case the king against Howard a information grant against a justice of the  peace for add another justice name to a order of removal on the rule for show  cause why a information shall not go against the defendant for set his father  name to a order for the removal of a pauper to his last settlement it appear  that in the county of Radnor there be but few justice and that there be a  custom among they to make use of a brother justice name by their general  consent in any case where the concurrence of two justice be necessary that the  defendant Howard be a justice of the peace for this county as be likewise his  father and a pauper be bring before he and examine in order to be remove to  his last settlement the defendant after examination sign his own and also put  his father name to this order of removal who be in the county of Middlesex at  that time the statute Elizabeth c direct that the pauper shall be examine  before two justice of the peace and upon such examination be remove by they if  they see fit therefore as this pauper be remove but upon examination before  one justice only and by he modern remove it be a piece of injustice do the  parish see winter v garlic salk Mod nut v long b r h stram Dudley v Nettleford  stram Tomlinson v Aniskin comy Rep wall v Falwood comy Rep Phillips v knightly  stram a upon which they move for a information against the defendant lee chief  justice this be a matter which concern the public liberty for the Act require  that all order for the removal of a pauper shall be sign by two justice and  that no pauper shall be remove but by such a order and examination therefore I  can think how this practice come into this county this have always receive the  censure of this court the examination be not before the gentleman who name be  so set to it and be therefore a manifest injustice to the parish where be be  remove the practice of the justice of this county be one great reason with I  for grant this information the defendant father be at this time high sheriff  for this county and the original motion be for a information against he for  act as a justice of peace in the same year in which he be sheriff contrary to  the statute so that he be oblige to discover that he do not sign his name to  the order of removal in order to acquit himself b against the defendant in  order to prevent the like practice prevail there for the future therefore I  think a information ought to be grant against he the rest of the court be of  the same opinion a information be grant modern er p