part for we labour only for part so that 14. is in force as it was at first in every branch thereof notwithstanding 34 H. 8. for 1 Mariae restored this and that which the 14. gives is Medicines not as it is generally to be intended and so to include Chirurgery but all that was proper to Physicians 34 H. 8. although it allow men to give Medicines yet it is at their perils for if a man die under their hands it is as it was at Common Law By the Statute of 34. to repeal all of 14. which was contrary to 34. which does not in the least name the 14. yet it is repealed for so much as concerns Agues c. The Statute of 33 H. 8. for trial of Treason is repealed And after by 1 Mariae our Case is a far stronger Case that every Clause shall be in force notwithstanding any Statute c. these words ought not to be void if by construction they may be made to stand and no Statute withstands this Statute but 34 H. 8. and therefore all which this Statute takes away ought to be restored He confessed the case put of Confirmation of 32 H. 8. Statute of Wills that this doth not take away the Stat. of 34. for it is but an explanation and one being confirmed the other is confirmed And it is plain that the 13 Eliz doth not take away 1 Eliz. for it was in the affirmative and commenced after and therefore it is expounded not to extend to the Bishop As the Statute of contra formam collationis doth not include the Bishop as it was there adjudged And he cited Langton's Case where this point which is the point of departure was adjudged and 10 and 11 Eliz. rot 248. B. R. action by the College versus Eliheus Cornelius and upon these very points Iudgment was given for the College Also the Barr is ill Allow the Statute of 34. were in force yet the Iustification is ultra that which the Statute gives and took the same exception as before 2. There is a departure which was so ruled in Langton's Case and is so in reason Also this is a proper departure when a man relinquishes the title upon which he grounds himself and betakes himself to another And we have not made a departure our title is 14 H. 8. which makes good the Letters Patents then if you repeal the Letters Patents we ought to repeal the 14 H. 8. and it would be absurd for us to commence with 1 Mariae for then we ought to have recited all the Statutes 37 H. 6. 5. 21 H. 7. 25. 18. If a man avow for rent granted by I. S. the other saith that I. S. had nothing in the Land at the time of the Grant the other shews that he was seifed to his use this is a departure for his title to the first was by the Common Law and therefore seeing the Statute was his title it ought to have béen shewed But in our Case the Statute 1 Mariae is not our title to the action but onely removes the impediment 6 H. 7. 8. A condition is pleaded in destruction of a Feoffment and a release pleaded to destroy the condition and no departure but the Feoffment stands with a good title So in our Case Hill 4 Jac. intrat H. 3. Jac. Bagshaw versus Gower Trespass for chasing his Cattle 14 Maii 1 Jac. The Defendant Iustifies as an Estray and that 16 Maii 1 Jac. he delivered them The Plaintiff replies that 15 Maii he laboured and worked them upon which the Defendant demurres This was no departure but the working maintained the Trespass done 14. and made him Trespasser ab initio Mich. 23 24 Eliz. C. B. rot 2297. Pledal and Clark Trespass for chasing his Cattle in Barkshire the Defendant justifies damage fezant the Plaintiff replies that afterwards he drove them into another County scil Oxford c. and sold them the Defendant demurred and the declaration was in Barkshire yet the sale made him a wrong doer ab initio Where the Replication maintains the title and onely removes the impediment it is good Pasch Jac. B. R. Action upon the Case Wood and Hankford for disturbing him of Toll and intitles himself by Letters Patents of H. 6. The Defendant pleads 28 H. 6. which restores all Franchises The Plaintiff replies 4 H. 7. which revives the first Statute and adjudged no departure for if he pleadeth the resumption and the reviver if there were 20 he ought to plead all Then in our case all is gone and we know not whether he ought to justifie one kind or other 3. For the Iurisdiction This Court is most proper for the Informer and he cited Gregories Case and said If the King might elect to sue in what Court he pleased the Informer might also But however it is out of the Statute of 21 Jac. The title is for the ease of the Subject The preamble c. 18 Eliz. cap. 5. there it appeareth that the common Informer ought to inform in proper person the College was never so nor cannot and in common Information there ought to be the day of the Information c. and there is not any day here 25 Eliz. 12. Knevet informed against Butcher and afterwards was non-suited for which the Defendant prayed to have Costs c. and