that the Indictment was good enough notwithstanding it is not said of what Parish the Recusant was for the whole penalty of twenty pound per month is at first 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. given to the Queen and the Inhabitants of the Parish where the offence was are by 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. to sue in the Exchequer for their third part and surmile in their Bill that the offence was in their Parish and if it were so it shall be delivered to them as the Act directs LXXVIII Exchequer Page 71. Upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the principal Officers of the Court of Exchequer are the Treasurer and Barons but the principal Officers of the receit of the Exchequer are the Treasurer and Chamberlains Savile 38. pl. 87. LXXXIX Information Page 71. c. 82. on 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. upon a penal Statute where part of the forfeiture is given to the King and part to him that will sue the Informer or Plantiff qui tam c. sequitur tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso and so it must be said in the Information or declaration and not only there but in the Joyning of Issue and the Venire facias it must be entred qui tam pro Domino Rege c. or the omission of it is Error 1 Cro. 336. pl. Mich. 9. Car. 1. 2. In an Information upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the usual way is that the Informer for himself petit inde tertiam partem juxta formam Statut ' 11 Co. 56. Dr. Fosters Case but then the Statute must be named for in an Information 2 Cro. 142. Mich. 4. Jac. by Broughton Qui tam c. against Moâ—re for the forbearing to come to Church Contra formam Statuti without naming which Statute in which Case the Informer demanded the third part for himself it was adjudged by the Court of B. R. to be ill for there are several Statutes against Recusancy and it did not appear which of them was meant 3. But if this Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. be named in Certain and the party who sueth demands the whole forfeiture for the King and himself and Judgment be given that the King shall recover one moity and the Informer or Plantiff Qui tam c. the other moity in that Case the Judgment is well enough for the Information or declaration being Quod actio accrevit Domino Regi praefat A. ad habend ' exigend ' the full forfeiture the Judgment doth not vary there from when it saith that a moiety shall be to the King and a moiety to the Plantiff or Informer and altho the Statute 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. saith that he which will sue shall have but a third part yet thâ—t is by way of distribution only and such distribution if the penalty is an act subsequent to the Judgment and is to be made as well out of the moity given by the Judgment to the Informer or Plantiff Qui tam c. as out of the mony thereby given to the King and this I conceive to be the reason of the resolution in Chambers Case 2 Roll. 437. pl. where such a Judgment in Case of Recusancy upon this Statute was allowed to be good But if the whole forfeiture be not demanded in certain there altho the party who sues demands his own share 't is ill and so it was adjudged in an Information upon a poenal Statute 5 Eliz. 5. § 16. N. 1. which concluded Vnde petit advisamentum Curiae quod forisfaciat 5 l. pro qualibet offensunde ipse petit medietatem For the Informer doth not make his demand certain but leaves it to the Court or Jury to cast up the sum it Amounts to Hobart 245. Pie and Westly 4. If there be several Statutes Information and each of them prohibit one and the same thing and Inflict a penalty and give an Information for recovery of it the Information may conclude contra formam Statuti and good because the best shall be taken for the King 5 H. 7.17 So if one Statute make the offence and another Inflicts the penalty or forfeiture and the Information be for the offence only it may conclude contra formam Statuti which is to be understood of that Statute which makes the offence But if the Information both lay down the offence and demand the penalty there both Statutes must be recited or at least the Information must conclude contra formam Statutorum Owen 135. Wests Case supra 72. § 6. 