burrow rossel who tam c versus kitchen Saturday that Feb who tam action on the  stat James c relate to leather cutter on Thursday that January last Mr  Whitaker move in arrest of judgement after a verdict for the plaintiff in a  who tam action upon the statute of James c the duty of tanner currier  shoemaker and of other cut of leather a rule be then make to bring in the  postea and the postea be now bring in Mr Whitaker and Mr nares object saint  that the defendant be not a object of this Act it be not allege in the  declaration that the defendant be a tanner currier shoemaker or other person  occupy in the cut of leather which the preamble show that he ought to be cro  car lodge v Hollowell be a action bring upon another clause of this Act and  there it be allege that the defendant be a currier c brown entry on the Act  against buy and sell live cattlethe defendant be here allege to be a butcher  they rely upon the preamble of the Act rather than the enact part and argue  that both must be take together d objection this action be bring upon a  supposition and under a allegation that a three part of the penalty belong to  the dean and chapter of Westminster as lord of the liberty where the offence  be commit whereas by the Act of parliament this three part of the penalty must  belong to the city of London when the offence be commit within three mile of  the burrow city although the place where the offence be commit be not in any  other respect situate within the say city or its liberty for the that section  of this Act give to the mayor of London a jurisdiction extend to all place  within three mile of that city and at the same time exclude all other in  general and all the other jurisdiction thereby establish in particular from  have any jurisdiction at all within three mile of the say city so that if the  city of London have not jurisdiction in all place within three mile of the  city they have none at all give they under this Act of parliament now  drurylane appear and be prove to be the place where the present offence be  commit which be clear within three mile of the city of London and therefore be  within the jurisdiction give to the city by this clause although it be indeed  actual situate within the liberty of the church of Westminster and consequent  the penalty belong to the city of London and not to the church of Westminster  vide which give the penalty videlicet onethird to the king onethird to the  prosecutor and onethird to the city borough town or lord or lord of liberty  where the offence shall be commit or do they cite Lutw under this second  objection d objection it follow that the venue be wrong it be lie in Middlesex  Mr Norton contra for the plaintiff be go to answer the objection but be  prevent by Lord Mansfield saint the Act be not confine to particular sort of  leather nor to particular person it extend to all red leather and to every  person the preamble be general and do not mean or intend to specify and  enumerate every particular case but what the legislature have in view in the  make of this Act be to secure the staple of leather by this search c burrow  and all the other clause of this Act be general and be not confine to person  occupy in the trade or business of cut leather this will not have remedy the  evil or answer the end of the Act for the evil be just the same if any other  person commit this offence dly the extension of the jurisdiction of the city  of London undoubted can alter the locality of the place where the offence be  commit all that the Act do be enlarge the jurisdiction of the city of London  beside the Act give particular penalty for particular offence and this penalty  in the that section the word there be that the defendant be a currier c but  N B here the word of be that every person v ante pa king v Goddard William  burrow er p be give onethird to the king onethird to he or they that shall  first sue c and onethird to the city borough town or lord or lord of liberty  where the offence shall be commit or do he conclude with say that it be a  excessive plain case in which opinion the three judge concur a rule be make  that the postea be deliver to the plaintiff