there the Plaintiff alledged that he was not a common Informer insomuch that this was the first Information that he ever exhibited yet ruled against him insomuch that it was upon a penal law where every one may have the action But in our case it is not so because this is no such Information or Informer within the Statute 40 Eliz. Agar informs against Cavendish and others upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. for Liveries which appoints the Information in C. B. B. Reg. and that they may sue as many as they will and the Exchequer is not named there but inferiour Courts be and Iudgment was given for the Informer But after in a Writ of Error brought it was adjudged that the Information doth not lie in the Exchequer but they resolved that the King might have sued there and therefore the Iudgment shall be good to intitle the King to the intire sum forfeited Richardson said that it was a hard case to prove the King may sue in any Court and he cited 14 E. 3. Countess of Kent's case 40 Ass 35. the King may sue for Spiritual matters in the Temporal Court as a Legacy c. Hill 36 Eliz. rot 135. Hammond Informant upon a penal Statute and died and upon motion by the Attorney General Iudgment was given for one Moiety for the King notwithstanding And the difference betwixt this and Agar's Case that in this case the Informer was well intitled to a Moiety but there not Statutes which take away Iurisdictions of the Courts at Westminster ought to be taken strictly Mich. 44 45 Eliz. Buck informs in the Exchequer for transporting of raw hides in Middlesex
authority in that case 3. The fines and amercements to be imposed by them by force of the Act do not belong to them but to the King for the King hath not granted the fines and amercements to them and yet the fine is appointed to be paid to them in proximis Comitiis and they have imprisoned the Plaintiff for non-payment thereof 4. They ought to have committed the Plaintiff presently by construction of Law although that no time be limited in the Act as in the Stat. of West cap. 12. De Servientibus Ballivis c. qui ad compotum reddend ' tenentur c. cum Dom ' hujusmodi servientium dederit eis auditores compoti contingat ipsum in arreragiis super compotum suum omnibus allocatis allocandis arrestentur corpora eorum per testimonium auditorum ejusdem compoti mittantur liberentur proximae gaolae Domini Regis in partibus illis c. in that case although that no time be limited when the Accomptant shall be imprisoned yet it ought to be presently as it is holden in 27 H. 6. 8. and the reason thereof is given in Fogossa's Case Plow Com. 17. that the generality of time shall be restrained to the present time for the benefit of him upon whom the pain shall be inflicted and therewith agréeth Plow Com. 206. b. in Stradling's Case And a Iustice of Peace upon view of the force ought to commit the offender presently 5. For as much as the Censors had their authority by the Letters Patents and Act of Parliament which are high matters of Record their proceedings ought not to be by word and so much the rather because they claimed authority to fine and imprison And therefore if Iudgment be given against one in the Common Pleas in a Writ of Recaption he shall be fined and imprisoned but if the Writ be Vicontiel in the County there he shall not be fined or imprisoned because that the Court is not of Record F. N. B. in bre de Recaptione so in 47 F. N. B. a Plea of Trespass vi armis doth not lie in the County Court hundred Court c. for they cannot make Record of fine and imprisonment and regularly those who cannot make a Record cannot fine and imprison And therewith agréeth 27 H. 8. Book of Entries The Auditors make a Record when they commit the Defendant to prison A Iustice of Peace upon view of the force may commit but he ought to make a Record of it 6. Because the Act of 14 H. 8. hath given power to imprison untill he shall be delivered by the President and the Censors and their Successors reason requireth that the same be taken strictly for the liberty of the Subject as they pretend is at their pleasure And the same is proved by a Iudgment in Parliament in this Case For when this Act of 14 H. 8. had given power to the Censors to imprison yet it was taken so literally that the Gaoler was not bound to receive them which they committed to him and the reason thereof was because they had authority to do it without any Court And thereupon the Statute of 1 Mar. cap. 9. was made that the Gaoler should receive them upon a pain and none can be committed to any prison if the Gaoler cannot receive him but the first Act for the cause aforesaid was taken so literally that no necessary incident was implyed And where it was objected that this very Act of 1 Mariae hath enlarged the power of the Censors and that upon the word of the Act It was clearly