case the king vers Richard man in scacc in smuggle good all present and aid be  principal and equal liable to the whole penalty this be a information by the  attorneygeneral against the defendant for that merchant unknown have import  weight of tea value and land they in the port of London the duty not pay or  secure the say tea come to the hand comens er p and possession of the  defendant know the duty not to be pay or secure comens whereby he forfeit the  Triple value the defendant plead non to come and on a trial before chief baron  Reynolds a special verdict be find that the weight of tea be import and land  the duty not pay that Thomas quoif and the defendant who know that the duty be  not pay or secure buy the tea for on their joint account of one Samuel Gibron  of Ashburnham in Sussex private but only a three of the money be pay by the  defendant that they afterward carry it to Cudham in ken and there divide it  into twelve parcel and bring it on horse in sack to a place near London and  thence carry it into London by night under their coat to a inn in Whitechapel  where by the defendant direction it be put under a bed on which the defendant  lie himself down while Thomas quoif go out to see for a purchaser to who they  sell it for and the defendant have the three part of that price for his  proportion of the tea that the value of the tea be the Triple value and  whether the whole of tea come to the defendant possession they submit to the  judgement of the court and if the court be of opinion that the weight of tea  do come to the possession of the defendant they find so but if the court think  that only a three part of it come to his hand they find that a three only come  to big possession by the statute annae c sec if any good whatsoever liable to  the payment of duty shall be unship with intent to be lie on land the custom  and other duty not be first pay or secure or if any prohibit good shall be  import not only the good shall be forfeit but also the person assist or  otherwise concern in the unship thereof or to who hand the same shall know  come after the unship shall forfeit Triple the value thereof and it be insist  by Mr strange solicitor general that the treblevalue of the whole weight of  tea be forfeit for the defendant and quoif have buy the tea on their joint  account the defendant have the possession of the whole and partner in a wrong  be answerable for the whole and cite a case mich do for butler on a to come  where it be say that the defendant have comens carry away for big share but  four anchor of the gallon of brandy and gallon of wine charge in the  information ought to be charge with no more than what he carry away but by  Montague chief baron as the defendant be present when the whole quantity come  on shore he be liable for all it not be material what he carry off himself and  a verdict be for the king for the whole so in Michaelmas the bunb a attorney  general versus glutton burgess on a to come for b of tea and b of coffee it  appear that the defendant have several partner in the good and that all do not  come to the defendant own hand but Pengelly chief baron as there appear no  distribution to be make between the partner and they have a joint property the  possession of the person to who hand the good come be the possession of the  defendant and when several person be concern in a fact of this nature though  they be not all together when the fact be commit every one may be prosecute  for the penalty separate that the receive of the good by the defendant agent  after the land be sufficient to charge the defendant and as all the partner  act their part they be agent for one another and all Chargeable that where  several be concern in take good trover lie against any one and the king have a  verdict for the whole quantity so in the case the attorney general vers John  palmer in pasch TheBunb in n a attorney general vers Edward Carbeld in hill  the attorney general vers sweat in pasch the court take time to consider those  case and after some day consideration I be of opinion for the king but not  mere because the good be buy on their joint account for though jointtenants be  seisi eper my et per tout yet to diverse purpose each have but a right to a  moiety as to feoff give or demise to forfeit or lose by default   light a if  comens two purchase and one be a villain the lord can enter but into a moiety  or if one be a alien the king on office find shall have but a moiety if one  jointtenant be indebt to the king but a moiety shall be extend and if he die  before any extent no extent shall be make on the land in the hand of the  survivor   light a comens er p if a b and c be partner and judgement and  execution be sue against a only his share of the good can be sell it be true  the sheriff may seize the whole because the share of each be undivided can be  know and if he seize more than a three part he can only sell a three of what  be seize for b and c have a equal interest with a in the good seize but the  sheriff can only sell the part of he against who the judgement and execution  be sue so it be resolve by holt and the court Heydon and Heydon mich W m salk  holt S C above p infra p b S oh it be hold holt SC ld raym above p infra p c I  show per holt and no judge deny it and pollexfen S opinion accord and in that  case Backhurst and Clinkerd I show when a to know facias issue against b after  the seizure of all the partnership good upon the judgement and execution  against a and the sheriff return no one good it be hold a false return for b  have a share of the good and the possession continue in he notwithstanding the  seizure upon the execution against a but for the more explicit declaration of  the ground of my opinion I do agree first that where several person be engage  in a tortuous act all present and aid and assist in it be equal culpable and  liable to answer for the whole of the mischief do and that where they be party  in the act though not perhaps present at that particular branch of it for  which he be charge it be so in the case of robbery burglary or other felony  and therefore if a and b engage in a robbery or burglary and a stand to watch  while b break open and rob the house or while b pursue and rob a person out of  his sight and if b kill the man a be guilty of the murder so it be if several  come to comens do a trespass to make ail affray rob a park plunder a ship or  run prohibit or uncustomd good all engage in the fact be Chargeable with the  whole do and all the consequence of it if murder be commit by any of the  company though the rest be in other room in other part of the park or