case sir bazil FIREBRASSE versus brett novembris in court Lord chancellor  injunction grant for stay of proceed at law for forcible take from defendant  money which he have win of the plaintiff at play though the defendant have by  answer deny all the circumstance of fraud charge in the bill the defendant and  sir William Russell dine with the plaintiff at his house after dinner fall  into Play with the plaintiff and win of he in ready money about pound which  Brett bring away with he though when they begin to play the defendant and sir  William Russell have not above eight guinea between they and sir bazil be  somewhat inflame with wine bring down a bag of guinea contain about pound and  Brett win that money also and have it in his possession but as he be go away  with it out of the house Firebrasse and his servant seize upon it and take  Vernon chancery case it from he Firebrasse have bring a information against  Brett for play with false dice but Brett be acquit and Brett have bring a  action of trespass against Firebrasse for take from he in a forcible manner  this bag of guinea and thereupon Firebrasse exhibit his bill charge many  circumstance of fraud and circumvention which be deny by the defendant answer  the answer confess the money be win at play but say it be win fair r l and  upon the plaintiff motion the Lord chancellor consider the circumstance of the  case the greatness of the sum and that it be confess to be win at dice r l  grant a injunction till the hear of the cause and say that he think the sum  very exorbitant for a man to lose at play in one night and that if it be in  his power he will prevent it and cite the case of sir Cecil bishop and sir  John staple in the Lord chief justice hale time about a wager upon a foot race  and that the chief justice in that case say that those great wager proceed  from avarice and be find in corruption Reg lib a fol enter Firebrace v Russell  vide post vol car cap whether cap Geo cap the two follow case in the exchequer  on the statute of whether and Geo be not report mind v Ogden mind v pain that  January these be bill file by a common informer under the stat whether cap and  Geo cap for a discovery of money win by game and for a decree for the penalty  to one of the bill the defendant demurrer to the relief only to the other the  defendant demurrer to all the discovery except as to a single interrogatory  and to the relief the question be whether a common informer be entitle to a  discovery and decree as well as relief per Eyre Lord chief baron if this be a  modern act of parliament I shall have no doubt but that the informer be  entitle to a discovery but if such a bill by a common informer be new I shall  pause before I decide it for silence during so long a time may have give a  interpretation to the act the common informer be not include in the stat Geo  not because the case of the common informer be not state with the case of the  party in the preamble of the act as to the operation of the preamble on the  construction of a act of parliament vide copeman v gallant p wms rial v roll  atk Ves S c but because such a construction will put a court of equity upon  give penalty which be beyond the nature of a civil right as to the relief the  common informer have no ground to proceed here the relief pray too be bad  because it be pray for the informer and the king whereas by the stat of  whether it be give to the informer and the poor of the parish the demurrer to  the relief must be allow but the demurrer which go to the relief and discovery  must be overrule for a demurrer can be allow in part the other baron concur  Burton for the defendant contend that if the present demurrer be bad yet the  defendant may demurrer over as far as to the relief only but the court think  that to demurrer over as far as there must be a new cause of demurrer whereas  in the present case it will be a demurrer for the same cause though not so  extensive Pritchett v panton June this be a bill file by a common informer for  a discovery and payment of a penalty for play at a unlawful game no game be  mention but it be aver that a penalty have occur defendant demurrer hall for  the plaintiff argue that the court will infer that the game play be a unlawful  game within the statute but per lyre Lord chief baron we shall infer no such  thing there be many unlawful game not within the stat whether beside the  penalty arise from the sum lose and not from the game you must set out more  specific as that at such a time you lose such a sum of money you be not  entitle to this kind of fish bill to inquire if at any time in his life a man  have play at a unlawful game and it be clear that a bill for discovery of  money win at play under the stat of whether by a common informer will not lie  till he have commence some suit for relief mind v Prancis Anstr Vernon  chancery case er p