resolved that the said Act of 1 Mariae did not enlarge the power of the Censors to fine or imprison any person for any cause for which he ought not to be fined and imprisoned by the said Act of 14 H. 8. For the words of the Act of Q. Mary are according to the tenor and meaning of the said Act Also shall send or commit any Offender or Offenders for his or their offence or disobedience contrary to any Article or clause contained in the said Grant or Act to any Ward Gaol c. But in this Case Bonham hath not done any thing which appeareth within this Record contrary to any Article or clause contained within the Grant or Act of 14 H. 8. Also the Gaoler who refuseth shall forfeit the double value of the fines and amerciaments that any offender or disobedient shall be assessed to pay which proveth that none shall be received by any Gaoler by force of the Act of 14 H. 8. but he who may be lawfully fined or amerced by the Act of 14 H. 8. and for that was not Bonham as by the reasons and causes aforesaid it appeareth And admit that the replication be not material and the Defendants have demurred upon it yet forasmuch as the Defendants have confessed in the Bar that they have imprisoned the Plaintiff without cause the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment And the difference is when the Plaintiff doth reply and by his replication it appeareth that he hath no cause of action there he shall never have judgment But when the Bar is insufficient in matter or amounteth as this Case is to a confession of the point of the action and the Plaintiff replyeth and sheweth the truth of the matter to enforce his Case and in Iudgment of Law it is not material yet the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for it is true that sometimes the Count shall be made good by the Bar and sometimes the Bar by the Replication and sometimes the Replication by the Rejoynder c. But the difference is when the Count wantethtime place or other circumstance it may be made good by the Bar so of the Bar Replication c. as appeareth in 18 E. 4. 16. b. But when the Count wanteth substance no Bar can make it good so of the Bar Replication c. and therewith agrée 6 E. 4. 2. a good case and mark there the words of Choke vid. 18 E. 3. 34. b. 44 E. 3. 7. a. 12 E. 4. 6. 6 H. 7. 10. 7 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 4. 24. c. But when the Plaintiff makes a Replication Sur-rejoynder c. and thereby it appeareth that upon the whole matter and Record the Plaintiff hath no cause of action he shall never have Iudgment although that the Bar or remainder be insufficient in matter for the Court ought to judge upon the whole Record and every one shall be intended to make the best of his own case Vid. Rigeways case in the 3. part of my Reports 52. And so these differences were resolved and adjudged betwéen Kendall and Heyer Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. And Mich. 29 30 Eliz. in the same Court betwéen Gallys and Burbry And Coke Chief Iustice in the conclusion of his argument did observe 7 things for the better direction of the President and Commonalty of the said Colledge in time to come 1. That none can be punished for practising
but such onely which are for the better government of the old And also he said plainly that it appears by the Statute of 1 Mariae That the former Statutes shall not be taken by Equity for by these the President and Commons have power to commit a delinquent to Prison and this shall be intended if they shall be taken by Equity that every Gaoler ought to receive him which is so committed But when it is provided by 1 Mariae specially that every Gaoler shall receive such Offenders by this it appears That the former Statute shall not be taken in Equity And so he concluded that Iudgment shall be entred for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly College of Physicians versus Butler Sir William Jones's Reports p. 261. THe President of the College and Comminalty of the faculty of Physick London brought debt against one George Butler The Writ was quòd reddat Domino Regi Praesidenti Collegii ac Comminal ' facultat ' Medicor ' London Qui tam pro Domino Rege quà m pro seipso sequitur 60. li. quas eis debet And the Declaration was in the name of the said President by the said name qui tam pro Domino Rege quà m pro seipso sequitur c. which contained the Charter of H. 8. made Anno Regni sui 10. and confirmed by Act of Parliament Anno Regni sui 14. as it is contained in the Statute of 14 H. 8. and that the said Defendant minimè ponderans the said Statute or the Penalty thereof exercised the faculty of Physick in London although he was not admitted so to do by the President and the College or Comminalty of the faculty of Physick London by the space of 12 months before the said Action brought per quod actio accrevit eidem Domino