know not  what good be take or carry off by other they be equal guilty for in the eye of  the law they be all present aid and assist and therefore if the defendant have  be find guilty of aid or assist or otherwise concern in unship the tea I shall  make no question but that he will have be liable to the penalty of the Triple  value for what he or any other at that time carry off for they be all aid  assist and concur in the same tortuous act and this be what be determine in  the case cite in the case of do and butler the chief baron Montague say the  defendant be present when the whole come on shore therefore it be not material  what he carry off so be the determination by chief baron Pengelly in the case  of the attorney general and burgess all the partner act their part and be  agent one for another and all Chargeable it be say indeed before the partner  have a joint property the possession of the person to who hand the good come  be the possession of the defendant but this can be mean of a joint property by  purchase but where several person be party in the tort in run the good into  other hand the possession of those to who hand the good come be the possession  of the defendant who be a party in the run of they though he be not the  particular person who bring the good to the hand in which they be find for so  it be add he where several person be concern in a fact of this nature though  not all together when the fact be commit yet every one may be prosecute for  the penalty separate this or similar to this must be the case to make all the  expression pertinent and consistent if we have a full and right account of  they so in the case of the attorneygeneral vers palmer which be on a to come  for b of coffee it be object comens that the defendant be hire with other for  carry the good in the information he be Chargeable for no more than the two  bag which he carry but it be answer by chief baron Pengelly very right that  the defendant be a person to who hand the good come within the nature of the  statute for as all the person go together with one intent the crown may charge  who they will all agent be to be charge otherwise the Act be not make full  enough for the benefit of the crown and it appear that the defendant have the  whole charge of the good for some part of the time a private person may bring  a action comens er p against any one where several be concern in take his good  from he he remember a action against two for strand a ship when be concern and  a verdict against they and they pay the money so in the case of the  attorneygeneral vers Edward Carbeld on a to come for b of tea which it be  prove the defendant and other bring from the seaside at several time it be  object that the defendant can not be charge with more than the three  horseloads he carry since the defendant have not the command of the rest nor  be their master but it be answer where several be concern in a joint design  they be all answerable as in case of cost and wrong in trespass if several  take away good all be answerable for the whole in this case they be all joint  concern in the same thing and every one answerable for the whole the last case  the attorneygeneral and palmer be cite that the several prosecution there can  be but one recovery by the king for if satisfaction be recover from one for  the whole the other be discharge if several be bind in a bind all may be sue  but there can be but one satisfaction per chief baron Reynolds where several  be joint concern it be a joint undertake they be all liable for the comens  whole though the crown can have but one satisfaction and the king have a  verdict for the whole and a case be cite p inter the attorneygeneral and sweat  on a to come for b of tea b of cocoa b of coffee objection the defendant be  not Chargeable within the word of the statute for he keep a publichouse and be  not responsible for the good bring there by the guest the good belong to  another and the defendant can not now but by hearsay that the good be run but  chief baron Pengelly be of opinion that since the Act make not only the  importer but those to who hand the good come after be liable to prosecution  the crown may charge all to who hand the good come after importation for the  first may not be find and if other person can not be prosecute the Act will be  evade and where a person deliver run good over to another both be equal guilty  and afterward videlicet in February hill Geo the court give their opinion and  it be agree first that in all case of tort all person present aid and assist  be equal liable for the whole mischief do and one shall not excuse himself by  say that he do but little part of the trespass for in trespass there be no  accessary but all aid and assist in it be liable so that in pull down a house  plunder a ship run good which be illicit and tortuous act all be responsible  for the whole damage do and this be what be determine by chief baron Montague  do for butler the defendant be present and help to bring the whole on shore be  responsible for the whole and it be not material what he himself carry so by  chief baron Pengelly in the case of the attorneygeneral vers burgess and the  attorneygeneral and Calver that where several person be concern in a joint  fact of comens this nature though not all together when the fact be do every  one maybe prosecute for the penalty separate so chief baron Reynolds determine  in the case of the attorneygeneral and Carbeld where several be joint concern  and it be a joint undertake they be all liable for the whole second it be  agree that where run good come to the hand of any person know by this statute  Ann such person be make liable to the same penalty of the Triple value  although he be but in the nature of a accessary in receive the good as well as  the principal who be assist in the run and unship of the good but there be  this difference between they he who be present in help the good on shore be a  party in the illicit act itself and therefore be Chargeable with the whole but  he who receive any part of the good after they be put on shore be not a party  to the original act but be only culpable for what he receive and consequent  can forfeit only the Triple value of the good which come to his hand and I  believe nobody will think it so consonant to justice that the receiver of a  pound of tea or coffee which have not pay duty shall pay the Triple value  comens er p of b which be run at the same time which he know nothing of our  law be very cautious in extend punishment beyond its due proportion and  therefore in trespass mayhem praemunire c there be no accessary