attorneygeneral against John lade who pray liberty to enter his claim upon a  information of seizure of British and foreign coin there be no occasion for a  writ of appraisement or a second proclamation and judgement may be for the  coin themselves Middlesex of several parcel of gold and silver coin seize by  John slater as forfeit and recover for the use of his majesty e it remember  that sir Dudley rider knight his majesty attorney general who prosecute for  his say majesty be present here in court the twentythird day of January in  this term in his proper person noth on the behalf of his say majesty inform  this court that John slater a officer of his majesty custom between the first  day of February last pass Parker er p and the say day of the exhibit of this  information at Ratcliff in the county of Middlesex within the port of London  do seize to the use of his say majesty as forfeit several piece of gold and  silver coin of this realm of great Britain that be to say two hundred and  ninetyfour piece of gold coin call guinea ninetytwo piece of gold coin call  half guinea and several piece of silver coin of the value of one hundred and  thirtyfive pound eleven shilling and also Parker several piece of foreign gold  coin that be to say thirtyfour piece of gold coin call moidore six piece of  gold coin call half moidore four piece of gold coin call quarter moidore three  piece of gold coin each of the value of three pound twelve shilling thirteen  piece of gold coin each of the value of one pound sixteen shilling three piece  of gold coin each of the value of eighteen shilling and four piece of gold  coin each of the value of nine shilling of the good and chattel of person to  the say attorney general unknown for that the say several piece of gold and  silver coin of this realm and also the say silver piece of foreign gold coin  within the time aforesaid at Ratcliff aforesaid in the say county of Middlesex  within the port of London aforesaid be find by he the say John slater in the  keep of a certain person or certain person unknown that be or be pass out of  the say port and also out of great Britain into part beyond the sea be over  and above the reasonable expense of the say person or person without the  special licence of his say majesty for that purpose have and without any entry  make of the say foreign coin or any part thereof in the customhouse of the say  port contrary to the form of the statute in that behalf make and provide by  reason whereof the say several piece of gold and silver coin of this realm and  also the say several piece of foreign gold coin become forfeit wherefore his  majesty say attorney general for his say majesty pray the judgement of the  court in the premise and that the say several piece of gold and silver coin of  this realm and also the say Parker several piece of foreign gold coin may for  the reason aforesaid remain forfeit accord to the form of the say statute  whereupon proclamation be make for his say majesty as the custom be that if  any one will inform the court here why the say several piece of gold and  silver coin of this realm and also the say several piece of foreign gold coin  shall not for the reason aforesaid remain forfeit he may come and he shall be  hear and no one appear to do this it be adjudge by the baron here that the say  several piece of gold and silver coin of this realm and also the say several  piece of foreign gold coin do for the reason aforesaid remain forfeit and that  the say John slater be charge towards his say majesty with the say several  piece of gold and silver coin of this realm and also with the say several  piece of foreign gold coin and shall satisfy his majesty thereof by pretext of  the say statute and of other the premise the information and judgement be find  on the Richard stat c and Henry c which prohibit the exportation of coin  general without licence and on Charles c S which allow the exportation of  foreign coin upon entry Mr starke at the sit after the term move to set aside  the judgement for the condemnation of the several piece of British and foreign  coin before mention and object to it as irregular Parker first because no writ  of appraisement have be sue out second because there be no second proclamation  to show cause why these coin shall not remain forfeit and for a bidder to come  in and bid more than the appraise value three that the judgement shall have be  for the value and not for the coin themselves fourthly but suppose the  judgement regular yet that Mr lade ought by the discretion of the court to be  let in to claim and try the merit and not be conclude by this judgement Mr  attorneygeneral and other insist on the regularity and of the judgement and  that Mr lade on the particular circumstance of this case ought not to be admit  to claim the court order precedent to be search and deliver to they adjourn  easter term geo I deliver the opinion of the court on the that day of may in  this term and observe that in order to settle these several point search have  be make into the Parker er p original of writ of appraisement and proclamation  in this court pursuant to our order by the clerk in court on each side and  that they have deliver to we copy of all precedent they can find upon the most  diligent search Parker the first question be whether it be necessary to sue  out a writ of appraisement in this case there be few seizure till about the  that of Edward when act pass concern the duty on wool and woolfels and  afterward upon the woollen manufacture the first writ of appraisement of good  seize that can be find be Hilary Henry roll by which the commissioner be  direct first to make proclamation for any claimer to appear in this court at  the return of the writ of appraisement and to make his claim here the first  instance of a proclamation in court