non sunt culpabiles it had been ill But yet it seems that the Law is contrary to that Opinion Non sunt cuipabiles where good for where an Action or Information is brought against the Husband and Wife for an offence or wrong done by the Wife there the Husband is charged quoad poenam though not quoad culpam and when they both plead quod ipsi non sunt culpabiles the meaning is that he is not chargeable quoad poenam and she is not guilty quoad culpam and therefore it was resolved in the Case of Browne against Audley and his Wife Trin. 22 Jac. in an Action upon the Case for scandalous words by the Wife that where they both pleaded non culp and the Jury found the Feme guilty the Plaintiff should have Judgment For the issue was good for the reason aforesaid and the finding of the Jury was a good ground for the Judgment for if the Wife were guilty quoad culpam as the Verdict must necessarily be understood she being the wrong doer the Husband by consequence was chargeable quoad poenam and Judgment shall be against both Addition to Bendloes 148. and the Resolution in the Case of Needler versus Symnell and his Wife reported by Justice Croke Cro. Mich. 11. Car. 417. in the like Action brought for words spoken by the Wife is directly contrary to that opinion at the end of Sir John Cursons Case For there 't is adjudged that ipsi non sunt culpabiles by Baron and Feme is a good issue although the wrong were by the Wife alone Writ of Error by an Alien An Information of Recusancy lies against an Alien upon this Statute if he inhabits within the Realm and if Judgment be had against him he may have a Writ of Error to relieve himself Co. 1. Inst. 129. Popular Suit appropriated When once the Informer Qui tam c. hath commenced his Suit he hath of a popular Action made it his own private Action Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Vaughan 343. Thomas versus Sorrel And in this Case it is not necessary that the Defendant be served with Process to answer it Without Process for if the Informer put his Information into Court 't is enough to appropriate to him his share of the penalty Godbolt 158. C. 216. But yet a Note ought first to be made of the day month and year when it was exhibited for before Stat. 18 Eliz. 5. by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is not to be taken to be of Record nor shall operate any thing either in appropriating the penalty or barring any other Informer but when that is done no other Informer can Sue for the same Offence and 't is a good Plea in Bar Bar. of the second Information for the Defendant to say that there is another Information depending against him for the same Offence For as soon as the first Information is delivered in and entred upon Record according to the said Statute of 18 Eliz. it shall be said to be depending Popular Suit when depending although it be not alleadged that any Writ or Process is Sued out against the Defendant thereupon Cro. Mich. 33 34 Eliz. 261. the Queen versus Harris Styles 417 Hobart 209. Parry versus Paris Palmer 40. Webbs Case Termes de la Ley 7. Action Popular Two Informations for the same offence Bar. The Defendant in an Information pleads that heretofore another Information was exhibited against him such a day in another Court for the same Offence but mistakes and names in his Plea a wrong day and not that wherein the first Information was exhibited The Plaintiff replies nul tiel Record yet if it appears that in truth the Information pleaded in Bar was exhibited before the other which is the substance of the matter this misprision shall not vitiate the Defendants Plea in Bar but Judgment shall be for the Defendant Hobart 209. Parry versus Paris Note this Case is cited in the late Additions to Dalton cap. 191. tit Informations Sect. 6. to prove that one person cannot exhibit two Informations in the same or in several Courts But that was not the Question there nor I think ever was made a Question but that the same person may exhibit two several Informations so they be not both for one and the same Offence An Information was exhibited in the Kings-Bench upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 7. for buying of Wools. Stat. 5 E. 6. 7. The Defendant pleads that there is another Information depending against him in the Common-Bench at the Suit of L. and avers that they are both for the same Offence but in truth that in the Common-Pleas supposed the Offence to be done at one time and that in the Kings-Bench at another time yet this is a good Plea in Bar Bar. of the latter Information being with an Averment that they are both for the same Offence for otherwise by the Informers false supposal of the day the Defendant shall be put to double trouble Cro. Mich. 33 34 Eliz. 261. The Queen versus Harris And the same advantage no question any man may take against whom two Informations are exhibited upon this Statute for hearing of Mass Mass for perchance he never heard Mass above once in his life time and there is no reason he should be put to double trouble for one offence But otherwise it seems to be in the Case of Recusancy The absence from Church must be for a month For if an Information be brought upon this Statute for not coming to Church for a month there if the Defendant proves that he was at Church any time within that month it shall be sufficient to avoid the penalty of Twenty pounds And as the Defendants giving in Evidence that he was at Church within the compass of any other month then that which is laid in the Information shall not excuse him so the Informers proof of his absence any other month shall not hurt him but the Evidence must go to the very same month which the Information mentions And the reason is for that this Offence is punishable according to the time of its duration or continuance and the Offender is to forfeit for every month of his absence so that if another Information be exhibited against him for not coming to Church during another month it cannot be supposed to be for the same absence with that in the first Information but for the like absence at another time and therefore cannot be pleaded in Bar thereof Two Informations on the same day c. Bar. If two Informers on one and the same day exhibit Informations against the same person for the same Offence they are both void and may be pleaded the one in Bar of the other for that there is no priority to Attach the right of Action in one of the Informers more than in the other Hobart 128. Pie versus Coke Although Sunday
