case the king against Venables in what case justice at session may make a  second order to suppress a alehouse S c Sett Rem S c ld ray S c Sess case S c  stram S c fort ante two justice make a order to suppress a alehouse upon the  statute of Edward c which order be not observe the justice at the session  therefore make another order in this form it be make only to appear to we that  I Venables have act contrary to the former order it be hereby order that he be  commit to the countygaol there to remain for three day and until he enter into  a recognizance with two surety no more to sell ale c this last order be remove  into this court reeve move to quash the same because it do not appear in the  order that the defendant be duly summon so have no opportunity to defend  himself for if he have be summon he may have show some cause against the make  this order as for instance he may have a licence from other justice to sell  ale in the mean time modern report er p modern report a summons be necessary  in all conviction and though this be not a order of conviction yet it be not  mere to carry the former order into execution because some new fact must be  prove as a ground for this punishment and natural justice require that the  defendant shall be summon and hear before he be condemned and so it be hold in  the case of the queen v dyer a salk a which be a conviction on the statute  James c for embezzle yarn set forth that whereas complaint have be make to t S  and e g c and whereas the defendant be duly summon to appear before they and  by virtue thereof do appear on Tuesday the seventeenth day of April whereas  the seventeenth day of April be on a Friday and for that reason the conviction  be quash for it be hold that a summons be necessary and that the time to  appear upon such summons be impossible because there be no such day as Tuesday  the seventeenth of April therefore it be as if there have be no summons at all  and in the case of the queen v green a Hilary term whether Mod a hill whether  a conviction for sell bread contrary to the assize be that the defendant debt  is owed modus summon to be et non that this only is apparent and the court  hold that the summons itself ought to have be set out for they will not intend  a good summons fazakerly against the defendant argue that in conviction of  this nature it be never necessary to set out that the defendant be summon the  case of the queen v dyer be different for if a bad summons be show the judge  can intend a good one b king v Clegg ante b in the case of king v theed c ante  c which be a conviction upon the candle Act which give the officer power to  enter in the daytime by himself or in the night with a constable and the  conviction only say that the officer lawful enter without specify whether in  the day or in the night but this objection be overrule because the court will  intend the entry lawful there be a difference between judicial and ministerial  act for in the one all thing shall be intend regular until the contrary appear  now the suppress a alehouse be a judicial act for by the statute the justice  of peace have a judicial power to suppress they ad it pleases and therefore  the court will intend that the defendant be duly summon but in ministerial act  it be otherwise for in such case all must appear to be right and nothing shall  be so by intendment as for instance in the return of a mandamus all must  appear to be regular because the return be make by ministerial officer Raymond  chief justice the case of king v Clegg be never determine but the court then  say that the objection have never prevail there be a great difference between  set out a bad summons and no summons at all in the first there be no room to  suppose a good summons otherwise in the latter case for if the justice make  the conviction without a summons they be liable to a information must we  presume the defendant be not summon there be no instance where a order be  quash for this exception whether a appeal lie or no make no difference because  the order must appear good on the face of it fortescue justice since the  justice have jurisdiction we will not presume that they act against their duty  this objection never prevail it differ from a bad summons show afterward on  deliberation the order be confirm d but it afterward appear to the court by  affidavit that the justice in session have in fact make the order without  summon Venables or afford he a opportunity of be hear they give leave to file  a information against they for this misconduct S c ld ray d