that can be find be Michaelmas Henry roll  and many condemnations appear in the old record upon a single proclamation the  first instance of a second proclamation for a bid be Michaelmas Edward roll a  seizure of a parcel of gold tissue and the good be appraise in court by two  merchant of London and the second proclamation be if any one will give more  for the good than they be appraise at c a bidder come in the good be sell and  he be charge with the price upon consideration of these and many other ancient  record as well as of the case which I shall present mention I apprehend that  the method of appraise and sell be invent and establish when it come to be  Parker experience that it be very troublesome to the crown and its officer to  have judgement for the good themselves of which they can not make the same  advantage as merchant and tradesman can and for this reason it have be the  general use ever since the invention of it to have a writ of appraisement and  a second proclamation as be more beneficial to the crown and officer than have  the good in specie but still where the forfeiture of the coin or good be give  to the crown only or to the crown and informer they may have the specific coin  or good at their election russell case Michaelmas from a authentic manuscript  of all eminent practiser who be counsel in the cause this case be upon a bid  above the appraise value of the good seize as prohibit and uncustomd and upon  proclamation that if any will give more c Russell offer to give more to wit  such a sum and upon debate of the case these thing be resolve by the court and  assent to by sawyer attorney general who be counsel against Russell first that  such bid be the ancient practice and may be great advantageous to the king to  prevent under appraisement second that such bidder shall have the moiety of  the king for the price bid if the king do not elect to have his moiety in  specie which it be allow he may do Parker and the bid do not alter the right  and election of the king and when the bidder have the moiety of the king only  the judgement be that the bidder shall be charge to the king for so much for  the king moiety and that the informer shall retain the other moiety accord to  the form of the statute and this be accord to a precedent easter Henry roll in  the king remembrancer office and if the king choose to have his moiety in  specie there be no need of a second proclamation and in that case other point  be determine not material to the present purpose Friday the that of October W  upon the motion of Mr attorneygeneral for the king to prevent abuse relate to  the importation of French good Mr attorneygeneral on the behalf of his majesty  noth elect that his majesty moiety of all French good and of all wine seize as  forfeit shall be take for his majesty use in kind which be order by the court  to be observe accord I will make some observation on the second resolution in  russell case that the king have a right to take his own moiety in specie if he  please but neither the case nor rule of go so far as to point out when or in  what manner the king pleasure be to be signify though at the end of that  resolution it be say that if the king choose to have his moiety in specie  there be no need of a proclamation that be as I understand it a second  proclamation from which I think it a natural inference that the king pleasure  shall some how Parker or other be make know and as Mr attorneygeneral be by  his office entrust to carry on these prosecution I think Parker er p it a  sufficient notification of the king pleasure that Mr attorney have take this  particular method of prosecute for the condemnation of the coin themselves if  this be so what occasion can there be in the present case where the king be  entitle to all the coin both British and foreign in specie for a writ of  appraisement for the use of the writ be not to ascertain the several coin they  be already describe in the information or what occasion can there be for a  valuation of the foreign coin when the king be determine to take the foreign  coin in specie let they be of what value they may and only desire a judgement  for the condemnation of they it be certain and Mr lad counsel agree it that  there be no occasion for a writ of appraisement where the seizure be of  current coin of the kingdom but they insist that as this information be for  foreign as well as British coin that there ought to have be a writ of  appraisement at least for the foreign coin because accord to cro Elizabeth  Yelv Jo palmer Mod more court of justice can no more take judicial notice of  the value of foreign coin not make current by proclamation than they can of  the value of bullion or any good or merchandise and yet the value of the piece  of coin in this information be as well know provide they have not be file or  otherwise diminish Parker by ill practice among merchant trader and other and  pass at as certain a state value as guinea do except at the exchequer and the  bank they do not ordinary receive they and I believe some banker when they  receive they give note to pay in the same coin this bring I to the precedent  and here be five where foreign coin be condemned in this manner and seven  where there be writ of appraisement but it be observe by Mr lad counsel upon  the precedent produce for the crown that one of they be for French crown and  Spanish rials another of they for dollar and the other three for foreign coin  general and as to French crown Spanish rials and dollar that they be make  current by proclamation and therefore no authority against they and they cite  wade case Rep a b where it be say that Spanish shilling and double pistol be  make current by proclamation as be French crown but I can find that Spanish  rials and dollar be make current by proclamation and I rather incline to