as to himself give a just Judgment upon a false verdict given by the Jury For as the Jurors are excusable that give their verdict secundum allegata probata per sacrum Testimonium by what is alledged and proved to them by the Oaths of Witnesses or confession of the party even so that Judge is excusable in foro Conscientiae that gives Judgment upon a verdict though false for he doth not therein Jus dare but Jus dicere secundum veredict Jur. upon the verdict of the Perit Jury and presentment of a Grand Jury and this is fully verified in two remarkable Cases noted in the Margent a sufficient caution to all Judges not to try any for Murther where they have not an infallible evidence of the death of the party slain And as every Juror ought to be probus homo an honest and a skilful man so ought every one to be legalis homo a person so qualified that the Law allows of for a man may be an honest prudent and just man and yet in the eye of the Law not a lawful Jury-man for in one sense he is not legalis homo that is not ligeus subditus Dom. Regis Angliae for the Law provides that the Kings Liege people shall be tried per pares by their equals their fellow Subjects In a proper sense he is said in Law not to be legalis homo that is homo utlagatus an outlawed person one that is extra legem positus who is no better than one that is extraneus an alien a stranger one not only put out of the protection of the Law but such a one as the Law will have nothing to do with as he so stands in Courts of Justice to serve as a Juror nay such a person being a Juror will make the verdict void and it is a good exception in arrest of Judgment that any of the Jurors were outlawed But in a larger sense he is not legalis homo such a legal and indifferent person as the Law requires who is either in such a degree of blood to the prisoner as the Law presumes him partial or in such an evil reputation as the Law presumes him unjust for as it is not fit for a Father to be of a Jury to try his Son or the Son the Father Brothers Uncles or near Relations to try one another so it is not fit that he that is particeps criminis or indeed criminalis homo a man that stands judicially accused indicted convicted or attainted for Felony to try another for Felony or indeed to be a grand Juror to present it the Law provides that each Juror ought to be a person rectus in Curia that stands right in Court above and against all natural rational and legal exceptions Qui accusat integrae famae sit non criminosus for certainly to clear the matter of fact as a Juror of life and death and wisely to discern the Cause in question upon a doubtful and perplext Evidence many times requires as great ability in the Jurors of life and death as in the Judge to examine the cause and to give Judgment upon the Verdict there being much more of Black-art used to darken and obscure the truth of the fact in cases of Bloud amongst the Jurors especially if either a great Person or rich be concerned therein than possibly can be to prevent or prevaricate a right Judgment in the Judge or by any dust of gold power or favour to put out his eyes or falsifie his clear sight who sits every way above such a temptation The Jurors of England especially in the Circuits with their unequal yoke-fellows the Tales-men are for the most part the very scandal of the Laws practical of England who seldom serve but to serve a turn to obey a Superiour pleasure a Friend or to help away in a hurry a quick dispatch of practice This fault is not in the Laws of England but the male execution of them The Statute of the 27 Eliz. c. 6. provides that each Juror should have at least four pounds per annum in Lands Tenements or Rents and this must be their sufficiency where the debt or damages or both together amount to forty marks The general course of the world being to esteem men according to their Estates Quantum quisque sua nummorum servat in arca tantum habet fidei Jurors that have Estates to lose will be afraid to commit perjury The best things abused alwaies prove the worst the sweetest Wine makes the sharpest Vinegar not that the fault is in the Wine but in the use and
upon the Country de bono malo the very words of the Act and that is upon a Jury of Life and Death and this he cannot do except the Grand Jury find the Bill of Indictment Murther or Manslaughter let the matter of fact be what it will for if the Grand Jury shall but find the truth of the fact as it appears in evidence to them or from their own knowledge which is that which they now so much stand upon that is the very special matter that makes it Manslaughter by misfortune or se defendendo the party can never come to be Arraigned upon such an Indictment for that is not Felony and if he shall be charged with it the Grand Jury having only found the special matter in the Indictment or Inquisition the party must either plead guilty or not guilty either confess and justifie the Fact or deny it if he confess he cannot Justifie it for mens lives are so precious in the eye of the Law that the death of a man cannot be Justified except in course of Justice in a lawful War or in a just defence of a mans life and property against such as would rob or designedly murther him The Defendant in Appeal cannot Justifie the death of a man at his own suit se defendendo but must plead not guilty Nay a Verdict of the Jury of Life and Death that A killed B se defendendo or per Infortunium is no good Verdict the special matter must be set down in writing by them that the Court may judge the killing to be upon inevitable necessity neither Grand Jury that hears but one side nor