case east India company versus Sandys January in court Lord keeper injunction  deny to stay a interloper trade to the east Indies till the validity of the  east India company be patent have be try the east India company exhibit a bill  against the defendant Sandys a interloper set forth their patent for the sole  trade to the east Indies and the great power that be thereby give they and  particular the clause in the patent that whosoever shall trade thither not be  of the company shall forfeit the value of such good and commodity wherein they  shall so trade one moiety thereof to the company Vernon chancery case er p and  the other moiety to the king but they be Willing to wave their forfeiture and  set forth what place and town the that have in the east Indies and that they  have there above man under their government and that they have be at above  pound charge in secure their trade in those country and that they have  purchase diverse privilege of the prince there and that the defendant though  he be not of the company have trade thither with the plaintiff money and under  their colour and that by reason of his trade thither and bring good and  merchandise from thence they have suffer great damage and be force to sell  their good at low rate and that the defendant ought to answer damage for the  same and that now to their further prejudice the defendant Vernon chancery  case continue on his trade in the Indies and have jade a ship call with  commodity to be transport thither and pray a full discover c to this bill the  defendant answer and demurrer by answer he deny he trade with the plaintiff  money or under their colour and that he do not know what have be do in the  Indies for that he be never there c and for demurrer that the bill tend to  make the defendant liable to a forfeiture as appear by a clause in the company  patent set forth in their bill and that of their own show their patent be a  monopoly and in itself void c and that he be not bind to discover whether he  be send any good to the Indies or what good he have bring from thence c this  demurrer come on to be argue before the Lord keeper for the plaintiff it be  insist that this be only a auxiliary bill for a discovery in order to a legal  trial and that a answer can not hurt the defendant for that the plaintiff by  their bill have wave the forfeiture that the company have be of a ancient  stand and long continuance and their patent from time to time renew and  confirm by several succeed king and that the antiquity of their possession  which have not be till now of late interrupt by these interloper entitle they  to the protection of this court and that therefore it be but reasonable they  shall have a injunction for quiet of their possession and that it be no  monopoly as be pretend for that they always licence people to trade to the  east Indies though they be not of their company on payment of a reasonable  proportion of the necessary charge and expense which the company have be at  for the support of their trade thither and it be but natural justice they  shall so do as in the case of sewer all be make to contribute that receive  benefit by what be do by the commissioner and for precedent they insist on the  case of the east India company and foscue and the bookseller case and Vernon  chancery case that it be late rule in the exchequer in the case of the sixty  chancery clerk on a bill to discover whether they have pay the kins duty and  there though the defendant demurrer as here because it will subject they to a  forfeiture yet they be make to answer and there have never any advantage be  take of such forfeiture it be but like a subpoena centum a balance but it be  answer there be a great difference betwixt mandatory writ and patent that  create right and the plaintiff say in their bill that they will take no  advantage of the forfeiture will not protect the defendant in a action at law  but if it will the plaintiff can waive but a moiety of the forfeiture and can  waive the king moiety and their patent must as against they be take to be good  even in that clause of the forfeiture though may be it be the weak clause of  it and it be further insist that this patent be a monopoly and the plaintiff  have very bold insert it in their bill and suggest that by reason of the  defendant trade to the east Indies they have be force to sell their good for  little more than half what they be real worth which show the oppression of  this patent upon the people Lord keeper I must in this case be govern by law  and the validity of the patent be proper triable there so vide hill v  university oxon post and till it be determine there I do not see how I can  grant a injunction vide anon ante and it be a general rule that equity shall  not be apply to for the purpose of establish a legal right unless plaintiff  have try his title with law if he can although it do not always prevail mayor  of York v Pilkington atk though I be far from think the patent void which have  be confirm by so many succeed king and since there have be diverse parliament  that have take notice of other matter but never reflect on this patent as void  or against law the reason give why this bill shall not be answer be chief  three saint that what the plaintiff complain of be but in nature of a trespass  and for that they may have remedy at law Vernon chancery case but to that it  may be answer in some case even for a trespass a bill be proper enough in this  court as where by the secret contrivance of it a man can easy prove it as for  instance if a man in his own ground Vernon chancery case er p dig a way under  ground to my mineral and the like vide Tilley v bridge pre Ch east India  company v Evans post earl of Kildare v Eustace post and so in this case there  be a difficulty as to the proof the matter for the great part have be transact  in the east Indies the second objection be that it tend to subject the  defendant to a forfeiture I do not think there be much in that for I take it  the clause as to a forfeiture be the weak clause in the patent clause to  restrain trade under forfeiture have often be ajdudged void vide post and I  believe many of the able counsel that argue for the company never peruse the  bill otherwise they will not have insert some matter that have be better leave  out dly it be object that this patent be a monopoly certain in its creation it  be only a patent of regulation for at first all people be at liberty to come  in and patent for regulation of trade be exempt out of the statute and if it  be now reduce into few hand and so become a monopoly it be hard to say when it  become such it be like the vastness of the building in London become a  nuisance no one can say when first they become so or which particular house  first make it such and it be to be observe the word of the statute of monopoly  be that there shall be no monopoly within this kingdom what influence that may  have on this case be worthy consideration I will therefore have this matter  first try at law and for that purpose let the defendant admit that he have buy  and sell east India good that he bring from thence to some certain value and  when the trial be over come back again and if the trial go against the  defendant he shall perfect his answer on interrogatory but in the mean time  let the defendant put in a answer without oath that thereby the complainant  may be entitle to the benefit of a commission to the Indies to examine their  witness there note that on a action bring in b r in that car two after several  argument Lord jefferies on great deliberation give judgement for the plaintiff  vide state trial vol