as yet doctor Hussey case see Hillary James see ante pp in the writ of  ravishment of ware between Francis more esquire plaintiff against doctor  Hussey and Katberine his wife Robert Wakeman clerk and many other defendant  Dodridge the king sergeant argue for the defendant doctor Hussey that a marry  wife be not within the statute of Westminster chapter by which the writ of  ravishment of ware be give that which before the statute be only trespass be  by the statute alter in manner and form of proceed and in penalty of judgement  and he think that this writ be form upon the statute do not extend to a marry  wife for by the statute if the defendant can satisfy for the marriage be must  abjure the realm or shall have perpetual imprisonment which go near to every  man next unto his life the love of his country and liberty and those the maker  of the statute do not intend against a marry wife and he ground his argument  upon these word of the statute by which it appear that the maker of the  statute do not intend any person which have no propriety in any good nor power  to make satisfaction for first the statute provide that if he be able to make  satisfaction that then he shall satisfy if not that then he shall abjure the  realm by which it appear that the statute intend those that have property and  by possibility may satisfy but a woman can for her marriage be a gift of all  her good personal to her husband see for that fox and Girlbrookes case  commentary second the statute provide new form of proceed for if the ware or  any of the party by hang the writ the writ shall not abate but it shall be  revive by resummons by or against the executor of he that be dead by this it  appear that he which have no power to make executor shall not be intend to be  within the statute and a marry wife can make a will and by consequence can  make executor see coke force and Hemblins case Edward devise h and if the  executor have no asset then the statute give remedy against the heir three the  statute intend to give action against he which may have possession of the ware  the which a marry wife can have for her possession be to the use of her  husband and by the word of the statute he against who the action be give ought  to be make trust possessor and to the objection that though that the wife  marry can by any possibility have sufficient to make satisfaction Brownlow  goldsborough accord to the intent of the statute yet if the husband have  sufficient he shall answer for his wife as in Edward and h a marry wife shall  be attach by the good Brownlow goldsborough er p of the husband he say that  there the reason be that the wife be answerable by the husband but this be  only to make he appear but he against who the action be give by this statute  ought to have property and in such case a marry wife shall not be punish as in  the same parliament Westminster chapter be prove that if a seize fail of  record that he shall be imprison in assize for this be the speedy remedy but  if a marry wife plead a record and fail of that to the jury she shall not be  imprison though that the assize be bring against the husband and the wife or  against the husband and the wife be receive see ass ass ass h also the statute  of jointly Feoffatis fol which be make in the time of the say king Edward in  which time the statute of Westminster be make and be contemporary with the  same statute by which it be provide that if any plead joyntenancy which be  find against he in the assize that he shall be imprison by the space of a year  and assize husband plead joyntenancy with his wife and maintain the exception  which be find against they and resolve that the wife shall not be imprison by  this statute assize assize accord and he say there be not any precedent nor  book of record by which it appear that a writ of ravishment of ware be  maintain against a marry wife for ravishment after the coverture but for  ravishment before the coverture see and Edward and to the objection that the  plaintiff have election if he will have the sufficiency come in question may  but admit the defendant to be sufficient and then the imprisonment nor the  abjuration shall not be inflict as it seem to be some opinion Edward and to  that be say that the admittance of the party can alter the law for if it be  not the intent of the maker of the statute that this shall extend to the wife  the admittance of the party will not make that extend over the provision of  that also it seem to he that the verdict be not perfect for that it be not  find by who the ware be marry but only that he appear marry and it ought to be  without the consent of the plaintiff and for that it may be that he be marry  by the plaintiff and then there be no cause of action nor to have the value of  the marriage and it appear by r damage that they ought to inquire by who he be  marry and also the value of the marriage and if it do not appear whether he be  marry or not then the verdict shall be conditional and judgement also and all  the precedent be he appear marry without the assent of the