case talbot against hubble and other see municipal corporation Act Vict c S if  the charter of a city give to the justice a exclusive jurisdiction the justice  for the county can interfere SC stram action of trespass against the defendant  for break and enter the plaintiff house in new Sarum and carry away and detain  several good mention in the declaration and keep they till pay the sum of six  pound the defendant plead two not guilty and on the trial a special case be  make for the opinion of the court of king bench the case state that the  plaintiff be a publichousekeeper within the city of Salisbury that the  defendant hubble be a officer of excise that the defendant Harris and pit be  justice of the peace for the county of wilts the one reside in another in a  close adjoin to the city of Salisbury and that the other defendant be  constable for the say city that the defendant exhibit a information against  the plaintiff before the defendant Harris and pit for have a quantity of run  tea conceal in his house that upon this the justice condemned the tea and fine  the plaintiff the sum of six pound which be the Triple value of the tea and  grant their warrant to the other defendant the constable to levy the modern  same and that they in pursuance thereof enter the plaintiff house take his  good and detain they till pay the say sum of six pound that all the proceed be  regular on this information if the defendant the justice have a sufficient  jurisdiction to convict the plaintiff in this case for a offence agree to have  be commit within the city of new Sarum for that this city by several charter  from the crown have thirteen justice of its own who have power to hear and  determine all matter and offence arise in the say city in which charter there  be several exclusive clause whereby the justice for the county at large be  preclude from intermeddle in any matter arise in the city of Salisbury or  within the jurisdiction of the city justice that the justice for the city have  always hold the quartersession there and that information relate to the excise  have be frequent make before the justice of the city where the matter arise in  that corporation and that it do not appear that the justice for the county  have ever exercise any jurisdiction in the say city for any fact arise there  whether it relate to the excise or otherwise and that it appear on the oath of  the townclerk who have be in the office for thirty year that the county  justice never intermeddle in city matter and that he can not find one entry in  any of the book to show they ever have the question reserve for the  consideration of the court be whether the defendant Harris and pit be justice  of the peace for the county of wilts the one reside in and the other near the  say city of Salisbury have a legal and proper authority and jurisdiction under  the circumstance of the present case to proceed on the information exhibit  before they by the defendant hubble as aforesaid for the say offence commit  within the say city by the plaintiff then reside within the say city and to  grant their warrant upon the say information to levy the penalty within the  say city the case be argue three several time at the bar where these four  point be principal speak to first whether the crown can grant a exclusive  jurisdiction second suppose the crown can whether the several charter grant to  the city of Salisbury do contain such a exclusive jurisdiction modern er p  three if the crown have such a power and the charter do contain such a  exclusive clause whether the statute of car c S be a virtual repeal of these  charter so as to let in the justice for the county at large in any matter  relate to the excise fourthly whether this action of trespass be the proper  remedy for the plaintiff for it be object that if the justice for the county  at large have no jurisdiction within the city of Salisbury modern a action on  the case ought to have be bring against they for exercise a illegal  jurisdiction and not a action of trespass lee chief justice this term deliver  the opinion of the court in which he take notice of all the principal argument  at the bar and state the case as above I think the first consideration will be  whether the charterjustices of new Sarum have a jurisdiction in their city  exclusive of the justice for the county of wilts for if there be no exclusive  word in their charter there be no foundation to say that the justice for the  county of wilts have not a concurrent jurisdiction with the corporation  justice within the city of Salisbury and that they have this concurrent  jurisdiction appear from h h pi Coron foe where it be say that if the king by  charter grant to a corporation that the mayor and recorder shall be justice of  the place within the city whereby they be justice in perpetuity by charter yet  if there be no word of exclusion the justice of peace for the county have a  concurrent jurisdiction with the justice by charter the next point will be  whether here be a exclusive jurisdiction give by these charter to the justice  of new Sarum the exclusive clause in the several charter be in almost the same  word which he state at large and be to this effect that the justice of new  Sarum shall have jurisdiction to determine all matter arise within their city  in as full and ample a manner as the justice of the county of wilts or any  other justice of the peace of our lord the king can determine any matter  within their respective jurisdiction either by virtue of their commission or  of any Act of parliament already or hereafter to be make and that the justice  of the peace for the county of wilts shall not hereafter intermeddle  themselves or have any manner of jurisdiction of any cause or matter arise in  the say city of new Sarum or within the cognizance of its justice by this  clause I apprehend that the crown have except new Sarum from the concurrent  jurisdiction of the justice of the county at large as absolute as if there  have be a express clause of exclusion in the commission to the countyjustices  command they not to intermeddle with any matter arise within the city the  clause in the charter of new Sarum be to empower its justice to do not only  what the countyjustices can do by any Act of parliament then in be but also  what such countyjustices shall be enable to do by virtue of any subsequent Act  of parliament and this will be a answer to the case in brook where it be hold  that the city of Bristol shall not have the cognizance of a plea in a action  for maintenance because their jurisdiction arise from a grant of king Edward  the three and the action of maintenance be give by a statute of Richard t  second which be subsequent to the grant and be not in be at that time but  there be a quaere to it by brook but the present case differ for the charter  justice modern be by express word to have jurisdiction in all matter arise on  subsequent act as well as on act already in be but if it be doubt whether the  crown have power to grant a exclusive jurisdiction that will be settle by this  case of the abbot of saint Alban where it be say that if there be a clause of  exclusion the justice of the county have no jurisdiction in that corporation c  and it be also say by