Regi dicto Praesidenti qui tam pro dicto Domino Rege quam pro seipso sequitur c. ad exigend ' habend ' of the said Defendant pro dicto Domino Rege eodem Praesidente Colleg ' praedict ' 60 li. videlicet 5 li. pro quolibet mense praedict ' 12 Mensium praedict ' Tamen Desendens praedicto Domino Regi Praesidenti non reddidit unde the said President said that he was damnified to the value of 100 li. The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 34 H. 8. whereby liberty is given to every one of the Kings Subjects that hath knowledge and experience of the nature of Herbs Roots Waters or the operation of them by speculation or practice to exercise apply and administer to any external ulcer wound apostumation outward tumor sive morbo alicui alio any Herb Ointment Bath Pultess or Plaster according to the experience and science of the said diseases or other Maladies eisdem consimil or Potion pro calculo Strangury vel febr without any impediment any Statute or other thing to the contrary And saith that he was a Subject and having experience and science by speculation and practice in the nature of Herbs Roots and Waters applied and ministred to divers of the Kings subjects Herbs Ointment Bath Pultess Plasters and Potion to Vlcers Diseases Maladies Strangury and Ague talibus aliis morbis illis consimilibus prout ei bene licuit And to the residue pleaded Not guilty The Plaintiff replied to the first Plea and pleaded the Statute of 1 Mariae whereby the said Charter and the said Act of 14 H. 8. was confirmed in the whole Whereupon the Defendant demurred and shewed for cause of Demurrer that the Replication was a departure from the Declaration And upon Argument in the Common Pleas Iudgment was given by the opinion of all the Iudges for the Plaintiff and thereupon Error was brought in the Kings Bench. Two Errors were assigned the one was the departure the second was because that the Writ was in the name of the King and the President and the Declaration was in the name of the Informer also And after argument at the Bar by Council on both sides the Iudges delivered their opinions The Chief Iustice began and then Jones Whitlock and Crook They all said that Iudgment ought to be affirmed First they agréed that the Writ and Declaration were good and although some Precedents be that upon a penal Law the Writ be to answer the Informer qui tam pro seipso quà m pro Domino Rege sequitur Yet they thought that the most proper and better way of a Writ was to answer the King and Informer for the debt was given to them by moieties therefore it is not so proper to demand all for the Informer and yet to have a several judgment for the King and the Informer for the moieties and so is Partridge and Crokers case in the Comment But when it is by information there it shall be that the Informer informs for the King and himself Another exception was taken to the Writ because it is in the name of the President and not of the College also And also it was contrary in the end of the Declaration where it is said unde actio accrevit to the said King and President for to have 60 li. of the Defendant For the King one Moiety and for the President and College the other Moiety But it was adjudged by the Court that notwithstanding it was good for First although the Incorporation was by the name of President and College notwithstanding the suite is by the Charter given to the President and there may be a Corporation by one name to purchase lands and otherwise yet it shall sue by another name 11 E. 1. a Corporation was by the name of Master Wardens Brothers and Sisters of Rouncevill and by the said Patent it is said they should sue by the name of Master and Wardens of Rouncevill 2. Although that the Action is given by way of suite to the President onely yet the Recovery and money recovered shall be to the President and College therefore the Conclusion for to have the money to the President and College was held good The 3. point was resolved that the Plea in Bar was not good for the liberty given is disjunctive for outward medicines to use Plasters Oyntment Bathes c. and for 3 diseases to wit the Stone Strangury and Agues onely yet they jumble all together that he ministred the Ointments and Potions to all the said Maladies which cannot be for he may not administer a Potion unless to the said 3 diseases and no other 4. It was resolved that it was not any departure but that the Replication was subsequent and pursuant to the Declaration But for the main matter they said nothing to wit whether the Statute of 1 Mariae took away the force of the Statute of 34 H. 8. for they gave their Iudgment upon the Bar by reason it was naught Onely Crook spake to this point and it séemed to him that the Statute of 34 H. 8. is not repealed or avoided by 1 Mariae Butler versus the President of
