case the queen against the clerk OF the peace OF cumberland see Shoppee v  Nathan company Q b Qure whether article exhibit against a clerk of the peace  under will mary c charge he with extortion videlicet that he exact and force  from such person more than his just fee be sufficient certain certiorari  direct to the justice of Cumberland article in write be exhibit to the court  of session there against the clerk of the peace charge he with several  misdemeanour in the execution of his office videlicet inter alian that be  exact of several people and force they to pay more money than his just due and  fee and upon due consideration and upon be hear by his counsel he be convict  and discharge of his office gold justice this be a good conviction the first  question be if this return be good in form the crime be extortion and so it be  express full in one article where there be a charge of extortion it must be  particularize in the premise there be certainty enough but whether videlicet  be sufficient be the question the videlicet in this case connect the charge  and the premise and carry on the same matter sometime a videlicet be absolute  void as when it be repugnant to what go before but if it explain the matter  precedent it be good to serve the precede purpose a sand vent a it be  sufficient for justice of the peace who be not so skilful as lawyer if they  pursue the substance of the statute and be not like the case of indictment b  see Mod show stram b but rather like order c that the removal of a clerk of  the peace under the statute will mary c be not a conviction but a order see  king v Lloyd stram and that the article must be exhibit in write king v Evans  show c he hold it to be certain enough another question arise upon this office  be a freehold but then the statute will mary c create this freehold d see the  case of Harcourt v fox Mod show d and also the jurisdiction of the justice of  peace as to it e see Bains case Mod S c salk e the word of the statute be if  he shall misdemean himself and upon examination thereof before they at their  session upon article in write and upon a conviction they may discharge he  modern report powys justice be of the same opinion by the statute will mary c  this be a good order when a Act of parliament create a freehold and erect a  judicature at the same time it be subject to be defeat and destroy accord to  the direction of the Act and be like the case of a fellow of a college who may  be remove by his visitor the videlicet incorporate the subsequent charge with  the precedent general accusation where the word in the execution of his office  be omit then the videlicet ought to say that he commit the offence in the  execution of his office the word that will be nonsense be it not for the  videlicet for the charge be that he commit diverse offence in the execution of  his office videlicet that be c Even in indictment he say he have find two  precedent strong to this purpose west press sect of Videlicets and the same  book sect side it be object that in the charge it be not say how much too much  he have take multicolored duty a see Bains case Mod a but then he say the  justice have adjudge that he have take nine shilling too much more than be his  fee multicolored duty that be a court of judicature they in open court debate  the matter full and give judgement and this court ought to judge favourable  that they have proceed regular Powell justice contra this removal and return  be not sufficient certain this be a freehold which the law require great  solemnity in remove the party from and be much different from a chattel my  brother make a difference that this be a new freehold but he can see no  difference betwixt a new and a old freehold it be modern report er p true this  Act of parliament have create a new way of trial but he can not agree with  powys that a trial in this way be the proper for a trial by a jury be the  great check and security against arbitrary c but the question be whether this  removal pursue the authority in the Act in every charge there ought to be  something particular charge if a man be indict of diverse misdemeanour in his  office videlicet c I doubt whether it will be sufficient certain if a man be  indict for felonious steal diverse good videlicet that he take a coat c this  indictment will not be good without the felon to take in hand et to carry away  to every one modern report this ought to be construe as in indictment especial  since his freehold be concern and therefore it ought to be exact certain he  say in the charge it do not appear that what he take be more than his fee and  the adjudication will not help this defect for they ought to judge upon the  charge b shaw v tailor Hutton b he will in this case take all thing strict and  the Act of parliament say misdemeanour but here be but only one single act and  charge holt chief justice this order ought to be quash he consider two thing  first this charge ought to be certain that in case of a appeal it may appear  whether the matter they proceed upon be sufficient in itself and certain this  case do not differ from a information must a man lose his freehold because  justice of peace be not skilful or honest as powys say the justice be not to  draw the article but to judge of they it be a common right due to every man  not to lose his right without sufficient certainty it ought to appear to the  court to be a misdemeanour in the actual execution of his office for it say  the clerk do compel he to pay so much but it do not say to he nor that it be  multicolored duty extorsive c extortion be a specific offence and be as  necessary to be set forth as felon in a indictment again he say he take ten  shilling more than his fee why this may be for perhaps he have another demand  upon he second it be the collection of the justice by way of inference that  from the whole he be guilty but that the justice can do for here be no charge  but they have conclude from the premise and not from the charge for the charge  do not affect he for when it come to the videlicet there be no charge before  afterward upon look into the statute it appear to be misdemeanour in the  singular number a the word of the statute be that the custos rotulorum shall  from time to time where the office of clerk of the peace shall be void  nominate and appoint one able and sufficient person reside in the county to  execute the same by himself or his sufficient deputy and to take and receive  the fee profit and perquisite thereof for so long time only as such clerk of  the peace shall well demean himself in his say office and that if any clerk of  the peace shall misdemean himself in the execution of the say office and  thereupon a complaint and charge in write of such misdemeanour shall be  exhibit against he to the justice in their general quarter session it may be  lawful for the say justice or the major part of they from time to time upon  examination and due proof thereof open in their say general quarter session to  suspend or discharge he from the say office a but the court remain still  divide ut above modern report trinity term the five of queen whether in the  queen bench sir John holt Knt chief justice sir John Powell Knt sir Littleton  powys Knt sir Henry gold Knt justice sir Edward Northey Knt attorney general  sir Simon Harcourt Knt solicitor general