case the king against Dixon and his wife a indictment will lie against a man  and his wife joint for keep a gaminghouse this be a indictment against Dixon  and his wife charge that they et uterque the dawn do unjust and unlawful such  a day et to visit other a day et turn tam before how postea keep a common  gaminghouse contra peace et form to cause to stand c to which indictment the  defendant demurrer the first objection take against the indictment be that it  shall not have be bring against the husband and wife but against the husband  only the court this objection will have weight in it if the property or the  ownership of the house be the matter in question but it signify nothing here  where not the property but the criminal management of the house in which the  wife may probable have as great nay a great share than the husband be the fact  charge this case be not to be distinguish from the case of the queen v William  a ante salk a which be a indictment against husband and wife for keep a  bawdyhouse and hold good for as there the wife may be concern in act of bawdry  so here she may be active in promote game and furnish the guest with all  conveniency for that purpose modern report the second objection be that it be  charge in the indictment that they et uterque the dawn keep a gaminghouse c  which be wrong for two person can joint and several keep a house the keep of  the house by the husband and wife be not a keep the house by the husband only  or by the wife only for this purpose be quote roll a indictment against four  person for use the trade of a plumber against the form of the statute  Elizabeth c S and the indictment which charge that they four et uterque the  dawn use the trade be hold nought because the user of the one can not be the  user of the other the court the case in roll be not applicable to the present  case for there the use of the trade not be the offence but the use of the  trade without have modern report er p serve a apprenticeship a act to be  perform by each single and several it be a offence that be in its own nature  impossible to be commit joint whereas here this may be commit by both joint  and the addition of uterque the dawn be but a further specify and corroborate  the former charge for whoever say that both of they do keep c do in truth and  consequence say that each of they do so the three objection be that this  indictment be upon a particular statute videlicet the statute Henry c S and as  it chalk out a particular method of proceed for the recovery of forty shilling  adais the party can not proceed by indictment the court the keep of a  gaminghouse be a offence indictable at commonlaw as a nuisance nor will the  conclusion of the indictment contra form to cause to stand bar the party from  support the indictment by commonlaw suppose it can not be maintain upon the  statute for where a statute create or make a thing a offence that be not so  before by the commonlaw give a certain penalty and prescribe a method for the  recovery of it there the Act must be pursue but it be otherwise of a offence  at commonlaw for which a Act give a new penalty or a new remedy for there the  remedy at commonlaw shall not be take away without negative word a see hawk p  c notorious facts a modern report but it be clear that a indictment be not  take away by any word in the statute so far from it that there be word which  unless they have relation to proceed by indictment must have no sense or  signification at all for it enact that the forfeiture may be sue for by action  information bill or otherwise and as all the remedy or different way of  proceed beside by indictment be enumerate before those word or otherwise must  be understand of indictment or nothing the four objection be that if this be  to be consider as a indictment for a nuisance at commonlaw it will not be good  for want of conclude ad common nocumentum of the king subject the court it be  not necessary to conclude so here the offence in its own nature import that it  be so beside the word common supply this defect if it be one the five  objection be that as this indictment be lie the penalty of forty shilling a  day give by this statute can not be recover for it be not say that per  interval of one day or several day they keep c but only that such a day c the  court keep a common gaminghouse any part of the day be enough indeed more day  may have be modern report lie but the time be so uncertain as to all but one  day that only forty shilling be recoverable the judgement be give for the king  unless c michaelmas term the three of George the first in the king bench  Thomas Lord Parker chief justice sir Littleton powys Knt sir Robert Eyre Knt  sir John Pratt Knt justice sir Edward Northey Knt attorneygeneral John  fortescue aland Esq solicitor general memorandum powys justice be absent all  this term be indispose with the gout