the College of Physicians Pasch 7 Car. 1. Rot. 519. Crooke's Reports 3 part p. 256. ERror of a Judgment upon a Demurrer in the Common Bench. The first Error assigned was Because the Record was Ad respondendum Domino Regi Praesidenti Collegii c. Qui tam pro Domino Rege quà m pro seipso sequitur quòd reddat eis Sexaginta libras unde idem Praesidens qui tam c. dicit c. Whereas the Action ought to have béen brought by the President onely qui tam c. and not by the King and President c. Sed non allocatur For being an Original Writ the Writ is most often so and sometimes the other way And they conceived it good both ways But Informations are always that the party qui tam for the King quà m pro seipso sequitur c. Vide Plowd 77. New book of Entries 160. Old Book of Entries 143. 373. The second Error was that the Replication was a departure from the Count for the Count sets forth That King Henry the Eighth anno decimo regni sui incorporavit per le Statut. of decimo quarto Henrici octavi confirmavit the College of Physicians by the name of the President c. that no man should practise Physick in London or within seven miles without licence under the Seal of the College upon the Penalty of 5 li. for every month that he so practised the one moiety unto the King the other unto the President of the College to the use of the said College And for that the Defendant not being allowed c. had practised Physick for twelve months in London the said Action was brought c. The Defendant pleads the Statute of tricesâ—mo quarto Henrici Octavi cap. 8. That every one who hath science and experience of the nature of Herbs Roots and Waters or of the operation of the same by speculation or practice may minister or apply in and to any outward Sore Vncome Wound Aposthumations outward swelling or disease any Herb Oyntments Baths Pultess or Emplasters according to their cunning experience and knowledge c. or drink for the Stone and Strangury or Agues in any part of the Realm without suite vexation c. any Act or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding And that he having skill in the nature of Herbs Roots and Waters by speculation and practice applied to persons requiring his skill Herbs Oyntments Baths Drinks c. to their Sores Vncomes Wounds and for the Stone and Strangury or Agues and to all other diseases in the said Statute mentioned prout ei bene licuit Et quoad aliquam aliam practisationem seu facultatem medicinae aliter vel alio modo quòd non est culpabilis Et de hoc ponit c. And makes his averment Et hoc paratus est verificare The Plaintiff replies and shews the Statute of primo Mariae capite nono which confirms the Charter of Decimo Henrici octavi and the Statute of Decimo quarto Henrici octavi and appoints that it shall be in force notwithstanding any Statute or Ordinance to the contrary And upon this it was demurred because it is a departure for it intitles him by another Act viz. the Statute of primo Mariae which is not mentioned in the Count and therefore 't was assigned for Error But all the Court here conceived That it is no departure because it fortifies the Count and is as to revive the Statute of decimo quarto Henrici octavi if it were repealed in this particular by the Statute of tricesimo quarto Henrici octavi And for that the Case of Woodhead was shewn to the Court Mich. 42 43 Eliz. rot 397. where the President of the College of All-Souls brings an action upon the Case for taking Toll in and shews a Charter of vicesimo sexto Henrici sexti to be discharged of Toll The Defendant pleaded the Act of Resumption of Liberties granted by Henry the sixth made and so the liberty gone The Plaintiff pleaded a reviver of them by the Statute of quarto Henrici septimi And it was held to be no departure but as it were a confession and avoiding The third and principal Error assigned was if the Statute of tricesimo quarto Henrici octavi be not repealed by the Statute of primo Mariae and if not Whether the Defendant hath made a sufficient Iustification And Quoad that whether the said Statute be repealed the Court was not resolved But Richardson Chief Iustice conceived it was repealed by primo Mariae by the general words any Act or Statute to the contrary of the Act of decimo quarto Henrici octavi notwithstanding But I conceived that the Act of tricesimo quarto Henrici octavi not mentioning the Statute of decimo quarto Henrici octavi was for Physicians but the part of the Act of tricesimo quarto Henrici octavi was concerning Chirurgeons and their applying outward Medicines to outward Sores and Diseases And drinks onely for the Stone Strangullion and Ague That Statute was never intended to be taken away by the Act of primo Mariae But to this point Jones and Whitlock would not deliver their opinions But admitting the Statute of tricesimo quarto Henrici octavi be in force yet they all resolved the