5. In the late additions to Dalt 547. cap. 191. § 6. N. 3. it s said that Informations and saiâ—s on penal Statutes are stricti juris and excepted out of all the Statutes of Jeofailes which is a mistake for they are not excepted out of 32 H. 8.30 It s true they are out of 18 Eliz. 14. § N. and 21 Jac. 13. § N. and that as it seemeth in all Cases within those two Statutes see Styles 307. Theoballs against Newton And in the Case of Scot and Lawes Hob. 328. It seems to be intimated that they are excluded out of all three Where the Case was debt by an Informer Qui tam c. upon a penal Statute 21 H. 8.13 § 2. N. 4. the defendent pleads non debet praefato J. meaning the Informer and not the King and the Issue was found against the defendent in that Case it was resolved that this was a good Cause to stay Judgment and there it s said that it being upon a penal Statute the Statute of Jeofailes 32 H. 8.30 would not help it but that reason was Ex abundanti for 32 H. 8 30. seems to extend to all popular suits whatsover and in Wallers Case Dyer 346.347 in an Information brought against him 18 Eliz. by Topcliffe Qui tam c. upon 37 H. 8.9 of Usury it was adjudged that the mis-conveying of Process and mis-joyning of Issue in the said Information Dayes were aided by 32 H. 8.30 6. By 31 Eliz. 5. § 5. N. 2. an Informer Qui tam c. must begin his suit within one year after the offence committed otherwise he shall not have any part of the penalty 2 Co. 366. Hill 12 Jac. Godbolt 158. pl. 216. Sivedale versus Sir Edward Lenthal But popular suits upon the Statute 39 Eliz. 2. § N. of Tillage are excepted and not upon the Statute of Tallage as is mistaken in the the late additions to Dalt 546. cap. 191. § 3. In Dr. Fosters Case 11 Co. 65. it s said that the Informer hath no Remedy for recovery of the forfeitures for Recusancy after the year and day is expired for that time is limited in certain by 23 Eliz. 1. § 8. N. 1. but yet with submission it seems that 23 Eliz. 1. § 8. N. 1. relates to Indictments only and so it was held in this very Case of Dr. Foster 11 Co. 60. and 1 Rol. 93.
messor but spicelegus a Gleaner And that in such Cases only where the King doth not prosecute pardon or release before the Informers Action is commenced 11 Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Bridgman 121.122 Parker against Sir J. Webb and uxor Lane 60. But whither this rule be general Bar. Fe◠and will not admit of an Exception in the Case of a Feme Covert is a Question For by some opinions if a Feme Covert be Indicted and convicted of Recusancy that shall not barr the Informer of his popular Action upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against her and her Husband for the Recusancy of the Wife because upon the Conviction by Indictment the cannot be compelled to pay the forfeiture of twenty pound per month while her Husband lives nor can it be levied of her Goods and Lands for that during the Coverture she hath nothing of her own to forfeit but all is her Husbands Bridgman 122. Infra 270. N 9. The Condemnation or acquittal of the party at the suit of the Informer is a good Bar against the King and all others 11 Co. 66. 18. Before 4 H. 7.20 § 1. N. 7. Collusion It seems that if a popular Action had been brought by Covin and with the consent of the defendent and the defendent was for want of Evidence or other Cause found not guilty and the Covin appeared to the Court yet Judgment should have been given thereupon against the King and it should have been a good Bar against all others 9 Ed. 4.4 pl. but now by 4 H. 7.20 § 1. N. 7. If any person sue with good Faith any Action popular and the defendent Plead a Recovery in an Action popular in Bar or that before that time he had Barred the Plantiff in such Action the Plantiff may aver such recovery or Bar was by Covin and upon such Covin found the Plantiff shall have Judgment and the defendent attainted or condemned of Covin shall shave Imprisonment of two years by process of Capias or Outlawry as well at the Kings suit as any other and the release of the party shall not avail the defendent which Covin may be averred generally Com. 49.50 54 55. Wymbishe and Talbois If a man bring upon a penal Statute debt tam c. quam c. and the defendent pleads thereunto the Plantiff may reply without the Kings Attorny c. Princes Case In debt upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the defendents demurred and the Plantiff qui tam c. Joyned in demurrer without the Kings Attorny and held to be good 1 Cro. 10.11 Farringtons Case Trin. 1. Car. 1. but in an Information tam c. quam c. the Kings Attorny ought to reply 2 Rol. 33. Smith and Catter And this difference between debt and an Information was taken Hutton 82. in the said Farringtons Case but yet if in an Information the defendent plead a special plea and the Kings Attorny will not reply and prosecute for the Kings part the Informer shall be admitted to reply and prosecute for his part as was adjudged in Stretton and Taylors Case 1 Leonard 119. pl. 161. and 11 Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case 3 Inst 194. 