case bird versus Hardwicke eoden die Eq can ab pl S c a man be not bind to  discover what may subject he to the penalty of a act of parliament the bill  charge that the plaintiff have several great quantity of port wine on board  several ship in the river and the defendant have likewise some of the same  wine he on purpose to raise the price of the market and to sell his own wine  at a better rate and unjust to retard and obstruct the plaintiff in the sale  of his cause the plaintiff wine to be seize as French wine and detain till the  Vernon chancery case defendant have sell all his own wine and that then the  defendant relinquish his prosecution well know that the plaintiff wine be port  wine and not French wine and therefore it be pray that the defendant may  answer the premise in order to the plaintiff bring a action on the case for  damage the defendant plead the Act for prohibit of French wine and a penal  clause therein on any man that shall seize or cause to be seize any wine as  French wine and afterward compound the matter or relinquish his prosecution  and insist that this bill be to subject he to a forfeiture he be not bind to  answer it the plea be allow but without cost Reg lib a fol the case be  numerous that establish the rule that no one be bind to answer so as to  subject himself either necessary or eventual to forfeiture or punishment or  any thing in the nature of a forfeiture and so it be in respect to maintenance  and sale of contest right or title on demurrer and plea of stat Henry cap  sharp v carter and other p wms so as to usury on demurrer the earl of Suffolk  v green atk so before the that Geo d cap as to any disability create by be a  papist smith v read l atk Harrison v Southcote ibidem ves SC and consequent as  to any disability still remain in regard to papist and a disability hold  general equivalent to a penalty or a forfeiture Molings v Molings Ch can south  see a company v Dolliff cite in smith v read ub sup but Molings v Molings not  to be find as there cite so in the case f a forfeiture of any interest as  where Vernon chancery case er p forfeiture on marriage without consent  Wrottesley v Bendish p wms Chauncey v Tahourden atk chancy v Fenhoulet ves so  where charge of subornation of perjury baker v Pritchard atk or where  defendant entitle during widowhood or on lease assign without licence Lord  Uxbridqe v Haveland ves so as to unlawful presentation to live butler v  Allington atk so as to defendant be a alien case of mrs duplessis cite finch v  finch ves and report sir Thomas Parker and brown par can so where bill seek  discovery how good come into possession of defendant which possession will  subject he to fine or corporal punishment or penalty under a Act of parliament  Duncalf v black atk east India company v Campbell ves so where bill file to  discover if defendant have give a general bind of resignation attorneygeneral  v Sudell pre Ch and the principle appear to be recognize in a similar case  though demurrer overrule bishop of London v fitche bro Ch Rep say vide note m  Mitf Tr so where the discovery will subject the defendant to punishment for  incest in the ecclesiastical court Brownsword v Edward ves finch v finch  ibidem so as to a conspiracy that will be a ground for criminal prosecution  chetwynd v London ves so where a collateral charge if connect with the  principal one baker v Pritchard atk so where the bill call for the discovery  of any act of moral turpitude mrs Duplessiss case Parker Rep Franco v Bolton  Ves so a marry woman may demurrer to a discovery that will subject her husband  to a charge of felony Cartwright v green Ves et vide Wynn v doughty Eq can ab  p attorneygeneral v Cromer Parker Rep attorneygeneral v Vincent gun east India  company v neave Ves but where the plaintiff be alone entitle to the penalty  and express waive they a discovery must be make anon ante Mitf Tr how far such  a waiver will prevent a demurrer where a moiety of the forfeiture belong to  the crown vide east India company v Sandys post so though the discovery may  subject another to a forfeiture of interest or to disability the case of mrs  duplessis ub sup so where the discovery may occasion loss of a future or  present benefit as in the case of conditional limitation over vide case before  Lord Talbot cite arg in Chauncey v Tahourden atk Lucas v Evans atk this case  however seem to have be decide very much on the circumstance Chauncey v  Tahourden be cite for the demurrer and it appear difficult to distinguish the  principle of the two case though Lord Hardwicke there express do distinguish  between forfeiture and conditional limitation over the same difficulty occur  in chancy v Fenhoulet ves which appear to be very indifferent