case CULLIFORD against Blandford question dyer v best l r ex observe upon  Robinson v Currey Q b d if a statute give a penalty to the party grieve within  three month and on his neglect to sue for it within that time to any person  who will sue for the same quaere whether a stranger who sue for the whole  penalty be a common informer within Elizabeth c and thereby bind to bring his  action within a year but if so sue out a latitat within the year be a  sufficient commencement of the action SC show SC con b SC Carth SC Mod SC holt  ld ray Mod Bac Abr dougl Bl Rep debt upon the statute Henry c against the  mayor of Dorchester for a false return of a burgess to parliament the statute  enact that every time that any mayor shall return other than those which he  choose by the citizen and burgess where such election shall be shall incur and  forfeit to the king forty pound and moreover shall forfeit and pay to every  person choose citizen or burgess to come to parliament and not return by the  mayor or to any other person who in default of such citizen or burgess so  choose will sue forty pound for which every citizen and burgess so grieve  several or any other person which in their default will sue shall have his  action of debt against the say mayor his executor or administrator to demand  and have of the say mayor forty pound with his cost in such case expend  provide always that every citizen and burgess so in due form choose and not  return as aforesaid shall begin his action of debt within three month after  the same parliament commence and proceed in the same suit effectual without  fraud and if he so do not another that will sue shall have the say action of  debt as it be before say and shall recover the same sum with his cost spend in  this behalf in manner and form aforesaid the plaintiff be a stranger who after  the three month and before the end of one whole year sue out a latitat against  the defendant but this be within a year after the offence commit modern er p  the first question be whether the plaintiff be a common informer and so ought  by the statute Elizabeth c to bring his action within a year after the offence  in the preamble of that statute it be say that no person other modern than the  party grieve shall be receive to inform upon a penal statute and then it be  enact that where a forfeiture be give to the king only the action shall be  bring within two year after the offence but if it be to the king and  prosecutor then it must be within a year second if the plaintiff shall be take  to be a common informer then whether the sue out this latitat be a  commencement of the action Eyre and Gregory justice hold the affirmative in  both point but they insist chief on the first point that the plaintiff be no  common informer because the penalty be give to the prosecutor and no time  limit by this statute when he shall commence his action he stand now in the  place of the party grieve who do not sue within the three month limit by the  Act and nobody will say that he be a common informer the other two judge doubt  of this point but be divide upon the second dolben justice be of opinion that  the sue out of the latitat within the year be a good commencement of the suit  and sufficient to avoid the statute but holt chief justice hold that a penalty  be give to the king as well as to the prosecutor if he have bring his action  for the whole eighty pound tampro lord ring how pro he himself he have be  within the statute of Elizabeth c and a common informer but here the action be  bring only for one forty pound which make some alteration but as to the second  point a latitat be never yet construe to extend to a statute where a penalty  be give to the prosecutor and therefore can be a commencement for a suit upon  a penal law see Coomb v pit burr that sue out a latitat be a sufficient  commencement of a suit to save the limitation in a penal statute but it must  be in fact and not by relation sue out within the year bull n p and the real  day of sue out the writ which shall be consider as the commencement of the  suit may be show in plead morris v pugh and Harwood Bl Rep burr see stram ld  ray dougl a it be otherwise where the party be limit and bar from his right by  any statute for not prosecute in time therefore if the first point be not for  he the last be against he but yet the plaintiff have judgement a writ of error  be bring upon this judgement SC Carth SC holt but it do not appear whether the  judgement be affirm or reverse bull n p it be say in the case of chance v Adam  easter term will that it be resolve by a majority of the judge present upon  the argue of this writ of error in the exchequer Chamber that where the  informer ought to have the whole penalty the statute Elizabeth c do not extend  to it because it be not within the word of the Act and penal statute be not  extendible by equity but Treby chief justice Powell baron and Rokeby justice  be of a contrary opinion for if the informer shall be bind when the queen be  join with he much more shall he be bind when he sue by himself ld ray but  comens chief baron in abridge this case say that he shall not in such case be  repute a common informer Com dig vo in the case of Frederick v lookup on the  statute Ann c against excessive game by which the party grieve may within  three month recover back the money lose and in case he shall not sue any  person may recover the Triple value for himself and the poor of the parish the  court hold that a informer must sue within the year on default of suit by the  party grieve within the three month for that it be within the Elizabeth c burr  bull n p b