Sunday be not dies Juridicus so as to award a Judicial Process or enter a Judgment of Record on that day yet an Information may be exhibited in Court on that day and good Jones 156. 157. Bedoe versus Alpe Information delivered In the common-Common-Pleas an Information may by the course of that Court be brought in and delivered to one of the Judges there out of Term No antedate Stat. 18 Eliz. 5. and shall be dated then For the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. forbids all antedates Rolls 2.33 Smith versus Carter Conviction on Indictment pending the Information An Information is brought by an Informer Qui tam c. upon this Statute for Recusancy and pending the Information the Recusant is convicted at the Kings Suit upon an Indictment for the same absence the Question is what remedy the Recusant hath in this Case that he may not Bis puniri pro uno delicto And to this it was Answered by Coke Chief Justice B. R. in the Case of Dr. Foster that he may plead this Conviction puis le darreine continuance to discharge himself of the Information Rolles 1. 95. C 41. But as the Reporter there well observes the Informer when he hath begun his popular Action hath appropriated the Action to himself And if it shall be admitted that the King can devest him of this Action when he pleases Action appropriated by Indictment at his own Suit this would prove very mischievous to Informers Quaere therefore how in this Case the Recusant shall defend himself from being doubly punished for one and the same Offence But if the Recusant be once convicted at the Kings Suit either by Indictment upon this Statute or according to the Statutes of 29 Eliz. cap. 6. Stat. 29 Eliz. 6 3 Jac. 4. or 3 Jac. cap. 4. upon Proclamation the Informer Qui tam c. cannot afterwards charge him but is barred for ever after Informer barred For the intention of this Statute is that the Informer may exhibit Informations against such only as are concealed or not charged at the Kings Suit so that the Informer is neque falcator neque 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 Co. 11. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Bridgman 121.122 Parker against Sir John Webb and his Wife Lane 60. But whether this Rule be general and will not admit of an exception in the Case of a Feme Covert Feme Covert is a Question for by some Opinions if a Feme Covert be Indicted and Convicted of Recusancy that shall not Bar the Informer of his popular Action upon this Statute against her and her Husband for the Recusancy of the Wife Because upon the Conviction by Indictment she cannot be compelled to pay the forfeiture of Twenty pounds 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 Vide Bridgman 122. 123. Parker versus Sir John Webb and his Wife Vide Stat. 3 Jac. cap. 4. Sect. 6. The Condemnation or Acquittal of the party at the Suit of the Informer is a good Barr against the King and all others Bar. Co. 11. 66. Before the Statute of 4 H. 7. cap. 20. Popular Action by Covin it seems that if a popular Action had been brought by Covin and with the consent of the Defendant and the Defendant 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 Barr against all others 9 E. 4. 4. But now by that Statute of H. 7. Stat. 4 H. 7. 20 If any person sue with good Faith any Action popular and the Defendant plead a Recovery in an Action popular in Barr or that before that time he had barred the Plaintiff in such Action the Plaintiff may aver such Recovery or Bar was by Covin and upon such Covin found the Plaintiff shall have Judgment and the Defendant so attainted or condemned of Covin shall have Imprisonment for 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 Defendant which Covin may be averred generally Vide Wymbishe and Talbois Case Plowden 49 50 54 55. If a man bring upon a penal Statute an Action of Debt tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso Who is to reply in a popular Action of debt and the Defendant pleads thereunto the party Plaintiff may reply without the Kings Attorney And in Princes Case in an Action of Debt upon this Statute the Defendants demurred and the Plaintiff qui tam c. joined in Demurrer without the Kings Attorney and held to be good Cro. Trin. 1 Car. 10 11. Lionel Farringtons Case But in an Information tam c. quam And who in a popular Information c. the Kings Attorney ought to reply Rolles 2.33 Smith versus Carter And this difference between an Action of Debt and an Information was taken in the aforesaid Case of Farrington versus Arundell Hutton 82. But yet if in an Information the Defendant plead a special Plea and the Kings Attorney 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 the Case of Stretton and Taylor Co. 11.65 Dr. Fosters Case Co. 3. Inst 194. Where the King may pardon or release the penalty The King before any Information or other popular Suit commenced may pardon or release the whole penalty incurred and it shall be a good Bar against all men Co. 11.65 66. Dr. Fosters Case Co. 3. Inst. 194 195. 37 H. 6. 4. 2 R. 3. 12. Termes de la Ley 102. Decies tantum 1 H. 7. 3. And if the Defendant 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 fuit in magno rotulo by shewing forth the whole matter by way of Plea and shall not lose the effect of his pardon or release Vide Savile 23. C. 56. Tirringhams Case And where not But when once the Informer hath brought his popular Suit the King cannot discharge it and if he then pardon or release or his Attorney 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 Attorney discharge the Jury when they come to deliver their Verdict Hutton 82. Vaughan 343. Thomas versus