report Lord  Hardwicke Chan be there make to say when the continuance of a estate be only  during widowhood it be no more than a conditional limitation and so in  strictness perhaps it must be consider it be however obvious to remark that  the estate during widowhood as curtail by a second marriage be not only no  continue estate but can never have any existence except by the very act alone  that at the same moment put a end to it the forfeiture or loss must necessary  be of some other and better estate which must have continue if the widow have  not marry again and where the loss or damage that may be occasion by the  discovery be mere contingent as in the common case of bill of discovery for  the purpose of a action there the defendant must answer Heathcote v fleet post  vol Morse v Buckworth ibidem but it be apprehend these case do not strict come  within the idea of penalty forfeiture or punishment vide grey v hesketh Amb so  where though the discovery may be the mean of ascertain the existence of a  crime which may affect the defendant by mean aliunde but not to fix it in the  defendant he must answer vide Brownsword v Edward ves so where the discovery  seek be not of a fact which can subject the defendant to any penalty but  connect with some other fact which may finch v finch ves and a distinction be  take where the discovery will subject defendant to a payment in nature of a  penalty in consequence of his own agreement and there defendant compel to  answer Richard or Brodrepp v coal in Chan hill vacation cite in Mit Tr p so  where the only variation be that the covenant or agreement be not special or  particular but in a common and usual form African company v parish post vol  there appear at first sight to be also some difficulty in reconcile the case  of leigh v Lord Warrington ves bro par can and mrs Duplessiss case as report  sir t Parker with the general principle and the case that go upon it except so  far as incapacity to enjoy right be to be distinguish from disability and  which appear to be the ground of the decision these be case of information  against alien to discover his place of birth in order to ascertain the fact of  alienage and demurrer in both case overrule though forfeiture in the common  apprehension of the word appear to be the evident consequence of a answer and  mrs Duplessiss case as cite in finch v finch ub sup be different from the  report in Parker and direct against those case but as report in Parker however  be much argue and affirm in the house of lord it may be proper to remark here  with respect to the case of Duncalf v black atk above cite that in Mitf Tr p  the learned author of that book state the case short as follow and to a bill  bring by insurer for a discovery of what good have be ship on board a vessel  the defendant plead the statute which make it penal to export wool he be  however direct to answer so far as to discover what good be on board the  vessel beside wool atk by the print report it appear that the bill be bring by  insurer suggest that the ship which have be lose have be lose fraudulent and  with a view to charge the plaintiff with the policy and charge that the ship  be bind from a port in Ireland to a port in France have only wool on board and  by the interrogatory part of the bill it be pray that the defendant may set  out what kind of good he have on board what the invoice be in what manner the  ship be clear and whether she have not arm on board her to this bill or so  much thereof as the plea seek to cover the defendant plead two act of  parliament enact forfeiture for wool export from Ireland the Lord chancellor  allow the plea but agree if other kind of good have be mention in the charge  part the defendant may have be oblige perhaps to have give some answer to it  but as there be not defendant be not oblige to answer that interrogatory part  the plea be state at length in the register book and to have be allow and  nothing more Reg lib a fol and in page of that treatise and on the same  subject it be say and where a devise over of a estate in case of marriage be  consider as a conditional limitation and not as a forfeiture a demurrer to a  bill for a discovery of marriage be overrule and refer to Chauncey v Tahourden  atk Lucas v Evans atk chancy v Fenhoulet ves in all these case the distinction  between a limitation over and a condition work a forfeiture be certain take  but it be in Lucas v Evans only that the demurrer be overrule in Chauncey v  Tahourden it be express allow and in chancy v Fenhoulet it be evident the  demurrer must have be allow though it be not state in word the editor have not  be able to find any entry of the latter case in the register book Vernon  chancery case er p