19. The King before any Information or other popular suit commenced may pardon or release the whole penalty incurred Priory and it shall be a good bar against all men 11 Co. 65.66 Dr. Fosters Case 3 Inst 194.195.37 H. 6.4 _____ 2 R. 312. _____ _____ 1 H. 7.3 _____ Termes de ley 102. Decies tantum And if the defendent in the Information do not take advantage of such pardon or release by his plea but is condemned in the suit and the Kings share of the penalty be put in the Pipe in magno rotulo yet he may then discharge himself thereof upon a Compertum suit in magno rotulo by shewing forth the whole matter by way of Plea and shall not loose the effect of his pardon or release Savile 23. pl. 56. Tirringhams Case But when once the Informer hath brought his popular Suit the King cannot discharge it and if he then pardon or release or his Attorny enter an ulterius non vult prosequi this is good for the Kings part only but is no Bar quoad the Informer who may proceed notwithstanding for his part of the penalty And therefore neither can the Kings Attorny discharge the Jury when they come to deliver their Verdict Hutton 82. Vaughan 343. Thomas and Sorrel 1 Leonard 119. pl. 161. and 3 Cro. 138. Stretton and Taylor 3 Cro. 583. Hammon and Grissith 3 Inst 194. 1 H. 7.3 Such Entry of a non vult prosequi by the Attorny General hath the same effect with a Nonsuit of a Private person but the King cannot be said properly to be Nonsuit because he is in Judgment of Law ever present in Court 1 Inst 139.227 Hutton 82. Goldsborough 53. pl. Leighs Case Savile 56. pl. 119. Weare against Adamson Upon the Death of Queen Elizabeth it was resolved by the Judges that where an Information tam pro Domina Regina quam c. was brought upon a penal Statute and pending the same and before Judgment the Queen dyed the Information it self should stand for that otherwise the Suit might be lost there being a time limited for the bringing of it but all the proceedings thereupon were lost and void and the defendent should plead de novo 2 Cro. 14. and 7 Co. 30.31 Of discontinuance of Process And to that purpose 5 Ed. 6. Rot. 38. is there cited where in a popular action the King dyed after demurrer upon the Evidence and before Judgment and the defendent pleaded de novo But yet 1 Cro. 10.11 and Hob. 82. Farringtons Case in a popular action of debt upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against Prince and his Wife where the defendent demurred upon the declaration and the Plantiff qui tam c. Joyned demurrer in Hillary Term and King James died the Vacation following It was resolved that not only the Writ and declaration but all the other proceedings thereupon should stand notwithstanding the demise of the King for that in such Case it is meerly the Suit of the party and is aided by 1 Ed. 6.7 § 1. N. 4. of Discontinuances and he only Joyned in demurrer Which Resolutions are in appearance flatly contrary each to other for 2 Cro. 14. seems to take in all popular Suits whatsoever and as well a popular Action of debt as an Information but yet t is observable that in 1 Cro. 10. the Plantiff only joyned in demurrer and not the Kings Attorny And this seems to be the reason why in that Case the proceedings should stand notwithstanding the demise of the King for where the party alone joyns in demurrer or replies and not the Kings Attorny there the Suit may properly be said to be depending between party and party and within the express words of 1 Ed. 6.7 § 1. N. 4. which provides that altho the
annorum amplius non accessit ad Ecclesiam c. The question was whether the Existens c. Should refer to the time of his Indictment or to the time of his absence And the Judges conceived that the Indictment was well enough and pursuant to the Statute and that Existens should in this Case refer to the time of his absence LXII Lieu. Page 60. Upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. this offence Not repair c. but forbear c. consists not in committing but in omitting and is but a nonfeasance and therefore cannot be said to be in any certain place and for this reason in a popular action brought by the Informer qui tam c. there needs no place be alledged in the Declaration Anderson 139. pl. 109. Cuff against Vachel Nor is Recusancy within 31 Eliz. 5. § 2. N. 1. which sayeth that the offence shall be laid in the proper County where it was done or committed for to speak properly it was not committed any where Hobart 251. pl. Grimstone versus Molineux infra 79. § 6. LXIII Proof Page 60. 61. By this Being thereof lawfully convicted 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. Is not ment that the party must be Convicted in some former suit but a Conviction upon the same Indictment or Information which is brought against him for the recovery of the 20 l. per month is sufficient conviction within the meaning of this Statute And so are all penal Statutes which have in them those words being thereof lawfully Convicted to be understood that is of a conviction in the same sute whereupon the penalty is to be recovered for the meaning only is that the offendor shall forfeit nothing before Conviction which is no more than the Law implyeth and therefore in truth these words are but superflous and might as well have been omitted 11 Co. 59. 