bartlett versus vinor where the consideration of a promise be neither usurious  or extorsive hob skin S c assumpsit c in which the plaintiff declare that the  defendant in consideration that the plaintiff will procure l to be lend to the  king c upon a Act of parliament for the poundrate in the name of the defendant  or of such other person as he the defendant shall agree to he the defendant  will pay unto the plaintiff l and the plaintiff aver that he procure l to be  lend to the king c by sir Walter plummer in the name of sir Walter plummer by  agreement of the defendant and now this action be bring for the l Carthew upon  non assumpsit plead the plaintiff have a verdict and it be move in arrest of  judgement that the consideration of this promise be extorsive and usurious and  by consequence unlawful or at least that this be brocage and so prohibit by  the last statute against usury but after debate it be resolve per curian that  this consideration be neither extorsive or usurious neither be it brocage  within the intent of that statute for here neither the borrower or the lender  be to pay the prize but a three person and per holt chief justice if a owe b l  who demand his money and a acquaint he that he have not the money ready but be  desirous to pay it if b can procure it to be lend by any other person and  thereupon b have present occasion for his money contract with c that if he  will lend a l he will give he l and hereupon c lend the money and the debt be  pay to b this be a good and lawful contract between b and c for b have benefit  by it and the plaintiff have judgement notam the truth of the fact be vinor as  executor to sir Robert vinor have a considerable sum of money in the exchequer  which be a debt of king Charles be somewhat desperate and now by procure this  l to be lend to king William the defendant have tally for l of his old debt  and this be prove at the trial it make the consideration better notam per holt  Ch justice every contract make for or about any matter or thing which be  prohibit and make unlawful by any statute be a void contract though the  statute it self do not mention that it shall be so but only inflict a penalty  on the offender because a penalty imply a prohibition though there be no  prohibitory word in the statute as for instance in the cage of simony the  statute only inflict a penalty by way of forfeiture but do not mention any  avoid of the simoniacal contract yet it have be always hold that such contract  be against law be void so he hold that if a scrivener contract for more than  five shilling for procure the loan of l such contract be void