Defendants Plea was naught and not warranted by the Statute For he pleads That he applied and ministred Medicines Plasters Drinks Ulceribus Morbis Maladiis Calculo Strangurio Febribus aliis in Statuto mentionatis so he leaves out the principal word in the Statute Externis and doth not refer and shew That he ministred Potions for the Stone Strangullion or Ague as the Statute appoints to these thrée Diseases onely and to no other And by his Plea his Potions may be ministred to any other sickness Wherefore they all held his Plea was naught for this cause and that Iudgment was well given against him Whereupon Iudgment was affirmed The President and College of Physicians against John Butler Entred Pasch 4. Caroli cum Brownlow THe President and College of Physicians for themselves and for the King Complain against John Butler by Information and demand 60 li. and declare that H. 8. 34 September in the 14 year of his Reign incorporated them by the name of President and College and Comminalty of the faculty of Physicians in London and granted to them several privileges c. and recite their Patent and confirmation thereof by 14 H. 8. cap. 5. because the Defendant without licence did practise 11 Months contrary to the Statute The Defendant pleaded in Bar and recited the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap. 8. which enacts that any person having knowledge and experience of the nature of Herbs Roots and Waters or of the operation of the same by speculation or practice c. may practise use and administer in and to any outward Sore c. any Herb Oyntment Bath c. according to their cunning in any of
Parliament was dissolved or prorogued In H. 6 's time the former method was altered and then Bills continentes formam Actus Parliamenti were first used to be brought into the House The Bills were before they were brought into the House ready drawn in the Form of an Act of Parliament and not in the Form of a Petition as before Vpon which Bills 't was written by the Commons Soit baile al Seigneurs and by the Lords Soit baile al Roy and by the King Le Roy le voet All this was written upon the Bill and the Bill thus endorsed was to remain with the Clerk of the Parliament and he was to enter the Bill thus drawn at first in the Form of an Act of Parliament or Statute upon the Statute Rolls without entring of the Answer of the King Lords and Commons upon the Statute Roll. And then issued out Writs to the Sheriffs with transcripts of the Statute Rolls viz. of the Bill drawn at first in the Form of a Statute and without the answer of the King Lords and Commons to the Bill to proclaim the Statutes Now this Record which is before us in Court upon the Mittimus is not a transcript of the Bill upon which the answer of the King Lords and Commons was written but it is a transcript of the Entry which was made upon the Statute Roll upon which Roll it is not necessary that the Royal Assent must be entred And though oftentimes the Royal Assent hath béen entred by the Clerk upon the Statute Rolls yet 't is not necessary that it should be there to make a good Statute it having béen before upon the Bill There be many Statutes which have not the Royal Assent to them entred upon the Statute Rolls This objection would destroy half the Acts of Parliament that be If in the body of the Statute it self the consent of the King Lords and Commons doth not appear 't is a void Statute 't is felo de se As in the case of 4 H. 7. fol. 18. which case is cited in Hobarts reports fol. 111. in the case there betwéen the King and the Lord Hunsdon and the Countess Dowager of Arundel and the Lord William Howard upon an Act of Attainder of a particular person the consent of the Commons did not appear in it and therefore saith the book all the Iudges held clearly that it was no Act and therefore he was restored And yet it doth not hold true generally that in the body of the Act the thrée Assents must particularly appear especially in cases of Ancient Statutes The reason is because the Forms of drawing up and wording ancient Statutes were very various as 8 Cook Prince's Case King Edw. 3. authoritate Parliamenti grants by an instrument in Form of a Charter yet 't is there held that it was a Statute And this very Act here in question of 14 H. 8. hath always béen taken to be a good Act as in Dr. Bonham's case in the 8 report and in the 4 Inst and in Dr. Butler's case in Cro. Car. and in Jones's report But further Hales said that in this case here the Court is bound up to give Iudgment upon the Record that is certified unto the Court And by the Record certified it appears to the Court that it is a good Act of Parliament for in the Certificate made to the Court the thrée Assents of the King Lords and Commons are contained in the body of the Act. There be other Satutes of the same Sessions of Parliament viz. in 14 H. 