plaintiff Brownlow  goldsborough and so he conclude and pray that the judgement may stand Harris  sergeant for the plaintiff pray judgement and he suppose that it be in the  choice of the plaintiff what judgement he will have for he ought to have  damage and the value of the marriage and it remain in the discretion of the  plaintiff what judgement he will have that be upon the statute for to have the  corporal punishment or allow the defendant to be sufficient and so to have  judgement for the damage and the value of the marriage without any  imprisonment or abjuration as in Edward and Edward where the question be  demand of the plaintiff and in Richard damage hankford demand the question if  the jury ought to inquire if the defendant be sufficient or not and it be  resolve that they need not and in h Trinity rot there be a precedent accord  where the husband and the wife be find guilty and the action be find upon the  statute and capias award against they both and to the fail of the record it be  reason that the wife shall not be imprison for the plead be the plead of the  husband and his act and in the h and Assis in assize the wife be receive and  vouch a record and fail and no judgement upon that against the husband and the  wife be imprison and so upon allegation of joyntenancy the wife be imprison  and so he conclude and pray judgement for the plaintiff and at another day the  case be argue again by Montague the king sergeant for the defendant that a  marry wife be not within the statute of Westminster chap and he say that the  true course for understanding the statute be to consider three thing first the  commonlaw before the make of that statute second the mischief that the statute  intend to remedy three against what person the statute intend to remedy such  mischief and to the first be intend that at the commonlaw before the make of  the statute the remedy for ravishment of ware be a action of trespass as it  appear by Fitzherbert no brey and then it be question if the plaintiff shall  recover the body Brownlow goldsborough er p without damage or damage only  without the body see Edward Edward h and then there be no great punishment nor  other remedy for the take of the ware than of other good and for the remedy of  that the statute of Westminster chap be make by which it be provide that if  the ravisher restore the ware unmarried then the plaintiff shall recover only  damage for the ravishment and not the value of the ware but if the ware be  marry then the guardian shall recover the value of the marriage and if he  shall not satisfy then he shall abjure the kingdom or have perpetual  imprisonment and the punishment Brownlow goldsborough inflict by the statute  be so penal then the person which be within the statute be considerable for in  all penal law the person and the penalty be the thing to be consider and to  the person this statute say that one for another fault be not to be punish and  he say this be refer to damage as well as to imprisonment and it be not a lose  case and the plaintiff without remedy for action of trespass lie against the  husband at the commonlaw for for all trespass at the commonlaw do by a marry  wife the husband shall be punish by payment of the damage and cost which be  recover see h and Edward but to the statute which be penal and inflict  corporal punisbment there otherwise and as the statute of Elizabeth make  against recusant for not resort to church shall forfeit twenty pound for every  month and resolve that this shall extend to a marry wife and for that the  husband shall be liable to action but by the three of James there be special  provision that the woman shall not be subject to twenty pound a month but  other punishment provide for her and he suppose that where a statute give  imprisonment and damage and a marry wife offend the statute she shall be  imprison but the husband shall pay the damage in h upon the statute of  Westminster a woman be imprison for false appeal for the death of her husband  who be bring into the court and live and in the h it be marvel that the  statute of Westminster give the action to the heir insomuch that interest  appear to the executor and for this hill say that the statute be not make by  those which be skill in the law but he speak ill say the reporter also the  word of the statute if the ravisher can satisfy he shall abjure the realm or  have perpetual imprisonment and the wife can by any possibility make  satisfaction for she can have any good so as the case be the statute will make  perpetual separation either by abjuration or perpetual imprisonment if this  shall extend to a marry wife as in h be the question whether a marry wife  shall be attach for that and she have no good as it be Edward the sheriff  return nothing against a monk for that that he have no good for all his good  be the good of the abbot and it be impossible that a marry wife shall have any  good and the law do not compel to impossible thing see Edward h also the  statute say that if the ravisher die hang the writ let the law proceed