Jury of Life and Death that hear both sides are Judges in this case For upon the special matter found by the Jury of Life and Death if the Court shall not adjudge that special matter good in Law to acquit him of Murther or Manslaughter it may be either murther or manslaughter in him and the party may be hanged notwithstanding such Verdict of the Jury of Life and Death how can the Court be judge of the matter in Law when they hear not the matter in fact from the Witnesses on both sides and the Parties defence for himself which they can never do if the Grand Jury shall take upon them as they presume they may to find the Special matter themselves whereby the Party cannot be Arraigned that so he may put himself de bono malo super patriam as the Statute of Gloucester before-mentioned especially requires If the Party charged with such an Indictment from the Grand Jury where they will find only the Special matter shall confess it when he is charged with it as sure he may then the Evidence can never be heard in Court whereby the Judge may determine the point in Law whether the offence upon the whole matter be Murther or Manslaughter or as they find it and that is meer matter of Law whether super totam materiam of the Evidence and that must be Evidence on both sides it be murther Manslaughter in general Manslaughter upon the Statute per Infortunium se defendendo justifiable as against a Thief or in loco tempore belli and how exceeding dangerous and inconvenient were it for Grand Jurors so far to anticipate the Judgment of the Court and to take upon themselves upon the hearing only of Witnesses on one side and perhaps not all of them neither the sole Judgment of Law in all these Cases by not finding the Indictment which is but the Kings Declaration for the loss of his Subject in the same manner as it is advised by the Kings Council Ingrossed sworn in Court and delivered to them especially for that is alwaies intended where they have probable Evidence for they need no more to prove such a person killed by the hands of such a person such a day year and place Nay by the Statute of Gloucester they must either find the Indictment in such a case Murther for all Indictments about the killing of a man were so before that Statute and no Law since to alter it or the party can never have a Certiorari out of Chancery for his Pardon of Course whereby he may be discharged out of Prison for by the strictness of Law he ought to remain in Prison without Bail until his pardon be procured which Pardon saves not his Goods or personal Estate but only pardons his Offence his violation of the King's Peace which is violated in the loss of a Subject according to the Statute of Gloucester and procures his liberty and discharge out of Prison The words contained in the Writ of Certiorari out of Chancery in order to the obtaining of a Pardon of Grace and removing the Record into Chancery that there the King may see by the Record the truth and nature of the offence according to the Statute of Gloucester being well observed make it very plain that the Special matter of Fact must be found by the second Jury the Jury of Life and Death and which is so suggested in Chancery before the Issuing forth of such Writ as by the Writ more fully appears viz. Quia ut accepimus quòd A. B. indictatus per Inquisitionem patriae compert extitisset quod idem A interfecit praedict C. se def non per feloniam aut malitiam praecogitat unde dictus A. Gaol nostr praedict remiss est ad gratiam nostram iude expectand nos ea de causa super tenor Record process Inquisitionis praed Certiorari volentes vobis mandamus quod si ita est tunc tenor Record pro process praedict cum omnibus ea tangent in Cancell nostram sub sigillis vestris distincte aperte mittatis Observe how this ancient Writ complies with and explains the Statute of Glouc. in this case here is in it Indictatus that is by the Grand Jury and per Inquisitionem patriae compert exâ—itisset that is the Jury of Life and Death for that is the only Trial in our Law by the Country per Patriam and whoever is tried by that Jury posuit se de bono malo super patriam which must be for Felony and Murther the very words of the Statute for this Jury is to find in their Writ that it was se defendendo non per felon aut malitiam praecogitat as it is in the Verdict and observe by the Writ he is not to be discharged out of Gaol before his pardon of Course procured for it is in the Writ Gaol nostrae praed remiss est it seems he was there before ad gratiam nostr inde expectand c. and further observe the Mandamus in this Writ si ita est if it be so that the Offence hath received such a trial by two Juries then Certifie the Record otherwise not and what Judge that doth not truly understand this si ita est which he can never truly do from a Grand Jury will Certifie such a