8. which be as our Statute is viz. without the Royal assent upon the Roll of the Statute as the Act about the marrying of the Six Clerks cap. 8. and the Act of the Port of Southampton cap. 13. and other Statutes of the same Sessions and yet they have not béen ever questioned and in truth the Royal Assent was at the end of the Bills of that Sessions If the Defendant thinks that the certificate here is false it being of an Act of Parliament whenas he thinks there is no such Act The party grieved by such false Certificate is to take his remedy by way of Action upon the Case against the Person that made such false Certificate as the Clerk of the Parliament or the Clerk in Chancery but the Defendant cannot be admitted here in this Court to averr contrary to the Record certified and so to relieve himself this way for we have no power over those Records we cannot cause the Parliament Rolls themselves to be brought into this Court we take them to be as they are certified unto us Then the Counsel for the Defendant made a second objection viz. The issue here is whether there be such a Record or no and this issue is to be tried by the Record it self For all Records are of that high nature that they can be tried onely by themselves Now here the Tenor of the Record onely is certified and not the Record it self and therefore the issue here is not sufficiently proved by the Plaintiffs in Law And Pages case in the 5 rep was cited where 't is resolved that the Tenor of a Record is not pleadable at Common Law that 't is not sufficient at Common Law to shew forth to the Court the Tenor of Letters Patents but that the Letters Patents themselves must be produced to the Court 'T is the Record it self onely that is pleadable and not the Tenor thereof and by consequence 't is the Record it self that must be certified here to prove this issue of nul tiel Record and a Certificate of the Tenor onely is not sufficient Hales the Lord Chief Iustice answered that though the Tenor of a Record be not pleadable yet upon the issue of nul tiel Record the Tenor of the Record is sufficient to prove that issue the Tenor thereof being sent by way of Mittimus into the Court where the issue is depending upon that particular purpose onely Nul tiel Record may well be pleaded to a private Act of Parliament but it cannot be pleaded to a publick Act of Parliament the reason of the difference is for that the Court is bound to take notice of publick Acts of Parliament but not of private ones When execution may be awarded upon the Record certified there a Certificate of the Tenor is not sufficient because no execution can be granted upon a Tenor onely the reason thereof is this if execution might be upon the Tenor then two executions might be viz. one upon the Tenor in one Court the other upon the Record it self in the other Court and 't would be against reason that two executions should be for the same thing But where the Writ which commands the Court below to certifie a Record doth also tie up the hands of that Court from awarding any execution there a Certificate of the Tenor onely is sufficient as in some cases of Writs of Error upon Iudgment given in other Courts The like of Certiorari's to
Interdicted practice 310 364 440. required to give bond not to practise 354. discommuned 375 438 440 443. Certificates given by the Censors against practising Apothecaries 427 471. Sued for practice 415 416 417 418. Fined or fined and imprisoned for the same 333 340 351 354 364 375 403 406 407. Their Apprentices not to be examined but at the College 439. Refused examination when not first examined by their own Company 466. Arms Collegiates discharged from bearing or providing Arms 58 115 282 323 378. C. Cambridge Dr. Winterton Professor of Physick there refused to give Licences to some and incorporation to a Leyden Dr. and why 443 444. He resolved against giving any Licences without keeping an Act 444. Cases reported Dr. Bonham's by Coke p. 178. by Brownlow 202. Butler's by Jones 221. Croke 225. Littleton 229. Huybert's  267. Needham's  273. Censors They are yearly to be chosen out of whom and by whom 9 70 75. Their office and power to examine persons and medicines 9 44 49 88. Their power to search Apothecaries shops and to burn or destroy corrupt or defective medicines 18 19 33 49 92 305 308. To punish for making bad medicines or not according to Physicians prescriptions 49 50 51 95. To summon Apothecaries c. to testifie against illegal practisers and to punish them upon refusal 47 48 50 90 91 93 94. To supervise practisers and to summon censure or punish any of them offending 44 45 86 87. To impose fines 9 32 44 46 50 51 84 89 91 94 95 279 280. To imprison 9 31 32 44 46 50 84 89 95 111 112 279 280 343 344. In what cases they have power to fine and imprison and in what not 188 189 195 207 215 216 217 279 280. How