case Lucy lutterell widow against george reynell Esq george turbervile Esq  John Cory and whether Cory overrule r v Parker Doug see else v Abraham l r Q b  Midland lnsurance company v smith Q b d trespass will not lie for take money  if it appear either on the evidence or in the plead on the part of the  plaintiff to be felony except the party have be prosecute for the crime but  the defendant can show the felony in bar of the trespass roll Abr Jones latch  Mod ld ray in trespass if the fact appear on trial to have be felony a person  though prove by his own testimony to be aparticeps sin be a competent witness  the plaintiff as administratrix to jane lutterell during the minority of  Alexander lutterell the plaintiff second son declare against the defendant in  a action of trespass for that they together with John chapel c do take away  four thousand pound of the money number of the say jane upon the that day of  October and so for seven day follow the like sum ad damnum of thirtytwo  thousand pound modern upon a full hear of witness on both side the jury find  two of the defendant guilty and give six thousand pound damage and the other  not guilty a new trial be afterward move for and deny Mr attorneygeneral at  the trial except against the evidence that if it be true it destroy the  plaintiff action inasmuch as it amount to prove the defendant guilty of felony  and that the law will not stiff a man to smother a felony and bring trespass  for that which be a kind of robbery indeed say be if they have be acquit or  find guilty of the felony the action will lie therefore it may be maintain  against mrs Cory and against William Maynard who be acquit upon a indictment  of felony for this matter but not against the rest  But the Lord chief baron  declare and it be agree that it shall not lie in the mouth of the party to say  that he himself be a thief and therefore not guilty of the trespass but  perhaps if it have appear upon the declaration the defendant ought to have be  discharge of the trespass say quxre what the law will be if it appear upon the  plead or be find by special verdict my Lord chief baron also declare that it  be agree that whereas William Maynard one of the witness for the plaintiff be  guilty as appear by his own evidence together with the defendant but be leave  out of the declaration that he may be a witness for the plaintiff that he be a  good and legal witness but his credit be lessen by it for that he swear in his  own discharge for that when these defendant shall be convict and have satisfy  the condemnation he may plead the same in bar of a action bring against  himself but those in the simul cum be no witness a a win money of b by mean of  c and d pack the card upon a indictment against c and d a can be a witness  because interest in the conviction for it may give the record of it in  evidence on a prosecution against he as aparliceps sin by lee chief justice at  the sit after mich term Geo in the case of king v Backwell Merrill and other  note to the four edition see also Mod Mod Mod stram ld ray case in crown law d  edit a several witness be receive and allow to prove that William Maynard do  at several time discourse and declare the same thing and to the like purpose  that be testify now and the Lord chief baron say though a hearsay be not to be  allow as a direct evidence yet it may be make use of to this purpose videlicet  to prove that William Maynard be constant to himself whereby his testimony be  corroborate one thorn former Mr Reynells servant be subpomad by the plaintiff  to give evidence at this trial do not appear but it be swear by the Exeter  wagoner modern that thorn come so far on his journey hitherward as Blandford  and there fall so sick that he be not able to travel any further his  deposition in modern er p chancery in a suit there between these party about  this matter be admit to be read