case the warden and company OF saddler OF London against jones if a statute  declare that the skin of sheep be tan or taw and every salt hide shall be  repute and take to be leather and there be two kind of taw modern er p one dry  which leaves the fur on and the other wet by a preparation of salt and alum a  sheepskin prepare with white alum be leather within the meaning of the Act if  a statute enact that whosoever shall not make the ware belong to sadlery  sufficient and substantial shall be liable to a penalty and describe the  mariner in which the leather shall be make a sadler who use leather not dress  accord to the statute be not liable to the penalty if the buyer be satisfy  with the commodity the company of saddler bring debt upon the statute of James  c S against the defendant for that be a sadler he do make five hundred saddle  insufficient and unsubstantial contra form to cause to stand and so become  indebt to they in the forfeiture upon evidence the case be thus modern the  king of Portugal envoy reside here direct the defendant to make he five  hundred saddle for war for the use of the king his master after the pattern of  a saddle bring for that purpose from Portugal the seat whereof be cover with  goatskin and stuff on the outside with straw the defendant make some twenty  saddle in imitation of the pattern but cover the seat with white allumed sheep  skin and instead of straw stuff they with bay on the outside the company find  this matter apply to the envoy inform he of the cheat put upon he who  thereupon countermand the defendant for some time until he have examine and  compare his work with the pattern and after order he to go on which he do the  saddle be all make as aforesaid pay for and send to Portugal this action be  now bring for the penalty the first question be whether allumed sheepskin be  leather within the Act and it appear by sect that it be if tan or taw and it  appear by evidence that there be two sort of taw one dry which leaves the fur  on the other wet which be do with salt and alum it be clear sheep skin allumed  be leather within the Act the next question be whether it be proper for the  use that it be put to by the defendant and if not whether employ it improper  will bring the defendant within the word not substantial and sufficient make  up holt chief justice as to this say that if the jury will think it improper  for that use he will have the rest find specialty for if these word as it be  urge be only applicable to the makingup and workmanship without regard to the  material that be provide for by other clause of the statute a sadler be say  who have buy good leather accord to the statute and suffer it to rot and after  work it up into saddle c will be dispunished by that construction second he  say that the meaning of the statute be to prevent people be cheat by have ill  good put upon they and if this kind of sheepskin be not accord to the statute  yet if the buyer know it and be satisfy therewith it will be no crime for the  statute do not design to take away any man liberty of use what he please that  be buy and contract for what be please but the jury find for the defendant  general note in this case three of the company be disfranchise to be legal  evidence they declare upon a voir dire that they bad no assurance of be  receive again