case Stapleton versus Sherrard februar ante Eq can ab pl pl SC the custom of  the province of York do not extend to the testamentary part of the personal  estate so that if a inhabitant within the province die intestate leave a wife  and no child the wife shall have a moiety by the custom and a moiety of the  other moiety by the statute of distribution Vid post case the question in this  case be upon the custom of the province of York the husband die intestate  without issue in the lifetime of the wife whether the wife shall have any  benefit of the other moiety as administratrix by virtue of the statute of  distribution and the case of crisp and hay in the king bench be cite wherein  it be say to have be adjudge that the legatory part be out of the custom and  be to be govern by the statute of distribution but for the plaintiff it be say  that in the case of Ramsden and gudgeon Goodwin v Ramsden ante post vol in  this court it be adjudge otherwise and that by the custom of the province of  York where the husband die without issue the child part ought to go over to  the next Vernon chancery case er p of kin but that be deny by the counsel for  the defendant who say the custom of the province of York be the same with the  custom of the city of London unless in the case where the old son have land by  descent he shall have no part of the personal estate as to the matter in  question the Lord keeper will deliver no opinion but order that the Lord  archbishop of York shall be attend and desire to certify how the custom of the  province f York be in that particular Reg lib b fol vide show parliament can  east India company v Evans Vernon chancery case er report date case east India  company versus crying Euhan all februar bill by east India company against a  separate trader the bill be bring by the company set forth their letter patent  and the great charge they be at in make league with prince and building fort  and maintain Vernon chancery case force in India and pray a discovery what the  defendant have trade for there and that they may be compel to bear a  proportionable part of the say charge to which bill the defendant plead answer  and demurrer they plead they be free merchant and set forth the statute James  against restrain of trade and the statute eduvardi third that all merchant may  trade any where and the statute Edward that merchant may trade any where not  in enmity with the king and aver the Indian be not in enmity and demurrer as  to the discovery because it wit to subject they to a penalty and also to that  part of the bill that will enforce they to contribute to the company be charge  because it appear by the plaintiff bill that they deny the defendant liberty  to trade to India or to have the advantage of the plaintiff privilege and by  answer the defendant deny they trade under the company be colour c for the  defendant it be insist that as to what the plaintiff pray a discovery of it be  to enable they to go on in a action which sound only in tort and therefore  they ought not to have a discovery in equity and the discovery will likewise  subject the defendant to great penalty for though the company by their bill  waive the forfeiture yet they may dismiss their bill and will not be bind by  that offer and beside that offer can in no sort bind the king who be entitle  to one moiety of the forfeiture and have already bring information against the  defendant for the plaintiff it be insist that Sandys one other of Vernon  chancery case the interloper be order to admit he have trade to the value of  pound and the company have already recover against he by which they have  affirm their right at law and therefore ought to have a discovery against  these defendant and as to what be object from the statute of king James that  relate to home trade only and not to foreign trade stat James cap and as to  the other statute of Edward they will not reach this case for here be no  league of amity but only a league of commerce and the defendant have by their  plea say the Indian be not enemy but do not say they be at amity and as to the  objection that the action bring by the company sound in tort only it be a  common case that a man shall have a discovery in this court in order to enable  he to bring a action of trover and cite the printer case in this court and as  to the clause of forfeiture they be void in law and it have be oftentimes  adjudge that any restriction of trade under pain of forfeiture be absolute  void and as to the information bring against the defendant they be not bring  for the forfeiture but for a contempt to the king and the defendant demurrer  be improper for we hope to have relief here by a commission to examine our  witness who live beyond sea and to have our possession quiet sergeant  Pemberton for the defendant there be no precedent in this court that a bill  may be bring for a discovery to enable the plaintiff to bring a action that  sound in tort only and suppose the plaintiff patent be a patent for regulation  of trade only yet it be but like a patent for a new invention the case in  trover be find upon a right and though the plaintiff now say the clause of  forfeiture in their patent be void yet I know that late in Mr boom case in the  commonplea they make use of those clause in this patent to justify a seizure  of good Lord keeper clause to restrain trade under forfeiture have be adjudge  Vernon chancery case er p void about twenty time so a bind promise or contract  which restrain from trade at all though with consideration be void Mitchell v  Reynolds p wms where the doctrine on this head be full state and discuss so  that matter be out of the case and it be a mistake to say a man shall not have  a discovery in this court for matter that sound in tort and cite the case  where a man carry his Vernon chancery case I under his neighbour ground and  the case where a man run away with a casket of jewel he be order to answer and  the injure party oath allow as evidence in odium spoliator and it seem to he a  strange demurrer to say they be not to contribute to the charge of the company  because they be wrong doer and this be but a charter for regulate of trade and  there have be many patent for that so a bind promise or contract which  restrain from trade at all though with consideration be void Mitchell v  Reynolds p wms where the doctrine on this head be full state and discuss  purpose soon after the make of the statute of James which have never be though  it illegal nor complain of in any subsequent parliament and therefore his  lordship overrule the plea and demurrer and order the defendant to answer the  bill vide east India company v Sandys ante