case the king against JOURNEYMENTAYLORS OF cambridge Monday November a  indictment against a tailor with the addition of yeoman be good one wise and  several other journeyman tailor of or in the town of Cambridge be indict for a  conspiracy among themselves to raise their wage and be find guilty it be move  in arrest of judgement upon several error in the record first that the  defendant have the addition of yeoman be notwithstanding charge with a  conspiracy not to work as journeyman tailor which be a repugnancy it be answer  that yeoman be a good addition for a yeoman may be a tailor the court hold  that there be no inconsistency between the addition of yeoman and the addition  of tailor second the caption be not good be ad general quartial sess peace c  omit domini king after peace this exception have be several time hold fatal  and be very different from the case where they be omit after the word just  dict domini king ad pac in come prd conservand assign side keb vent office of  the clerk of the peace a in Hilary term in the first year of queen whether and  in Hilary term in the eleven year of queen whether two indictment be quash for  this exception it be answer that this objection have be often overrule for it  must be intend the king peace and that the case in Ventris have be deny for  law the court be of the same opinion and say that of late year this objection  have never prevail three No crime appear upon the face of this indictment for  it only charge they with a conspiracy and refusal to work at so much per diem  whereas they be not oblige to work at all by the day but by the year by  Elizabeth c it be answer that the refusal to work be not the crime but the  conspiracy to raise the wage modern report er p the court the indictment it be  true set forth that the defendant refuse to work under the wage which they  demand but although these may be more than be direct by the statute yet it be  not for the refuse to work but for conspire that they be indict and a  conspiracy of any kind be illegal although the matter about which they  conspire may have be lawful for they or any of they to do if they have not  modern report conspire to do it as appear in the case of the Tubwomen v the  brewer of London fourthly that this fact be lie in the town of Cambridge it do  not appear by the record in what county Cambridge be which it ought to do  because there be other town of that name in England videlicet in  Gloucestershire and so it be a mistrial for there be no more reason to award  the venire to the sheriff of Cambridge than of any other county the venire  facias be award to the sheriff of the county of Cambridge command he to summon  a jury de vicineto will Cant in the margin of the indictment it be villan de c  in the indictment the venue be allege only at villan de c and though the  certiorari to remove it be direct just domini king de villan c in come our men  c this error be not help by name the county in the certiorari to remove the  indictment because that writ be only a order of this court neither shall it be  intend that Cambridge be in the county of Cambridge because this be a criminal  case and intendment be never allow in prosecution of this nature it be answer  that the fact be lie in the town of Cambridge it shall be intend that the town  be within the county of Cambridge for which near be case   b be a authority in  point the court if a venire facias be direct to the sheriff of Cambridge to  return a jury and be return one de vicineto Cantabrigi it be good for  Cambridge be mention in several act of parliament the court must take notice  of such act and upon such a return will intend that Cambridge be in the county  of Cambridge in the case of wither v Warner I strange c in Hilary term in the  six year of George the first we take judicial notice that London and the city  of London be all one the certiorari be direct to the justice of our lord the  king of the town of Cambridge in our county of Cambridge and return by the  justice of the will in the county of Cambridge so that it will be a very  foreign intendment to suppose the will to be out of the county five this  indictment ought to conclude contra form to cause to stand for by the late  statute Geo c journeymentaylors modern report be prohibit to enter into any  contract or agreement for advance their wage c and the statute of Edward c  make such person criminal I sand wm Jones a it be answer that the omission in  not conclude this indictment contra form to cause to stand be not material  because it be for a conspiracy which be a offence at commonlaw it be true the  indictment set forth that the defendant refuse to work under such rate which  be more than enjoin by the statute for that be only two shilling adais but yet  these word will not bring the offence for which the defendant be indict to be  within that statute because it be not the denial to work except for more wage  than be allow by the statute but it be for a conspiracy to raise their wage  for which these defendant be indict it be true it do not appear by the record  that the wage demand be excessive but that be not material because it may be  give in evidence the court this indictment need not conclude contra form to  cause to stand because it be for a conspiracy which be a offence at commonlaw  so the judgement be confirm by the whole court quod to take in hand