case the king against CRANFEILD queen if a indictment at a borough session  need state the authority by which the session be hold the defendant be indict  at the session hold for the borough of Hatfield for speak these word the mayor  and alderman of Hatfield be a pack of as great villain as any who rob upon the  highway and we will take away their charter he be find guilty of speak the  word it be move in arrest of judgement and several exception take first this  be try at a session of a particular borough they shall have show what  authority they have to bold the session be in a private place either by  prescription or charter which be omit second the word be not indictable for  they be of heat and passion for which the defendant ought to be bind to his  good behaviour but not indict modern in easter term in the twentyfirst year of  king Charles the second vent keb a one Burford be indict in this court for  these word speak by he of the justice of the peace nun of the justice of the  peace understand the statute of excise except such a one name he and true he  do neither well understand they nor most of the parliamentman who make they  and this indictment be quash three it be say a swearer pro lord ring prsentant  it shall have be pro lord ring et castle predict looks like it be say S c Mod  that the defendant have slip the time of move in arrest of judgement pray that  he may submit to a small fine and that the court not be satisfy that the word  be indictable because no contempt of government they fine the defendant  sixpence see also king v Burford vent Anonymous vent wrightson case salk Reg v  soley salk Reg v Langley Mod king v Legarley hawk p c ch S but king v baker  Mod seem contra and note that now a motion may be make in arrest of judgement  on a indictment at any time before judgement pronounce b modern er p king v  inhabitant of Lisley er report date case the king against the inhabitant OF  LISLEY if the parish of a procure a female parishioner to be deliver of a  bastard child in the parish of b a order of removal must state that she be a  parishioner of the parish of a at the time she be deliver but the court will  not quash a order for this defect nine year after it be make a order of  settlement be make by two justice of peace to remove one Elizabeth Sinkwell  late of Lisley singlewoman and William her son to the parish of  MortonHampstead in which order the cause assign be because that by fraud and  collusion of the parish of Lisley she be deliver of the say bastard child in  the parish of Morton first it be object against this order to quash it because  it do not appear that the mother be last legal settle in the parish of Lisley  or that she be a parishioner there at the time she be deliver at Morton they  only say Elizabeth Sinkwell late of Lisley singlewoman which be but a  description of the person and a addition of the place and not a sufficient  allegation that she be a inhabitant there or that the child be settle there  now it appear by the order that the child be bear at Morton and the birth  prima fancy make a settlement in that place nothing appear in the order to  make he a inhabitant elsewhere and they can send he back to a place where he  never be as to this objection it be answer that the order recite her to be  late of the parish of Lisley singlewoman which be a sufficient take notice  that she be a inhabitant of that parish second the reason of the removal be  too general videlicet that she be deliver at Morton by fraud and collusion of  the parish of Lisley as to this objection it be say that the justice be not  bind to show a reason why they make such a order to modern remove her and  therefore if they assign a cause uncertain that shall not quash a order the  court incline that she ought to be allege to be a legal inhabitant in the  parish of Lisley but will not quash the order because it be nine year since it  be make videlicet ever since October