for accessary  before by counsel or command be in the same degree as principal but the  accessary after by receive the offender can by law be under any penalty unless  the statute which induce the penalty express extend to receiver and comforter  as some do I hale hist p c three it be agree that if a person be hire to carry  good which have not pay duty know the duty unpay he be a person to who hand  the good know come and consequent liable to the penalty of the Triple value  otherwise the Act may be easy elude comens but there be a difference where a  person be hire to help be good on shore from he who be present and aid and  assist in the unship of the good be party in the wrong and liable as every  principal actor to answer the whole d m age and that be the case of the  attorney general and palmer wherein it be say that all the person hire go  together with one intent to carry off the good if person be hire to pull down  a house they be all trespasser but if a porter be hire to parry a parcel of  tea after the importation which he know be run he be a person to who hand that  parcel come within the intent of the Act and will be liable to the Triple  value of that parcel but I believe nobody will say that he be answerable for  the Triple value of the whole cargo fourthly so likewise if a keeper of a  public house receive the whole parcel which any of his guest who he know to be  a smuggler bring to he and take it into his possession and conceal it for he  be be a person to who hand those good come and will be Chargeable with the  penalty of the Triple value of what he so conceal but not of the good carry by  other person to other place so be the case of the attorneygeneral and sweat  and many subsequent determination five so likewise if a person buy any  quantity of good which he know be run and the custom not pay he will be  Chargeable with the Triple value of the good so buy for he be a person to who  hand the good come for though it be under the pretence of a contract yet since  he know that the custom be unpay it be a illicit contract and he become  sharing in sin by receive those good and the contract or purchase will no more  exempt he than if he have buy good of a pirate or felon which alter not the  property of they by the stat Geo c S forasmuch as person use clandestine trade  be great encourage by many for private lucre who buy and receive good  clandestine import comens if any shall receive or buy any good clandestine run  or import before condemned know the same so to be clandestine run or import  forfeit on conviction before a justice of the peace but suppose two person  join stock together and buy good on their joint account and one be conusant  that the good be run and the other be not which be the present case for it can  be intend that quoif know the good be uncustomd unless it have be so find for  fraud non be to take before I a not clear of opinion that the defendant be  liable to the Triple value though quoif be not but then the question will be  for what quantity he be liable and I be of opinion that if they have divide  the good after their purchase that the defendant can be liable only to the  Triple value of his share and no more for no more come to his hand or  possession for though jointtenants be seize or possess per my per tout that be  they be so far possess of the whole that none can say till partition make that  this or that part be not in his possession yet they in right and reality be  possess of no more than their proper share or purparty as therefore they give  or dispose of no more so neither can they forfeit any more   light a if a  villain and freeman purchase the lord be entitle to what his villain be  possess of yet he can enter into a moiety only so if a alien and naturalborn  subject purchase though the heir be entitle to all the alien be seize or  possess of yet the heir on office bind can have but a moiety the Triple value  of what come to the defendant hand be the measure of his penalty but that must  be mean of what real and true come into his possession and not what notionally  and virtual only can be say to be in his possession comens er p comens if  partner be of good and execution be sue by become facias against one for his  separate debt the sheriff may seize the whole in order to inventory and  appraise they and to have a true account of the value but he can sell but the  share of he against who the become facias be sue for the become facias warrant  he to levy de good catallis of the one and all may in some sense be say to be  his good because he have a joint interest in all yet since be have a right and  possession of a moiety only the sheriff can dispose of no more Heydon and  Heydon salk and notwithstanding such seizure of the whole the other partner  continue in possession of his share or moiety and therefore where a b and c be  partner and upon a become facias against a the sheriff have seize the whole  and a become facias come against b and the sheriff return no one good it be  resolve that a action on the case lie against he for the false return for b be  still in possession of his three part of the good Bachurst and Clinkerd show  however as this special verdict be find I think the whole weight of tea come  to the defendant possession for it be say that he take care of the whole that  by his direction it be put under the bed and he lie down on the bed so that  apparent he have at one time the whole under his custody and care and use  endeavour to conceal it know the whole to be uncustomd good what more do a  innkeeper or alehousekeeper do who take the good of a smuggler to lie up and  conceal so it be determine in the case of the attorney general and sweat and  many time since a jointtenant may make his companion his bailiff and maintain  account against he as such   light a here Thomas quoif entrust the defendant  with the good to conceal and secure they suppose he have embezzle they will he  not have be Chargeable by his companion for they and if so he must have  possession of they comens it be not necessary that he to who hand good come  shall have the absolute possession in they if a man deliver money to a servant  to carry and he be rob of it the servant may maintain a action against the  hundred and declare that he be possess ut de good nest not common with others  S it be resolve Mod comb comb holt Mod SC above p in n a vers Hund of Bradley  and yet the possession be not divest out of the master for he may bring a  action if he please and judgement be give by the whole court that the  defendant shall be charge with the Triple value of the whole weight of tea  which amount to