the first of Q. Mary hath enlarged their power 198. Several things to be observed for their better direction 200 219. They may commit to prison upon refusing examination if an ordinance of the College be made to that purpose 280 281. No Action of false imprisonment can lie against them for committing for unskilfull or temerarious practice 281. They may sue for two years practice 419. The form of a Censors Warrant to imprison 467 468. To discharge from prison 351. They are sworn duly to execute their Office 80. They are to take the Oaths of Obedience and Supremacy ibid. They may be removed and for what causes 76 78. Charter of H. 8. why granted p. 6 7. recited in other Charters and in trials with Empiricks 38 39 62 63 148 164. Charter of Q. Elizabeth 35. Charter of K. James why granted 40. The King promised to consent to a bill in Parlament for confirmation thereof 59. Charter of our present Sovereign K. Charles 2. why granted and at whose humble petition 66 67. The King promised to consent to a bill in Parliament for confirmation thereof 116. Charter of K. James to the Apothecaries 119. College of Physicians why and when made a Body Corporate within London and 7 miles thereof p. 6 7 10 11 37 38 62 148. They shall have perpetual succession and a common Seal 8 68 69. They shall be of ability to purchase lands 8 57 68 114. They may sue and be sued 8 42 68 107. They may make lawfull Assemblies and Ordinances for Government 8 53 54 83. None shall practise Physick in London or 7 miles unless he be admitted by the College 8 9 85. Not to be summoned on Iuries and to be exempted from watch and ward and all Parish Offices 10 17 18 115. To have a Hall 53 82. To have a Register 55 109. To appoint other Officers and to give them an Oath 56 110. To remove them upon just cause 56 110. Power to take Recognizances to the King 57 110 111. The King's moiety given to the College 43 106. All fines given to the College 51 52 106. 6l per an to be paid into the Exchequer for and in respect of the King's moiety and fines c. 60 108. The College hath power to remove any of the Elects Censors or Fellows and why 56 78. Not less than 15 can make a College 83. Any of the Physicians in London may practise Surgery 20. Power to punish by fine or imprisonment 84. Their Charter confirmed by Acts of Parliament Royal Patents and adjudged Cases 11 31 35 39 40 41 64 115 116 152 159 163 164 169 172 180 197 205 215 221 229 230 245 250 276. All fines except 10 l. and 5 l. per mens to go to the poor charges first deducted 107 108. Copies of several of their Declarations agianst Empiricks and illegal practisers 147 164 178 202 261. Their Declaration may be in the name of the President and not of the College and yet good 223 225 251 256. They may either bring their Action or exhibite an Information 217 229. This information may lie in any of the King's Courts of Westminster notwithstanding the Statute of the 21 K. Jac. c. 4. 233 234 243 256. The College may imprison for breach of private Statutes and impose reasonable fines thereupon and continue Delinquents in prison till paid 279. They may take a reasonable Sum upon admissions 279. A Letter writ by them against the admission of Dr. Saul to be the Queen's Physician 357. Their opinion required about the death of a Noble Lady 381. About a Patent to be granted for the cure of Ruptures 395. About a person suspected to be poisoned 428. Concerning one pretending great cures as being the seventh Son 446 447 c. E. Elects Eight appointed by Act of Parliament p. 11. Their power what 11 12. Ten appointed by the last Charter 70. their names 71. They may be removed and why 77 78. They should take the Oaths of Obedience and Supremacy 80. Elections They are duly to be made 72. Each Fellow hath his single voice 79. Where voices are even a casting voice is allowed the President ibid. Empiricks Their several pleas 154 222 265. Butler's plea for practice was the 34 35 H. 8. c. 8. p. 222 226 229. The College's Answer 222 226 229. Butler demurrs and why 222 226 230. Errours assigned by him 222 223 225. Iudgment given against him 222 223 224 228 259. How Butler exceeded the licence of the 34 35 H. 8. p. 234. Gardiner's plea the same 154 156. The President 's reply 157. He pleads the insufficiency of that answer 158. The President defends it ibid. A judgment given against Gardiner by the Court of Kings Bench upon the Charter of 10 H 8. and the Statutes confirming it 159. He moves for an arrest of judgment and why 161 162 163. The Court upon hearing the Record adjudged for the College 163. Huybert The College's Declaration against him 261 267. His plea viz. that the 14 15 H. 8. was no Statute 265 267. The College's reply 265. The Record of the 14 15 H. 8. brought out of Chancery to the Court of King's Bench by Mittimus 267. Huybert's Council objected that this was no Act