case Marriott vers shaw all a conviction super to send forward for three  penalty of five pound each for kill three hare where it appear that it be do  at the same time be have for the statute do not give five pound for every hare  ib be all but one offence burn just Cowp Mod term Rep a action of replevin be  bring by John and Richard Marriott quare to take in hand good catalla ipsor  richardi John videlicet One dolium pepper jamaici quatuor all trick and all  parcel suet ad valent c at Mansfield c the defendant Roland shaw ut  constabularius de Mansfield comens in come not pillage bene advocate and the  other defendant ut servien Self Rowlandi bene cogn c because to say quod Oct  Geo at Mansfield pillage William toone when in person I Digby there un just  domini king ad peace c in Com pillage devoted to information say beforehand  advance just quod pillage Richard Marriott tallow chandler infra tres menses  ult videlicet Oct Geo adtunc to step out mask per law England too little  qualify seu allocate ad custodiend once camem leporar ad occidend destruend  wild beast c at e in Com pillage and camem hare ad occidend destruend wild  beast at c in Com pillage and all camem leporar ad to strike down to tear down  wild beast forbidden to watch wear down form stat in hujusmodi grammatical  case edit to will quodq pillage Richard Marriott at e c pillage eoden die Oct  use to be dog pillage the dawn the same dog and hare at e pillage duos hare at  c pillage eoden Oct forbidden to put out of the way wear down form stat in  hujusmodi grammatical case edit to will superinde postea videlicet pillage Oct  Geo quidam c palmer c d exisiten testes credibiles and c deposuer quod pillage  r Marriott Oct tune to step out mask too little qualify and camem hare at e  and all camem hare at c forbidden to watch contra form stat quodq pillage r  Marriott speech die Oct and hare at e pillage duos hare at c pillage forbidden  to put out of the way c super quo pillage r Marriott post summonitionem c in  person say beforehand advance just comperuit c because c say beforehand  advance just to agree quod say beforehand advance r Marriott to be worthy of  blame c therefore con quod pillage r Marriott convict be de to send forward c  record oujus demonstration dominus king in cur domini king in person Self ring  recently that which is fixed de cause send fecit prout per record ill c and  the defendant beyond to say quod Jan Geo pillage I Digby tune just c de super  send ahead or forward fecit quoddarn warrant in scribe constabular de  Mansfield direct ad levand de good catallis pillage r Marriott per Self ut  carry in front forfeit army pron  interrog  warranti Jan Geo pillage rolandus  shaw tunc constabular comens er p pillage Chr et Jos ad requisition in help  pillage Rowlandi ceper good catalla c ad levand de center point pillage r  Marriott de pillage pro three collision videlicet slaughter three hare pillage  de pillage five collision unde pillage r Marriott convict to be comens the  plaintiff in bar to the avowry say quod speech Oct ante continue postea c idem  r Marriott seized to be c ut Le fee in his to appropriate jure de in terris  property in d in come pillage clear yearly payment valor per annum ultra ac  she ration tempore quo c to be mask per law what royal power qualify c unde  pillage I Digby ante conviction pillage c notice to have quod demonstration  that entirely vacuan in lege exist hoc c the defendant in reply to say quod  pillage I Digby non to have notice c to which it be demurrer because the  defendant traverse a matter not allege not traversable not triable the  defendant join in demurrer it be argue by sergeant Pengelly for the plaintiff  and sergeant cheshire for the defendant and it be insist for the plaintiff  first that the defendant ought to justify and not avow for Roland shaw take  the good but as and officer and have not any interest in they roll S l l cro  to which it be answer that in the case cite the defendant can not avow or  justify at his election but if he justify he shall not have a return so  resolve lev and this seem to be but form which shall be aid upon a general  demurrer as if a defendant avow where he ought to make conusance it be but  form cro and here a avowry seem more proper for the defendant ought to levy by  distress and sale and therefore ought to have a return that be may sell but as  to this point the court determine nothing second that after the conviction  show the defendant say record pron  interrog  conviction king recently cert de  cause in person just de b r send fecit whereby the conviction be suspend to  which it be answer that the conviction be on the that of October Geo the  warrant upon it on the that of comens January Geo and the declaration be mich  Geo then when the defendant say recently send fecit this refer to the time of  the plea not to the time between the warrant and conviction which be two year  before but by the stat Ann c a certiorari do not restrain execution but where  security be not give for payment of cost three that the conviction do not show  five offence yet the warrant say that be shall pay and thereupon the defendant  levy de pillage for three offence de collision pillage videlicet pro  interfection three hare pillage to which it be answer that the conviction say  that the justice be inform and the witness depose quod r Marriott Oct Geo at e  to watch camem leporar ad occidend destruend wild beast quod to watch at c and  all camem leporar ad occidend c contra form stat quod eoden Oct use to be dog  pillage to strike down and hare at e pillage duos all hare at c contra form  stat then the warrant command that they levy such ut carry in front forfeit  and the defendant levy exhaust by plundering pro three collision de collision  pillage videlicet pro interfection pillage three hare and therefore the  conviction have determine that there be five offence and then the constable  may levy for any of the offence for though all the offence be comprise in the  same conviction it shall be a several conviction for every offence and the  officer may levy for a part though not for all and if the justice have  determine these to be five several offence though they be not this be errorin  the justice but the officer shall not be liable for the mistake of the justice  where the thing be within his jurisdiction fourthly that the plaintiff be  partner and the defendant take the good of both of they to which it be answer  that he must take the good of both to levy out the moiety of one partner holt  S c a salk show holt SC comb Mod ld raym Cowp ves dougl infra p b comens as to  the matter of law it be insist that the plaintiff in bar to the avowry say  that he have per annum at the time of the offence and conviction and for that  reason be qualify c of which the justice have notice and if he be qualify  which be now admit by the demurrer then the justice have no jurisdiction  comens er p of the subject matter and if the thing be out of his jurisdiction  the officer shall not be excuse for all the proceed be null and void in person  non judge to which it be answer that here it be allege in the conviction quod  to be mask too little qualify and then if he do not allege his qualification  and insist upon it at the time of the conviction or when he appear before the  justice he hall not plead it afterward to maintain his action against the  constable if a cause in a inferior court be allege infra jurisdiction cur  though it be out of the jurisdiction if the defendant do not plead to the  jurisdiction he hall not have a prohibition afterward keb Md S c a vent keb  Mod S c b side raym Mod nor can it be allege for error in fact vent nor shall  be have a action upon the statute of saint Westminster Edward c c W Inst so  trespass lie not against the officer resolve Mod Freem S c d though the  plaintiff plead that the cause of action arise out of the jurisdiction Lut  holt above p e salk but a action for a escape lie against a officer though he  know the matter arise out of the jurisdiction Ann c B Supra p f Higginson  versus Shief but afterward the court give judgement for the plaintiff upon the  three objection without determine the matter of law for that by the conviction  there be not any number of offence allege for he be convict super to send  forward and it appear that it be only one offence for the statute do not give  for every hare and all be do the same day and so be only one offence Lord  Mansfield in the case of Cripps v Durden Cowp declare that kill a single bare  be a offence but that kill ten more in the same day will not multiply the  offence or the penalty impose by the statute for kill one  We find a similar  decision upon this point in the case of the queen v matthews Mod where the  court be of opinion that the offence for which the statute give the forfeiture  be the keep of dog and engine and not the kill of bare it be further determine  in this last cite case that if a man keep dog and go a hunt several day and  kill hare if it be thus lie that he such a day keep dog and kill and then  again such a day by lie it thus several the offence will be sever and he shall  forfeit for each offence