chilcot et ux v davis word hold actionable case for these word speak of the  wife Betty chilcot be a witeb and have bewitch n Goodwin and Morriss child of  Luton on not guilty plead it be gilbert case er p find for the plaintiff and  now move by Mr gapper in arrest of judgement that the action be not  maintainable that to call one witch general be not actionable by many  authority cro style keb roll Abr but in case a particular charge of witchcraft  have be express it have be hold good that here be gilbert case no such charge  for the word be ambiguous and doubtful et benignior opinion in word general  seu doubt be to bear before go hob to bewitch one or by one in common speech  only import to be under the influence and power of that person godb here be no  fact lie within the statute of this Act be repeal by Geo c James for the word  and bath bewitch c carry the matter no further than the general charge of  witchcraft roll Abr godb hut thou baste bewitch I and also my husband hold not  actionable in b c mich whether because no act of witchcraft punishable by the  statute as lame blind c lie side cro James Bulst king contra the exposition in  mild sensum be a rule long since out of door these word be actionable before  the statute of king James Cr throw thou art a witch and a sorcerer hold  actionable because witchcraft of any sort be punishable if it take away the  person life then it be felony and if it do other harm then the pillory be  punishment   Ent at commonlaw it be reckon a species of heresy and the witch  of eye be burn upon the writ this writ be now take away by car c see hale hist  Plac cor note b de heretic to burn up cro Elizabeth Jones cro Elizabeth roll  Abr thou art a witch and do bewitch my mother Yel thou do work by necromancy  and gilbert case do work by the devil be hold actionable it beget infamy and  reproach to the party and make his neighbour shun his company Parker chief  justice if the word have be speak in the word Mr g contend for as ludicrous  only and insinuate that she have a influence over a person the jury ought to  have find the defendant not guilty I be sure I shall have direct so for then  the word have not be prove as lie Mr gapper take a exception to the verdict  that the wife have take damage with her husband whereas they ought to be to  the husband only and cite keb where judgement be stay for that reason but it  appear that in this case a special damage be lie to the husband which make it  wrong et per Parker chief justice in action of battery by baron and feme where  the case per quod consortiu to send away have be put into the declaration and  damage give to both judgement have be arrest but in this case they can not  take the damage otherwise the next day judgement be give for the plaintiff by  the whole court