the person Co. 1. Inst 128. Plea in disability is peremptory The Defendant in Debt upon an Obligation pleads that the Plaintiff is a Popish Recusant Convict who replies nul tiel Record Such Plea in disability of the person is peremptory and nul tiel Record is an Issue and Judgment shall be given against the Defendant upon failer of the Record Hetley 18. But yet if there be a Plea of a Conviction of Recusancy had before Justices of Gaol delivery and the Defendant mistakes and takes out a Certiorari Certiorari to the Justices of Peace this shall not be a failer of the Record Failer of Record although the Defendant hath it not at the day For that the issuing of the Certiorari was the Award of the Court But a Certiorari shall be awarded de novo to the Justices of Gaol delivery before whom the Plaintiff was convicted Hobart 135. Pye against Thrill Note if the Defendant be sued in the Common Pleas or any other of the principal Courts at Westminster and he plead a Conviction of Recusancy before Justices of Gaol delivery or Justices of Peace he need not take his Certiorari Certiorari out of what Court out of the Chancery and so bring it by Mittimus But the Court may send a Certiorari immediately to that inferiour Court where the Plaintiff was convicted as was held in that Case of Pye and Thrill vide 19 H. 6. 19. And the Justices themselves And by whom before whom the Conviction was had must certifie and therefore if the Conviction was before Justices of Peace the Certificate cannot be by the Custos Rotulorum Custos rotulorum alone though he keep the Records for the Certiorari is in such Case directed to the Justices of Peace Hobart 135. A Popish Recusant is convicted of Recusancy in a popular Suit and after such Conviction sues the Informer Qui tam c. Who may take advantage of this disability Informer upon some other matter or cause of Action arising between them Quaere whether the Defendant may plead such Conviction in disability of the Recusant For this Conviction disables the Recusant to sue as if he were excommunicated and no otherwise Now if a Bishop Excommunicate any one and the Bishop Bishop be afterwards sued at Law for any other matter or cause by the person so excommunicated the Bishop cannot plead this Excommunication in disability of the Plaintiff who sues him Co. 1. Inst 134. Swinborne Part 5. Sect. 6. p. 305. And the reason given for this in Trollops Case Co. 8. 68. is because the Bishop was a party to the Excommunication and therefore shall take no advantage by it which reason seems to hold likewise in the Case of an Informer Qui tam c. who is a party to the Conviction of the Recusant upon the popular Suit which Conviction renders the Recusant disabled to all intents as an Excommunicant person And therefore he being a party to it by the same Rule shall not take advantage of it in disability of the Recusant in any Action brought by the Recusant against him But yet notwithstanding I conceive the Informer Qui tam c. at whose Suit the Recusant was convicted may well take advantage of this Conviction and plead it in disability of the person of the Recusant And that the true reason why the Bishop shall not be admitted to plead an Excommunication pronounced by himself in disability of the person Excommunicated is not because he is a party to the Excommunication but because in matters of Excommunication the Bishop acts as a Judge and 't is by his Sentence and Authority that the party is Excommunicated and he shall not take advantage in another Suit of a Sentence given by himself judicially And this will not hold in the Case of an Informer who though he be a party to the Suit in which the Recusant is disabled as an Excommunicate person yet is no Judge in the Case whether the party Sued shall be disabled or no as the Bishop is in the other Case where the party is actually Excommunicated by him And if the Bishop should be barred to Plead and take advantage of such Excommunication because he is a party thereunto it would follow that the person who Sues in the Spiritual Court and at whose instance the person Sued is Excommunicated should be barred likewise to take advantage of such disability in the Plaintiff at Law for he is a party to the Excommunication for that he is a party to the Suit upon which the Excommunication is originally founded But the contrary to this is strongly implied in 14 H. 4. 14. where the Case was A. was Excommunicated in a Suit depending between him and B. and afterwards A. Sues B. upon the Statute of Praemunire who pleads this Excommunication in disability of the Plaintiff Here the Plea was disallowed because the principal Suit on which the Excommunication depended was brought before the Pope But in the debate of the Case there was not the least word of exception to the Plea upon this ground because the Excommunication was at the instance of the Defendant or that the Defendant should not take advantage of the Plaintiffs disability for that he was a party to the Excommunication which disabled him Executor or Administrator disabled If an Executor or Administrator becomes a Popish Recusant convict it seems he is disabled by this Act to Sue in either of those Capacities For the Act saith He shall be disabled to all intents as an Excommunicate person Now a person actually Excommunicated cannot Sue as Executor or Administrator as is held in 21 E. 4. 49. 21 H. 6. 30. 14 H. 6. 15. Co. 1. Inst 134. Although there are some opinions to the contrary Vide Finch 27. Stat. Sect. 13. What Suits a Popish Recusant may prosecute Provided nevertheless That it shall and may be lawful for any such person so disabled for and notwithstanding any thing in this Law contained to sue or prosecute an Action or Suit for or concerning only such of his or her Lands Tenements Leases Rents Annuities and Hereditaments or for the Issues and Profits thereof which are not to be seized or taken into the Kings hands his Heirs or Successors by force of any Law for or concerning his or her Recusancy or any part thereof Which are not to be seized or taken into the Kings hands c. These words are not restrained to such Lands Lands seized into the Kings hands c. as cannot be seized into the Kings hands for Recusancy For then the Recusant could in no case Sue for more then the third part for that the King may if he please make his Election and seize the other two parts in lieu of the Twenty pounds per month But they are intended of all Lands c. of the Recusant which neither the King hath seized nor are by Law to be seized by vertue of any thing