think  they be not because in the first precedent produce on behalf of Mr lade mich  Charles the seizure be for dollar and a writ of appraisement to value they  which there will be no occasion for if current and if not current these two  precedent for the crown be not answer Parker the other three precedent be for  foreign coin general and Mr lad counsel insist that the court must intend  these to be foreign coin current because accord to the rule in metcalf case  Rep b where a thing be indefinite mention in a record the principal thing and  most worthy shall be intend and therefore it shall be intend foreign coin  current as that be more worthy than foreign coin not current but this will be  to proceed upon a very uncertain conjecture when it be well know that there be  more foreign coin not current than there be foreign coin make current by  proclamation but if russel case be law that the king if he please be entitle  to the coin in specie and it be confirm by the rule in my reason I think plain  show that there be no more occasion for a writof appraisement in this case  because some of the coin be foreign not make current than if all of they have  be British coin the second question be whether there ought not to have be a  second proclamation which be not only to show cause why the coin shall not  remain forfeit but for a bidder to come in and bid more the second  proclamation depend upon the writ of appraisement and where there be no writ  of appraisement there can be no occasion for a second proclamation because it  will be absurd to ask any man whether he Parker will give more for good  without tell he what be he present value of they there be no instance of a  second proclamation where no writ of appraisement be sue out the three  question be whether judgement shall have be for the coin or the value I think  the judgement be right for the specific coin as they be forfeit and Mr  attorneygeneral have proceed in this manner for the condemnation of they there  be many instance of recovery where informer be charge with the thing  themselves Trin Henry roll hill Edward roll mich Henry roll and several other  Parker er p so be the precedent mich Ph m roll judgement for the forfeiture of  coin and the officer to be charge to the king and queen for a moiety easter  Charles roll the like judgement mich Geo roll the precedent for Mr lade be of  writ of appraisement that the specific coin remain forfeit and that the  officer be charge with one moiety or the value or with a moiety of the price  or value to the crown Parker but there seem to be a difference between a  proceed upon the act of Richard and Henry where the coin be forfeit to the  crown and upon the act of tonnage and poundage Charles c S which say the good  shall be forfeit to the king one moiety of the rate thereof to the king the  other to he who shall seize and sue for the same here a moiety of the rate  seem to import a moiety of the value and on this act a writ of appraisement  seem to I to be proper but this clause only relate to wine good or other  merchandise and not to coin and beside this can only be a question between the  crown and officer and Mr lade have no pretence to make the objection the  precedent produce for Mr lade do not impeach those produce for the crown but  all of they be reconcileable accord to the resolution in russell case that the  king upon seizure where he be entitle to the good seize may take they in  specie if he please or have they appraise and sell and take the value instead  of themselves and therefore I agree to thatresolution the last question be  suppose the judgement regular whether Mr lade ought not by the discretion of  the court to be let in to claim and try the merit and not be conclude by the  judgement Parker Lord hale in a treatise of port and port duty and of the  custom not print lie it down as clear law that the king may inform upon a to  come in what court he please but there can be a information upon a seizure to  condemn good by proclamation but only in the court of exchequer and the reason  be because upon all such seizure every person concern may have and know a  certain place to resort unto for his remedy this kind I observe that Mr lade  have not venture to swear that be do not know it to be necessary to enter a  claim in this court and yet by the seizure he have notice to do some act to  preserve his property and it be general know to trader and master of vessel  that they be to resort to this court for redress upon such occasion and there  be a proclamation in open court for any one to come in and claim but suppose  he to be ignorant that a claim be necessary his ignorance will by no mean  excuse his omission to make it because it be gross negligence not to inform  himself that it be necessary since such information may easy have be have in  Richard and boil Nov a claimer be admit to enter his claim after a recovery  and I presume that it be a regular recovery because the court put term on the  claimer to plead to issue forthwith to take short notice of trial to bring no  writ of error and in case of a verdict for the king the judgement to stand as  a security otherwise the recovery be not to be vacate Parker this case at  first view seem to be a strong authority for Mr lade but here as the officer  have pay the money into the exchequer he can get it back if Mr lade shall  prevail against he indeed if he have be irregular in his proceed he will have  pay at his peril but as be be regular and have do his duty I do not think it  reasonable to expose he to the danger of have this money recover from he by Mr  lade for if he shall prevail in that case the officer must avoidable bear the  loss and be remediless the whole court hold the judgement to be regular and  that it ought not to be set aside but to stand as this case be particular  circumstance