case Prideaux against morris Trinity term will roll a action on the case at  commonlaw will not lie against a returningofficer for false return a candidate  for a seat in parliament but a action lie on will c SC Lutw SC n Lutw SC salk  SC holt S c saint Tr salk ld ray it be a action on the case in the common plea  against the defendant morris be one of the vianders of the town of in Cornwall  for not return the plaintiff he be duly elect a member of parliament for that  borough but instead thereof false and malicious return I S who be not duly  choose upon a special verdict find all the declaration and far that the right  have not be determine in the house of Commons and that there be another  viander still live the court after several argument deliver their opinion by  Trevor chief justice Blencow Powell and Nevil justice we be all of opinion  that the defendant ought to have judgement modern first we do not give our  opinion how it will be if the matter have receive a determination in the house  of Commons in favour of the plaintiff second we give no opinion how the action  ought to be conceive whether it ought to be against both the vianders or  whether it may be against one of they because our opinion be that it do not  lie against they anyway so that our first reason be for that the judge of the  right of election belong to the parliament that be to the house of Commons and  that be the proper jurisdiction for determine such matter and therefore it  will be very absurd and inconvenient if it shall be try by a jury or court of  westminsterhall in a action on the case for that will produce a different  determination of the same matter by two independent jurisdiction one may have  judgement and damage against he in westminsterhall for a matter in which he  may have do his duty by a vote of the house of Commons and of which the  Commons be the sole judge but see the opinion of will chief justice on this  subject in the case of win v Middleton will and Geo c a it be object that this  inconvenience of clash jurisdiction will ensue in case where the Act of  parliament give the action and a particular penalty and yet none will say but  the action will lie notwithstanding even before any determination of the  matter in parliament but the answer to that objection be that where the  parliament give the court of westminsterhall a jurisdiction let the  inconvenience be what it will we may exercise the jurisdiction but it can be  say because the parliament have give we a jurisdiction in particular instance  that by the same reason it have give it to we in all case and the argument be  to say because the parliament have give we a remedy therefore it lie at  commonlaw when the contrary inference be much more natural and if the  parliament have intend to give a remedy it will modern er p have give a action  on the case for that have be the most adequate remedy and will suit everybody  case and the statute Henry c that give a penalty in some case take notice that  before that statute there be not sufficient remedy it be also object modern  that it be not inconvenient that there shall be concurrent jurisdiction for  the queen bench the court of common plea and the court of exchequer be so it  be true but that work no inconveniency to the subject for if the suit be  commence in one court and after in another that court which have first  possession of the cause shall determine it and it be a good plea in abatement  for a defendant to say that there be a action depend in another court for the  same cause and a judgement in one court be pleadable in bar to a action for  the same cause in another but that will not be so in the present case as to  the case of the earl of Banbury where the court of queen bench do determine  the right of peerage the answer be that cause be not a precedent to be follow  for the consequence of it be a failure of justice to this day so that that  case be a strong instance of the mischief that we will now avoid another  argument against it be that of Littleton upon the statute of Merton a non  usual the mischief have always be as appear by the act of parliament give  remedy therein as may be see by the statute of Henry the four and Henry the  six another argument against it be that the right of a three person will be  try here between stranger so it will be determine his right by a sidewind and  judgement be give accord for the defendant SC n Lutw and a writ of error be  bring in the court of king bench and the judgement affirm SC salk but see  Norris v Mauduit Mod and sir W W win v Middleton I will a easter term the  first of queen whether in the queen bench sir John holt Knt chief justice sir  John Powell Knt sir Littleton powys Knt sir Henry gold Knt justice Edward  Northey Esq attorneygeneral Simon Harcourt Esq solicitor general