Parliament Assembled tending to the utter subversion of the whole State lately undertaken by the instigation of Iesuits and Seminaries and in advancement of their Religion by their Schollers taught and instructed by them to that purpose which attempt by the only goodness of Almighty God was discovered and defeated And where divers persons Popishly affected do nevertheless the better to cover and hide their false hearts and with the more safety to attend the opportunity to execute their mischievous designs repair sometimes to Church to escape the penalty of the Laws in that behalf provided For the better discovery therefore of such persons and their evil affections to the Kings Majesty and the State of this his Realm Stat. Sect. 2. to the end that being known their evil purpose may be the better prevented Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled and by the Authority of the same That every Popish Recusant convicted or hereafter to be convicted which heretofore hath conformed him or her self or which shall hereafter conform him or her self and repair to the Church and continue there during the time of Divine Service according to the Laws and Statutes in that behalf made and provided shall within the first year next after the end of this Session of Parliament if he or she be conformed as aforesaid before the end of this Session of Parliament or within the first year next after that he or she shall after this Session of Parliament so conform him or her self and repair to Church as aforesaid and after the said first year shall once in every year following at the least receive the blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper in the Church of that Parish where he or she shall most usually abide or be within the said year wherein by the true meaning of this Statute he or she ought so to receive The forfeiture of a conformed Recusant which doth not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yearly And if there be no such Parish Church then in the Church next adjoyning to the place of his or her such most usual abode And if any Recusant so conformed shall not receive the said Sacrament of the Lords Supper accordingly he or she shall for such not receiving lose and forfeit for the first year Twenty pounds and for the second year for such not receiving Forty pounds and for every year after for such not receiving thréescore pounds until he or she shall have received the said Sacrament as is aforesaid And if after he or she shall have received the said Sacrament as is aforesaid and after shall eftsoons at any time offend in not receiving the said Sacrament as is aforesaid by the space of one whole year that in every such Case the person so offending shall for every such offence lose and forfeit Threescore pounds of lawful English money the one moiety to be to our Soveraign Lord the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors and the other moiety to him that will sue for the same And to be recovered in any of the Kings Courts or Record at Westminster or before Iustices of Assize or general Goal delivery or before Iustices of the Peace at their general Quarter Sessions by Action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information wherein no Essoin Protection or wager of Law shall be allowed Popish Recusants Every Popish Recusant convicted Wingate tit Crowne numb 98. speaks indefinitely as if this extended to all Recusants whatsoever which is contrary to the express words of the Statute Conviction must be shewed in certain In an Information upon this Statute for not receiving the Sacrament the Conviction of the party for Recusancy ought to be shewed in certain before whom in what Court c. For before he is convicted of Recusancy he is not liable to the penalty inflicted by this Act for not receiving And yet if it be only generally shewed in the Information that the Defendant was convicted in due form of Law and the Defendant doth not demur thereto but pleads not guilty and it be found against him there Judgment shall not be stayed for this defect for he hath lost his advantage and by his Plea hath admitted the point of Conviction and at the Trial the only thing in issue was whether he had received the Sacrament and not whether he was convicted Tanfeild Chief Baron compared this Case to that of Debt upon an Obligation and in the Declaration no place is shewn That is not good But if the Defendant Pleads a Release he shall never afterwards take advantage of the Defect in the Declaration Cro. Hill 12. Jac. 365.366 Sivedale versus Sir Edward Lenthall Which shall hereafter conform him or her self Conformity generally shewed sufficient c. This conformity need not be set forth in the Information in every particular circumstance as when or before whom the Popish Recusant conformed himself For 't is sufficient if it be said that he went to Church and continued there during Divine Service and afterwards neglected to receive the Sacrament c. And upon such Conformity and neglect he is liable to the penalty inflicted by this Act although he never went before the Ordinary Ordinary Cro. Hill 12. Jac. 366. And for every year after for such not receiving thréescore pounds Note the Statute saith not that the Offender shall forfeit for the first second and third offence but for the first and second year and for every year after for if it had been said he should have forfeited Twenty pounds for the first offence Forty pounds for the second and Threescore pounds for the third he must have been convicted and have had Judgment of the first offence before he could have incurred the penalty for the second and of the second before he could have incurred the penalty for the third And every one of these offences must have appeared judicialiter which could not be ante Judicium But here where 't is said he shall forfeit Twenty pounds for the first year Forty pounds for the second and Threescore pounds for every year after it is otherwise And the Offender shall forfeit Threescore pounds for the third year although he was never convicted for the first or second year In an Information for the third year conviction for the first or second year not necessary And therefore in an Information brought upon this Statute for Threescore pounds against a Popish Recusant convicted for Recusancy who hath conformed and neglected to receive the Sacrament the third year after his Conformity It 's sufficient to set forth that he was a Popish Recusant and was convicted and conformed himself and went to Church c. two years before such a day and that after the said day he failed for a whole year to receive the Sacrament without mentioning what he did the first or second year after his conformity And so was the Information in