1 Rolls 90. pl. 41. Dr. Fosters Case and 1. Rolls 234. pl. 6. and 3. Bulstrode 87. the King against Lane 2. Nor is Convicton intended here 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. only of a Conviction by Verdict and therefore if the offendor be convicted upon his confession of the Fact and Judgment thereupon be had and consequently if Judgment be had against him upon a demurrer which is a Confession of the matter of Fact Or if Judgment be given against him on nihil dicit for any other Cause any of these are sufficient Convictions whereupon to recover his penalty for Convicted is here 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. to be taken for attainted as t is in many other Cases for until Judgment he shall forfeit nothing and altho he that is convicted is not therefore attainted yet every one who is attainted or adjudged is Convicted and of such a Conviction is this Statute to be understood infra 233. LXIV Forfeiture Page 61. These words To the Queens Majesty In 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. are but surplusage and import no more than the Law would have given the Queen without them for where a Statute gives a forfeiture and limits not to any particular person the King shall have it by construction of Law as was agreed 2 Anderson 128. pl. 73. in the Case of Agard and Tandish and so should he have this whole 20 l. per month if the Statute had staid here and had not afterwards made another express appointment infra 76. Page 61. 62 63. It seemeth that the month here 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. mentioned shall be accounted secundum numerum singulorum dierum LXV Dayes allowing but 28 daies to a month for so are all Statutes to be understood which speak of the month unless W. 2. cap. 5. § N. for the account of a Lapse and 2 3 Ed. 6.13 § N. of proving a suggestion 1. Inst 135. 2 Co. 166. Yelverton 100 Hob. 179. supra pl. 7. and of this opinion the Court of B. R. seemed to be upon the Construction of the Statute of Liveries 8. Ed. 4.2 § 2. N. 3. in the Case of Donner and Smith 3. Co. 835. pl. So that by this account the Recusant shall forfeit thirteen score pounds in the whole year 2. In an Information 2 Cro. 529. pl. brought by Parker Quitam c. against Sir John Curson and his Wife for the Recusancy of the Wife for 11 months and not guilty pleaded it was proved at the Trial Pasch 17. Jac. in B. R. that she conformed and came to Church for part of the time in the Information yet forasmuch as she was a Recusant both before and after it was said by the Court that her Conformity for some part of the time should not excuse her and she was found Guilty for the whole time 3. The Informer shewed that the Recusant was absent from Church from the 10 September 15. Jac. unto 9 September 16. Jac. and demanded Two hundred and twenty pounds for eleven months upon not Guilty pleaded it was found against the Defendent and it was resolved that altho the Informer had demanded less than by his own shewing was due for the time mentioned in the Information was 13 months compleat Except one day yet the Information was well enough for the Recovery shall be intended to be for the eleven months when the Recusant was first absent and the Addition of more is not material 2 Cro. 529. and 2 Roll. 90. Parker against Sir John Curson and his Wife and this is not like the Case of 1 Cro. 331. Bawderock and Mackaller Mich. 9. Car. 1. where the Informer Qui tam c. Upon 31 Eliz. 6. of Symony demanded less than the penalty and the Court seemed to be of opinion that altho it was good enough for the King notwithstanding that misprision yet it was not so for the Informer and compared it to the Case of Agard and Candish where an Information was brought upon the Statute of liveries after the year and it was adjudged to be good for the King but not for the Informer for upon 31 Eliz. 6. § N. which gives one intire penalty for the offence if less be demanded the Statute is not persued and there is a clear variance between that and the Information but in the Case of Recusancy when he demands Two hundred pounds for eleven months the Statute 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. is persued and tho it appear by the Information that the Recusant was absent for a longer time yet the Informer is at liberty whither he will demand the penalty for his absence during that Supernumerary time 4. If it be shewed in the Information that the Recusant was absent from Church from a day certain to a day certain which in all makes 13 months and the penalty is demanded for that time and the Jury find the party Guilty for 12 months it hath been held by some that the Verdict shall be good for 12 months but whether for the first 12 months is a Question for in Sir J. Cursons Case 2