case cooper against the hundred OF Basingstoke if a be assault and seize in  the hundred of b but lead thence and rob in the hundred of c the hundred of c  be Chargeable S c Mod S c salk S c ld ray S c holt this be a action on the  statute of Winton and upon a special verdict the case appear to be this  highwayman assault the plaintiff in the highway in the hundred of Micheldever  and lead he out of the highway into a copse near adjoin which copse be in the  hundred of Basingstoke and there they bind and rob he the question be whether  the action be well bring against the hundred of Basingstoke the counsel for  the plaintiff insist that the action be well bring against the hundred of  Basingstoke that the robbery in the hundred of Basingstoke can not so relate  to the first assault in the hundred of Micheldever as to make it a robbery in  the hundred of Micheldever and insist on two rule first that the law never  operate by way of modern report relation but in case of necessity to prevent a  wrong or to do justice second that a relation of law shall not operate to the  injury of a three person however a act may relate by fiction of law between  the robber and the party rob yet it shall not relate to the prejudice of the  hundred a Hutton Goldsb pl a the counsel for the defendant insist that the  action ought to be against the hundred of Micheldever where the first assault  be and that the rest be but one continue act that the fault be in the hundred  of Micheldever where the assault be in the highway but the robbery be not in  the highway in the hundred of Basingstoke and the hundred be not oblige to  guard other place a traveller go through a new way lie out shall not have a  action against the hundred b   king v ware and lime cro car b the action ought  to be against both hundred and one reason why if a robbery be in division  hundred both shall be liable be because both be in fault in not keep watch in  the Michaelmas term follow this case be speak to again Mr king for the  plaintiff say that the action be well bring against Basingstoke for that the  hundred in which the take the good be be only Chargeable and insist on the  word of the statute Edward c Edward c Elizabeth c all which mention the  hundred where the robbery be do robbery be a species of theft and differ from  common larceny only in the manner of take a hale p c Inst a and to make a  robbery there must be a take the good from the person of the honest man into  the possession of the thief b hale Inst b a assault to rob a man be no robbery  c but see Geo c c then the hundred of Basingstoke be the hundred where the  robbery modern report er p be commit for the good be there take from the  honest man d Inst d all crime be local and must be try where commit e   hale p  c e and therefore if the two hundred be in two county it must be try in the  county where the take from the person of the man be it be object that a man  may be say to be rob where first assault for he and all about he be in the  possession of the modern report thief and the subsequent act shall relate to  the first act but the answer be that the assault be no robbery f hale p c f  relation be but fiction in law and never use but in case of necessity g cro g  but here be no need of such relation it be also object that the first default  be in the hundred of Micheldever in not keep due watch but that objection be  ground on a wrong construction of the intent of the statute for the design of  the statute be not only to punish the hundred for not keep watch but to punish  they if they do not take the offender after the robbery do and to fortify the  commonlaw by which the hundred be to be amerce if they do not take the robber  as appear in Bracton h bract Coron b h Fitzherbert I Fitzherbert Abr Coron I  and Staundford king Staundfords plea of the crown king and the statute of  Winton be make in affirmance of the commonlaw l Inst Edward pl b pl a Hutton  Goldsb l a case have be cite on the other side m side m where robber drive the  wagon out of the way in the daytime and rifle it in the night it shall be say  a robbery in the day and another in the night but both these be extrajudicial  and not the point in question n note the book do not say so n to the objection  that the action ought to be against both hundred it be answer that the statute  give it only where the robbery be in division hundred and not elsewhere the  authority of the case of king v ware and lime oh cro car oh where a traveller  go through a new way can bring a action may be question because it go on that  foundation that the design of the statute be only to guard the highway and not  to take the robber and savil case p Mod p be express in point Broderick for  the defendant argue that the statute have always be construe equitable and  that the design of the Act be to give a action against that hundred which by  the commonlaw shall have be amerce and insist on the title of the statute that  it be the modern report duty of the hundred only to guard the highway and it  must be suppose that the robbery be commit in such a place from whence hue and  cry can be make to savil case it be answer that the exception take there be  only that it be not lie in the declaration to be do in the highway and that  need not be any more than to lie it to be do in the daytime but there be many  authority that confine it to the highway a lev cro James more Goldsb a in the  case of king v smith the river of Thames be adjudge to be a highway within  that Act that the general practice be to watch on the highway only which be a  traditionable and reasonable exposition of the Act that if a hundred be  answerable for a robbery within a enclosure yet the right hundred be not  charge for Micheldever suffer the traveller to be assault and in consequence  of that negligence the party be rob but it do not appear but that the highway  in Basingstoke be well guard in Hilary term follow holt chief justice give  judgement for the plaintiff that the action be well bring against the hundred  of Basingstoke it have be endeavour to be maintain that the robbery be begin  in the hundred of Micheldever but it be plain it be commit in Basingstoke if  there have be two county as there be two hundred the trial must have be in the  county where the robbery be and the robbery be in Basingstoke the express word  of the statute be that that hundred shall be liable there be no reason to make  it relate to the first assault a stroke be give one day and the party die  another the death shall relate to the day of the stroke so as to charge the  land but not to collateral purpose a mortal will be give and the modern report  er p party die a month after it the death shall not so relate to the stroke as  to make he that before the death receive the murderer a accessary c yearbook  Henry foe Plowd c a pardon of all offence be grant after the stroke and before  the death this pardon the stroke and though the party die the murderer be  discharge but here there modern report be no colour for a relation for the  assault be not the direct cause of the robbery it may be a causan without how  non but not the necessary cause this be the same point that be determine in  dean case d Hutton d and the case in Gouldsborough e Gouldsb e allow of this  case thief take the horse from the carrier in one hundred and rifle the pack  in another the first hundred shall be charge because it be a robbery in that  hundred but if the carrier have lead his horse himself into the second hundred  the second hundred shall have be charge the true reason of this case be that  the hundred of Basingstoke be charge not because they do not prevent the  robbery but because they have not take the malefactor for if a robbery be  commit that do not charge the hundred if within forty day they apprehend the  thief here be no obligation on the hundred of Micheldever to pursue or  apprehend they because no robbery in their hundred if the assault have be in  one hundred in the day and the party be carry into another hundred and keep  until night and there rob or if he be assault in the highway in one hundred  and carry to a house in another hundred and there rob in either of these case  no action have lie