Twenty pounds per month is at first given to the Queen and the Inhabitants of the Parish where the Offence was are to Sue in the Exchequer for their third part The Parish must Sue for their third part in the Exchequer and surmise 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 Leonard 2. 167. C. 204. The principal Officers in the Receipt of Exchequer Principal Officers of the Exchequer The principal Officers of the Court of Exchequer are the Treasurer and Barons but the principal Officers of the Receipt of the Exchequer are the Treasurer and Chamberlains Savile 38. C. 87. To such person as will sue for the same Rules and Cases touching the common Informer This Branch of the Statute being the Axis upon which all popular Suits for Recusancy by the common Informer turn and move I shall be the larger thereupon and shall here set down the several Rules Cases and Resolutions in our Books which concern the common Informer or Plaintiff qui tam c. as far as they are applicable to the Case of Recusancy or the other Cases within this Statute Upon a penal Statute where part af the forfeiture is given to the King and part to him that will Sue Tam pro Domino Rege c. material the Informer or Plaintiff 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 Cro. Mich. 9 Car. 336. In an Information upon this Statute the usual way is The particular Statute must be named that the Informer for himself petit inde tertiam partem juxta formam Statut ' Vide Co. 11. 56. Dr. Fosters Case But then the Statute must be named for in an Information by Broughton Qui tam c. against Moore for 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 Kings-Bench to be ill For there are several Statutes against Recusancy and it did not appear which of them was meant Cro. Mich. 4 Jac. 142. Judgment of a Moiety to the King and a Moiety to the Informer where good But if this Statute be named in certain and the party who sues demands the whole forfeiture for the King and himself and Judgment be given that the King recover one moiety and the Informer or Plaintiff Qui tam c. the other moiety 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 therefrom when it saith that a moiety shall be to the King and a moiety to the Plaintiff or Informer And although the Statute saith That he which will sue shall have but a third part yet that is by way of distribution only And such distribution of the penalty is an Act subsequent to the Judgment and is to be made as well out of the moiety given by the Judgment to the Informer or Plaintiff Qui tam c. as out of the moiety given thereby to the King And this I conceive to be the reason of the resolution in Chambers Case where such a Judgment in the Case of Recusancy upon this Statute was allowed to be good Rolles 2. 437. The Informers demand must be certain But if the whole forfeiture be not demanded in certain there although the party who sues demands his own share 't is ill And so it was adjudged in an Information upon a poenal Statute which concluded Vnde petit advisamentum Curiae quod forisfaciat 5 l. pro qualibet offens unde 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 versus Westly Where Contra formam Statuti and where Statutorum If there be several Statutes 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 Vide supra Sect. 7. In the late Additions to Dalton cap. 191. tit Informations Informations within which Statute of Jeofailes St. 32 H. 8. 30. 18 Eliz. 14. 21 Jac. 13. Sect. 6. its said That Informations and Suits 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 the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. It 's true they are out of the Statutes of 18 Eliz. cap. 14. and 21 Jac. cap. 13. and that as it seems in all Cases within those two Statutes Vide Styles 307. Theoballs against Newton And in the Case of Scott versus Lawes Hobart 328. it seems to be intimated that they are excluded out of all three where the Case was that in an Action of Debt brought by an Informer Qui tam c. upon a penal Statute the Defendant pleads non debet praefato J. meaning the Informer and not the King and the issue was found against the Defendant 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 would not help it But that reason was ex abundanti it being an incurable fault not aided by any Statute of Jeofailes in any sort of Action and under favour might well have been spared For the Statute of 32 H. 8. seems to extend to all popular Suits whatsoever and in Wallers Case in an Information brought against him 18 Eliz. by Topcliffe Qui tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso c. upon the Statute of 37 H. 8. cap. 9. of Vsury it was adjudged 37 H. 8.9 that the mis-conveying of Process and mis-joyning of issue in the said Information were aided by 32 H. 8. Dyer 346 347. By the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 5. an Informer Qui tam 31 Eliz. 5. c. must begin his Suit within one