was found before by the Grand Jury and that makes too specially Verdicts or else generally Not guilty if they find him guilty of the Special matter as the Grand Jury found before them and the Judge and Court shall afterwards adjudge as they may having heard the Evidence that super totam materiam it is either Murther or Manslaughter then no Judgment of Death or Clergy can be given upon that Indictment or Verdict but all must be tried over again and a new Circuit of business upon a second Indictment of Murther or Manslaughter and how dilatory and idle would this be at an Assizes in course of Justice and in case of Blood If Judge Stamford were alive again although a person of great Learning and Judgment he would surely with some other Errors in that book recant this neither is it of any advantage to the Prisoner to have it found Specially by the Grand Jury for he can never plead either such an Acquittal or Conviction in Bar to an Indictment of Murther or Manslaughter in the same case as before is shewed and whoever shall read and well consider this seventh Chapter written by Judge Stamford in The Pleas of the Crown wherein this Opinion is especially towards the end of it when he comes to observe the Letter of the Statute of Gloucester and how the Certificate of such a Pardon of course shall be obtained must of necessity hold his first Opinion in that Chapter for the Special matter to be found in the Indictment to be very inconsiderately expressed for the reasons aforesaid And why may not this Learned Judge for humanum est Errare mistake in this as in some other Opinions in that Book of his styled The Pleas of the Crown for which he is detected by the Lo. Coke and others that followed him who standing upon his shoulders must needs see farther than he did or could As to instance in some few As first that Respit of Execution where a Woman is priviment enfent where a Woman after Judgment pleads her Belly shall be granted only says he in Felony whereas it is grantable both in high Treason and petit Treason A second is That the year and the day after the Murther and Homicide committed shall be accounted after the blow given or poyson administred whereas it ought to be accounted after the death for then the party was murthered and not after the stroke or poyson given Coke lib. 4. fol. 41 42. in Heydon's Case A third observed by the Lord Coke writing upon the Statute 8 H. 6. c. 12. which makes it Felony to steal away Records upon these words in the said Statute Their Procurers Counsellors and Abettors saith this Act expresly extendeth to Accessaries before and leaveth Accessaries after to the construction of Law yet there may be Accessaries after the Fact for whensoever an offence is made a Felony by Act of Parliament there shall be Accessaries to it both before and after as if it had been a Felony by the Common Law And therefore though this Act expresseth only Accessaries before yet it taketh not away Accessaries after but leaveth them to the Law contrary to the Opinion of Mr. Justice Stamford And again by the Statute of the 8 H. 6. c. 29. Insufficiency or want of Freehold is no cause of Challenge to Aliens who are Impanelled with Aliens notwithstanding Mr. Justice Stamford's Opinion Pl. Coron 160. for this Statute saith That the Statute 2 H. 5. c. 3. shall extend only to Enquests betwixt Denizen and Denizen But enough and perhaps too much hath been said in mentioning the mistakes of that Reverend and Learned Judge Sr. William Stamford in that Book of his termed Placita Coronae Pleas of the Crown which it seems by the Title of it hath been corrected amended and enlarged since the first Impression of it which I have not urged in the least to detract from the Learning and Honour of that great and learned Judge or from the value of that Book which notwithstanding there may be a few mistakes found in it yet is of as high esteem as any Book of the Law extant upon that Subject but principally to shew that he may as well erre in his Opinion concerning Grand Jurors finding the Special matter as in those mentioned and that no human Author in the Law or any other Science is infallible and that we must be very careful how we ground any Law upon the bare Opinion of any one or two persons though of never so great parts or esteem whereby to justifie or maintain a great Inconvenience in practice especially in Cases of Blood as before hath been shewn FINIS Duellum quasi duorum bellum Done without Authority is a war against Authority That which the Victor thinks to be his honour proves his dishonour His Life his Lands and Goods are by Law forfeited and his Blood corrupted Infoelix pugna ubi majus periculum incumbit victori quam victo †The Oath of a Grand Juror Stamf. fol. 36. 27. lib. Ass Murdrum de caetero non adjudicetur coram Justiciar ubi infortunium tantummodo adjudicatum est sed locum habeat Murdrum de interfectis per feloniam tantum non aliter Statut. de Marlebridge 52 H. 3. c. 26. * Utramque partem ni audias ne judices Qui judicat aliquid parte inaudita altera licet aequum judicaret haud aequus est Yet Grand Jurors take themselves to be Judges of the Fact * If he have Council he must pray it before he plead Not guilty he cannot after 3. Inst fol. 129. †And that is one reason why regularly he cannot have Council The second reason is the Court ought to see the Indictment Trial and other proceedings good in Law lest by an erroneous Judgment they attaint the Prisoner 3. Inst. 137. fol. 29. Secta pacis is by Indictment which is the King's Suit and as it were his Declaration The King formerly did not pardon homicidium but Sectam pacis nostrae quae ad nos pertinet de homicidiis 3. Inst fol. 235. a 25 E. 3. 4. 5 E. 3. 9. 42 E. 3. 3. Vit. Abbot St. Alban 143. b 37 E. 3. 18. c Cook 3. Inst Tit. Indict 136. d Except by Utlawry e No Peer or Subject can be Convicted by Verdict but the Offence must be found by twenty four f It is not sufficient that they dwell in the County but they are to be of the Neighbourhood nay le plus procheines to the place of the fact as by Artic. super cap. 9. it is appointed They must he most near most sufficient and least suspicious ibid. g The Kings Jury h Jus à Jovis nomine Jus qu. Jovis os omne enim Jus Justitia à Deo est i v. Statut. 3. Ed. 1. c. 11. Forasmuch as many being indicted of Murther and Culpable of the same by favourable Inquests taken by the Sheriff and by the Kings