case CULLIFORD against BLANCKFORD see S c Mod e r with note suit commence by  latitat for a false return of a member of parliament be a good commencement of  a suit by three judge contra holt chief justice S c Mod S c show S c comb S c  Carth S c holt debt for fourpence by the plaintiff a three person against the  defendant mayor of Dorchester upon the statute of Henry c for false return sir  r napper to be duly elect member of parliament whereas sir t t be duly choose  the postea be stay on two question that arise at the trial first whether the  plaintiff be a common informer within the statute of Elizabeth c and so oblige  to commence his suit within a year for the return be make the three of march  in the second year of William and mary and the latitat take out the twelve of  February the same year but the bill not file till the three of April in the  three year of William and mary second whether the suit commence by the take  out of the latitat for if so the action be bring within the year Eyre and  Gregory justice as to the first be of opinion that the plaintiff be no common  informer within Elizabeth c because by Henry the penalty be whole give to the  party grieve or in his default to he that will sue for it and Elizabeth c  extend only where it be give to the king or to the king and informer but where  it be give to the party only it be casus to let go and remain as at commonlaw  and so be Noy in the case of the party grieve and the action be bring tam how  yet it be only to have a to take in hand and if the party have die the king  can not proceed as he may do when the penalty be give to both dolben justice  doubt modern report er p holt chief justice be of opinion that he be a common  informer within the statute for this be a popular action and the penalty to he  that will sue modern report as to the second Eyre Gregory and dolben justice  the latitat be take out within the year the suit be sufficient commence and  they compare it to the case where the statute of limitation be plead the  plaintiff may reply that he purchase a latitat within the time she intention  to declare in the action side and this shall save his be bar holt chief  justice agree that case because it be to save a old right of action vest but  he know never a instance where sue out a latitat do save a limitation of a  action of debt upon a penal statute but the time of commencement ought to be  reckon from fill the bill beside there be no need of sue by bill for such  penalty but it may have be by original but notwithstanding judgement be give  for the plaintiff by the other three hall and Wymarks case a