Sorrell Leonard 1.119 C. 161. Stretton and Taylors Case Cro. Trin. 31 Eliz. 138. the same Case Ibid. Mich. 39 40 Eliz. 583. Hammon versus Griffith 1 H. 7. 3. Co. 3. Inst 194. Such Entry of a non vult prosequi by the Attorney General hath the same effect with a Nonsuit of a private person The King cannot be non-suited But the King cannot be said properly to be nonsuited because he is in Judgment of Law ever present in Court Co. 1. Inst. 139.227 Hutton 82. Goldsborough 53. Leighs Case Savile 56. C. 119. Weare versus Adamson Where upon the demise of the King the proceedings shall be void 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 died 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 Defendant should plead de novo Cro. Pasch 1 Jac. 14. Co. 7. 30 31. Case Of discontinuance of Process And to that purpose the Case of Pasch 5 E. 6. Rot. 38. is there cited where in a popular Action the King died after Demurrer upon the Evidence and before Judgment and the Defendant pleaded de novo And where not But yet in a popular Action of Debt brought upon this Statute against Prince and his Wife where the Defendants demurred upon the Declaration and the Plaintiff Qui tam c. joyned in 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 Stat. 1 E. 6. 7. and is aided by the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 7. of Discontinuances and he only joyned in Demurrer Cro. Trin. 1 Car. 10. 11. Lionell Farringtons Case Hobart 82. the same Case Which Resolutions are in appearance flatly contrary each to other for that upon the death of the Queen 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 Farringtons Case the Plaintiff only joyned in Demurrer and not the Kings Attorney 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 joynes in Demurrer or Replies and not the Kings Attorney there the Suit may properly be said to be depending between party and party and within the express words of 1 E. 6. which provides that although the King die all proceedings in Suits depending between party and party shall stand But the Resolution of the Judges upon the death of the Queen is to be understood of such Cases where after a Plea or Demurrer by the Defendant the Attorney General alone replies or joyns in Demurrer there the proceedings shall be void and the Defendant shall plead de novo But the Information it self shall stand to avoid a manifest inconvenience for that the Informer is limited to a certain time wherein to exhibit his Information And so I conceive are these two Opinions which seem so contrary to be reconciled An Informer Qui tam Nonsuit release c. of the Informer c. may be nonsuited although the King cannot Co. 1. Inst 139. Hutton 82. Farrington versus Arundell If pending the popular Action or Information the Plaintiff or Informer Qui tam c. be nonsuited or release or enter a nolle prosequi or dye none of these shall Bar the King but the Attorney General may proceed upon the Information for the Kings part Leonard 1. 119. C. 161. Stretton and Taylors Case No Bar for the Kings part Cro. Trin. 31 Eliz. 138. The same Case Ibid. Mic. 39 40 Eliz. 583. Hammon versus Griffith Co. 3. Inst 194. Moore 541. C. 715. Co. 11.66 Dr. Fosters Case Bulstrode 2. 261 262. Sir Thomas Waller versus Hanger Rolles 2.33 Smith versus Carter And therefore the Opinions in 37 H. 6.5 and 38 H. 6. 2. That if the Plaintiff in a Decies tantum which is a popular Action be nonsuit the King is without Remedy but by Indictment or if such Plaintiff will relinquish his Suit the King hath nothing further to do seem not to be Law at this day Information in a wrong Court And if a popular Information be brought upon a penal Statute in a wrong Court where the Informer cannot sue yet it was held in Agar and Candishes Case that the King should not for that lose his advantage of the Suit but the Information should be good for his part of the penalty Moore 564 565 566. C. 770. Stat. 18 Eliz. 5. By the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. if an Informer or Plaintiff upon a penal Statute where any forfeiture is generally limited to him that will sue shall delay or discontinue his suit or be non-suit The Informer shall pay costs or shall have the trial or matter pass against him by Verdict or Judgment of Law he shall pay to the Defendant his Costs Charges and Damages Vide Addition to Bendloes 141. Rhobotham versus Vincent and if it be upon special Verdict or Demurrer those Cases are within the Statute and he shall pay Costs by force thereof Hutton 36. Pies Case But not find Sureties But an Informer is not compellable to find Sureties to answer Costs howbeit the Court if they see cause may order him to appear in person before the Defendant answer the Information Bulstrode 2.18 Martin and Gunnystons Case It was held in the Exchequer Chamber That if a Writ of Error Writ of Error be brought upon a Judgment given for the King at the Suit of an Informer a Scire facias Scire facias ought to be awarded against the Informer Savile 10. C. 26. Wilkes Case Courts of Record in penal Statutes are the four Courts at Westminster In any Court of Record By any Court of Record is here meant the four Ordinary Courts of Record at Westminster For they are the general Courts of Record and the Courts where the Kings Attorney may acknowledge or deny and the words of this Statute being general are left to the construction of Law where the Rule is verba aequivoca in dubio posita intelliguntur in digniori potentiori sensu And in this sense shall these words Court of Record be construed in all penal Statutes where the penalty is to be recovered in a popular Suit So that the Informer Qui tam c. cannot sue before Justices of Assize Goal delivery or Oyer and Terminer or Justices of Peace as in Borough or Corporate Towns or in a Court of Pipowders Stannary Courts
Curate of every Parish where such Submission and Declaration of Conformity shall hereafter be so made by any such Offender as aforesaid Stat. Sect. 14. The Minister shall enter the Submission into a Book shall presently enter the same into a Book to be kept in every Parish for that purpose and within ten days then next following shall certifie the same in writing to the Bishop of the same Diocess Provided nevertheless Stat. Sect. 15. A Recusant submitting and falling into Relapse That if any such Offender after such Submission made as is aforesaid shall afterward fall into Relapse or eftsoons become a Recusant in not repairing to Church to hear Divine Service but shall forbear the same contrary to the Laws and Statutes in that behalf made and provided That then every such Offender shall lose all such benefit as he or she might otherwise by virtue of this Act have or enjoy by reason of their said Submission And shall thereupon stand and remain in such plight condition and degrée to all intents as though such Submission had never beén made Such Relapse with the Indictment thereof Relapse where to be certified is to be certified into the Court of Exchequer as was done by the Justices of the Kings Bench in the Case of Francis Holt. Pasch 9 Jac. Bulstrode 1. 