against  his executor by resummons and a marry woman can make executor and to the like  case he think that a marry wife be not within the statute of offender in park  and this give the same punishment that the statute give as it be resolve Assis  so if a marry wife fail of a Brownlow goldsborough record in assize she shall  not be imprison and the husband be join only for conformity and for no other  cause and to the precedent of h aich have be cite here against the husband and  wife and judgement by default against both and upon this to take in hand be  award against they both but this be only for the imprisonment but not for the  damage and also this case differ from that for here the husband be find not  guilty also it seem that the book of entry lie against husband and wife and  there they both plead but if the wife only be condemned the husband shall not  pay the damage recover against her Edward as a lease be make to the husband  and wife the husband make waste and a action of waste be bring against they  both and the husband die and the writ abate for the wrong die with he and the  wife shall not be punish and so pray that the judgement may stay and doctor  Hussey not punish Hutton sergeant for the plaintiff pray that the judgement  rnight be enter and first he consider the commonlaw and after that the statute  and at the commonlaw be agree that a trespass lie against the husband and the  wife for ravishment make by the wife and in this he shall recover damage  against the husband and the wife and the husband shall be charge with the  damage though it be but for word proceed from her tongue or any other trespass  and if the husband make default his body shall be imprison so that it appear  that there be remedy at the commonlaw Brownlow goldsborough er p by action of  trespass and that the husband be subject to that then by consequence it be  intend that all person which be Chargeable by the commonlaw shall be  Chargeable by the statute and by the action which be form upon that and by the  commonlaw the husband be Chargeable and by consequence shall be Chargeable by  the statute and he intend that there will be difference between actual wrong  and other which be come by omission and if the wife be the person which do the  wrong then she shall be punish as well by statute as she be before by the  commonlaw also she shall be outlaw and it have be agree that ravishment of  ware shall be maintainable against the husband and the wife if they both be  ravisher and also if the wife be ravisher before marriage and after take a  husband the husband shall be charge with the damage and his body shall be  imprison and by consequence shall be abjure also she may make a executor by  the consent of her husband but admit that she can not then the remedy be give  against the heir and she shall be within this statute as well as other statute  make in the time of the say king as the statute of Westminster and shall be a  seize with enforce and shall be imprison whether the husband join with her or  not Brownlow goldsborough as it be adjudge assize for all statute which  provide for actual wrong a marry wife shall be intend within they as it be h  but the plead of joyntenancy there the plea be the act of the husband and so  fail of record upon the statute of Edward as it be assize for the husband  propound the exception but if the wife propound the exception then she shall  be within the statute and shall be imprison assize so if a marry wife make  actual seize with force she shall be imprison h b Edward Edward damage h ware  and so the precedent Trinity h rot in a case between Thomas earl of Rutland  against Laurence savage and his wife in ravishment of ware at the nisi prius  the defendant make default and the judgement be that the husband and wife  shall be take and upon that infer that the husband shall be subject and charge  with the damage and so it be take upon the statute of Elizabeth that the  husband shall be charge with the debt for the recusancy of the wife and shall  be imprison for the not payment of it as to the verdict it seem that this be  good and it shall be intend the ware be marry by the defendant as in Edward  verdict it be find by verdict that mulier enter and resolve that this shall be  intend in the life of the bastard or otherwise it be Dotbing worth and in  Fulwoods case coke the jury find that the defendant acknowledge himself to be  bind and that shall be intend accord to the statute of h and so here though  that it be not find that the ware be marry by these defendant yet it shall be  so intend notwithstanding that nothing be find but only that he appear marry  and so be conclude and pray judgement for the plaintiff this case be solemnly  argue this term by all the justice that be coke and walmesley Warburton and  foster and upon their solemn argument coke and walmesley be of opinion that a  marry wife be not within the statute and Warburton and foster be of the  contrary opinion and so by reason of their contrariety in opinion the  judgement be stay trinity James in the common bench