133. Stat. Sect. 16. Married Women bound by this Act saving in the Case of Abjuration Provided always and be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and every Woman married or hereafter to be married shall be bound by all and every Article branch and matter contained in this Statute other then the Branch and Article of Abjuration before mentioned And that no such Woman married or to be married during marriage shall be in any wise forced or compelled to abjure or be abjured by virtue of this Act Any thing therein contained to the contrary thereof notwithstanding Stat. i Jac. cap. iv An Act for the due execution of the Statutes against Jesuits Seminary Priests Recusants c. FOr the better and more due execution of the Statutes heretofore made aswell against Iesuits Stat. Sect. 1. All Statutes made against Jesuits Priests and Recusants shall be put in Execution Seminary Priests and other such like Priests as also against all manner of Recusants Be it Ordained and Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament That all and every the Statutes heretofore made in the Reign of the late Quéen of famous memory Elizabeth as well against Iesuits Seminary Priests and other Priests Deacons Religious and Ecclesiastical persons whatsoever made ordained or professed or to be made ordained or professed by any Authority or Iurisdiction derived challenged or pretended from the Sée of Rome as those which do in any wise concern the withdrawing of the Kings Subjects from their due obedience and the Religion now professed and the taking of the Oath of obedience unto the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors together with all those made in the said late Quéens time against any manner of Recusants shall be put in due and exact execution Oath of Obedience By the Oath of Obedience Oath of Obedience Stat. 1 Eliz. 1. is here meant the Oath of Supremacy in the Stat. of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. which see there Sect. 7. and by that name it is here called afterwards Sect. 3. Provided nevertheless Stat. Sect. 2. A Recusant conforming himself shall be discharged and be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That if any that is or shall be a Recusant shall submit or reform him or her self and become obedient to the Laws and Ordinances of the Church of England and repair to the Church and continue there during the time of the Divine Service and Sermons according to the true meaning of the Statutes in that behalf in the said late Quéens time made and provided That then every such person for and during such time as he or she shall so continue in such conformity and obedience shall from thenceforth be freed and discharged of and from any the penalties and losses which the same person might otherwise sustain and bear in respect or by reason of such persons Recusancy According to the true meaning of the Statutes in that behalf It hath been doubted whether these words do refer only to the manner of the Recusants conformity or to the time likewise when it is to be done as well as to the manner For if they refer to the time then the Recusant is still bound notwithstanding this Statute to conform before Judgment according to the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 1. Stat. 23 Eliz. 1 or his conformity afterwards shall not discharge him of the penalty But the better opinion is that by these words according to the true meaning of the Statutes is to be intended only that the Recusant must conform in such manner as is there appointed but as to the time the general words here have inlarged the time limited by 23 Eliz. If the Recusant conforms after Judgment 't is sufficient For this Statute is made in further favor of the Recusant So that now if he conforms after Judgment 't is time enough and he shall be discharged of all penalties in respect of his Recusancy And if an Information tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso be brought upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. against the Recusant and after Judgment had against him thereupon he conforms he shall be discharged of the Judgment but first his Conformity must appear of Record otherwise the Court cannot take notice of it and as for that his remedies against the King and the Informer must be several His remedies against the King and informer Audita Quaerela Plea for against the Informer he must bring his Audita Quaerela and against the King he must plead his conformity which he may do in this Case after Judgment for that no Audita Quaerela lies against the King 11 H. 7. 10. and if he should not be admitted to plead he would be without any legal Remedy to discharge himself of the forfeiture and Judgment as to the Kings part whose execution will not be hindred by the Audita Quaerela against the Informer But if the Defendant neglect to put in his Plea and Execution issues for the King and he be taken in Execution he comes too late to plead his Conformity and hath then no other way left to relieve himself as to the Kings part but by his Petition Petition to the King to pardon the Debt Bulstrode 2. 324 325. Dr. Fosters Case Rolles 1. 95. C. 41. the same Case Vide Savile 23. C. 56. Tirringhams Case Stat. Sect. 3. And if any Recusant shall hereafter die his heir being no Recusant that in every such Case every such heir shall be freed and discharged of all and singular the penalties charges and incumbrances happening upon him or her In what Cases a Recusants heir shall be
proved that it was for her Joynture or if a man devise Lands by his last Will to his Wife generally and there is no mention in the Will that 't is for her Joynture for in this Case an Averment that it was so intended will not serve unless there be express words in the Will to that purpose These Estates so gained by the Wife as they do not bar her Dower out of the residue of her Husbands Estate but that she shall enjoy both the one and the other Co. 4. 4. so they are not within the meaning of this Act because not made for her Joynture And she shall not forfeit the profits of two parts of them although she may forfeit the profits of 2 parts of her Dower which she hath out of the residue of her Husbands Estate If Lands be conveyed to the Wife before marriage for part of her Joynture and other Lands are conveyed to her after Marriage in full satisfaction of her Jointure and she refuse those conveyed after Marriage in this Case she may retain those conveyed before Marriage and yet be endowed of the residue of her Husbands Estate For that the Lands first setled on her were not for her whole Joynture Co. 1. Inst 35. Co. 4. 3. Forfeiture of the profits of part of her Jointure And if she be a Popish Recusant Convict and her Husband none and she conform not within the year next before his death she shall forfeit the profits of two parts both of such Dower and of the Estate so conveyed to her before her Marriage And as the Wife shall have her Joynture and Dower both Where the Jointure is pursuant to the Statute in such Cases where the Joynture is not pursuant to the Statute of 27 H. 8. so in some Cases likewise where she hath a Joynture pursuant to that Statute As where she hath such a Joynture made to her by the Husband before Marriage and he afterwards endow her ad ostium Ecclesiae or if she hath a Joynture made by the Husband in his life time and after his death his Heir or Feoffee assign other Lands to her in Dower or the Heir plead to her in a Writ of Dower ne unque seisi que Dower c. or nient accouple in Loyal Matrimony or any other Plea save Joynture in bar of Dower and it be found against him In these Cases the Wife shall hold her Joynture and yet be endowed and if she be an Offender within this branch of the Act shall forfeit the profits of two parts of her Joynture and Dower both But if a Widow Dower not forfeited who is indowed of the Lands of her deceased Husband takes a second Husband who is no Popish Recusant Convicted by whom she hath a Jointure and she becomes a Popish Recusant Convict and the second Husband dies and the Wife is an Offender within this Act In this Case she shall not by force thereof forfeit the profits of two parts of such Dower and Jointure both but only of her Jointure For that her Dower is not out of the Lands of her said Husband that is of the Husband in whose life time she stood convicted and after such Conviction forbore to conform c. within the year next before his death And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid Stat. Sect. 12. A Popish Recusant shall be disabled as an Excommunicate person That every Popish Recusant which is or shall be convicted of Popish Recusancy shall stand and be reputed to all intents and purposes disabled as a person lawfully and duly Excommunicated and as if he or she had béen so denounced and excommunicated according to the Laws of this Realm until he or she so disabled shall conform him or her self and come to Church and hear Divine Service and receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to the Laws of this Realm and also take the Oath appointed and prescribed in one other Act made this present Session of Parliament Intituled An Act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish Recusants And that every person or persons sued or to be sued by such person so disabled shall and may plead the same in disabling of such Plaintiff as if he or she were Excommunicated by Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court What Conviction disables him Convicted of Popish Recusancy The Conviction mentioned here and in the other branches of this Statute seems to be intended not only of a Conviction according to the Statute of 29 Eliz. 6. or 3 Jac. 4. Stat. 29 Eliz. 6. 3 Jac. 4. upon Proclamation and default of appearance but of a Judgment likewise upon an Indictment or popular Suit on the Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. or an Action of Debt c. by the King alone by force of the Statute of 35 Eliz. 1. 35 Eliz. 1. For Convicted in relation to these three last mentioned remedies is to be taken for adjudged or attainted Vide for this the Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. Sect. 5. And the Popish Recusant who is either convicted upon Proclamation and default of appearance or against whom Judgment is had upon an Indictment popular Suit or Action of Debt c. at the Kings Suit is hereby disabled as an Excommunicate person and liable to all other the penalties and incapacities inflicted by this Act on a Popish Recusant convicted To what intent as excommunicate Reputed to all intents and purposes disabled as a person c. Excommunicated And not reputed to all intents as an Excommunicate person as Wingate tit Crown numb 135. misrecites the Statute For as it seems by the words of the Statute the Popish Recusant convicted is not to be reputed as a person Excommunicate in any other respect or to any other intent but as to his disability only And yet the Opinion of the Court of Kings Bench Mich. 11 Jac. in the Case of Griffith and others seems to be to the contrary and that a Popish Recusant convicted may by force hereof be attached upon a Writ of Excommunicato capiendo Excommmnicato capiendo Bulstrode 2. 155. Tamen Quaere whether this Statute being a penal Law and speaking only of the point of disability shall be extended by Equity to other Cases or the Recusant be attached upon an Excommunicato capiendo unless he be first actually Excommunicated A Popish Recusant Convict is disabled as an Excommunicate person Witness to be a Witness in any Cause between party and party By Coke Chief Justice Bulstrode 2. 155. This disability but quousque May plead the same in disabling of such Plaintiff This disability in the Popish Recusant convicted is but quousque c. until he Conform c. and take the Oath of Allegiance And the Defendant must in this Case plead the Conviction at large and must as in a Plea of Excommengement demand if the Plaintiff shall be answered Hetley 18. which is the legal conclusion of a Plea in disability of