read justice in that case that a indictment before the  countyjustices for a matter arise within the exclusive jurisdiction be void as  be in person non judge and the clause in the justice commission which say they  be to act tam infra freedom how extra mean only as to such place where the  justice of these liberty have no express clause in their patent to exclude  they for where there be no such exclusive clause there be no doubt but that  the countyjustices will have a concurrent jurisdiction h h pi Coron Dalton b  and read go on and since the king will that the justice for the county at  large shall modern er p not intermeddle he have by that divide the  jurisdiction of his justice which he may well do as in Inst it be say the king  may well divide the jurisdiction of his court and Phineux chief justice add to  what read have say that if a person be indict before justice of a county who  act in a liberty which have its own justice and a jurisdiction to exclude the  countyjustices the indictee may take advantage of this because it be void as  be in person non judge though it be object that the offence be only do to the  lord of that liberty for a infringement of his franchise in this case it  appear that a exempt jurisdiction be compare to a franchise of to turn in a  lathe narrow places and the chief justice treat it as a thing in person non  judge but I think there be a great difference between they for though the  franchise of to turn in a lathe narrow places carry a exemption yet it do not  exclude but that the sheriff may execute writ within it but then it be a wrong  for which the lord of the liberty may have his action and in some case the  sheriff may lawful do it vent c as in the case of the king a non to let go c  and the defendant who be serve with process by the sheriff within a liberty  shall never take advantage of this but the lord who franchise be infringe and  a liberty be always for the benefit of a stranger and not of the defendant   b  Semaynes case d but in case of a exempt or exclusive jurisdiction the benefit  be for person live within that jurisdiction and I do not know of any case that  have be determine contrary to that in Henry indeed hale in this case say it  have be doubt whether a indictment at the session hold by the countyjustices  in a exclusive jurisdiction be void or only a contempt in the justice and say  also that this matter be move between the justice of the peace for Surrey and  the borough of Southwark modern but never resolve see the case of king v  sainsbury term Rep SC Nolans Rep king v Morgan call Blankby v winstanley term  Rep a but that some think it like the case of a bailiwick of a liberty and a  to turn in a lathe narrow places grant ita quod sheriff non to go into if a  sheriff execute a writ within the liberty the execution be good but the  sheriff be punishable for infringe the franchise but in the case of the king v  grey Clayt b it be hold by three justice though there be no express opinion  that if a praecipe be bring for land lie in the countypalatine of Lancaster  and the praecipe issue out of the common plea and judgement there such  judgement will be void for the countypalatine be a exempt jurisdiction from  the king court at Westminster and have itself a plenary jurisdiction Inst c  but in the case of to turn in a lathe narrow places the court that issue the  process have jurisdiction in the liberty and when the writ be execute it be  good to all intent and purpose against the defendant and the lord be the only  person who be to take advantage of the irregular execution of the writ which  be a breach of his franchise take it then that the crown may and in the  present case have grant a exclusive jurisdiction to the justice of new Sarum  the next question will be whether the statute relate to the excise within the  city of new Sarum admit the jurisdiction of those who in other case be exclude  and this depend on the car c S and car c as to the car the word be that all  forfeiture and offence against the say Act shall be determine in this manner  those which arise within the immediate limit of the chief office in London  shall be determine by the commissioner or governor of the excise and all such  forfeiture and offence make and commit within all or any other the county city  town or place within this kingdom or dominion thereof shall be hear and  determine by any two or more of the justice of the peace reside near to the  place where such forfeiture shall be make or offence commit and in case of  neglect or refusal of the justice by the subcommissioners and if the party  find himself aggrieve by the judgement give by the subcommissioners he may  appeal to the justice of the peace at the next quartersession c it be insist  on by the counsel for the defendant that the countyjustices may act in new  Sarum in this case for all that be require by this Act be that the person who  be to exercise this jurisdiction in excise matter be justice of the modern er  p peace and reside near the place where the fact be commit and that they act  as by a particular designation of parliament under a description story a mask  without any relation to their jurisdiction as justice and that the same power  be give to the subcommissioners under the like description but upon perusal of  the several statute we be all of modern opinion that the design of the  legislature be to vest the law of excise in the several justice of the say  respective city county c respective accord to the legal jurisdiction which  they exercise over other matter which be cognisable by they this will depend  on the several clause in the excise act in the car c S there be a clause which  relate to the farm the excise and enact that the Lord treasurer commissioner c  shall not agree with any person in any of the respective county or place of  this realm in any other manner than as shall be direct by the justice of the  say county or place or the major part of they at their quartersession here the  direction of farm be confine to the justice of the say county town city c and  the justice of that respective county or place where the duty arise be the  person mean by the Act of parliament the next clause sect be that which give  the jurisdiction to punish for the forfeiture and offence in the Act and give  the penalty in the present case the word be that all forfeiture and offence  commit within all or any other the town county c shall be hear and determine  by any two or more of the justice of the peace reside near to the place where  such forfeiture shall be make or offence commit here the word respective be  drop which be insert in the twentyninth section but this clause must have the  same construction as the other and must mean the respective county and place  where the offence be commit and then the word two or more justice reside near  to the place must have the same construction videlicet that they be of the  same division and have jurisdiction there the design of the Act be plain to  fix this jurisdiction in some certain set of man of that county or place where  the fact arise and not where they be bare resident and some word must be  supply to execute this intent for accord to the strict word of the Act it give  no more jurisdiction to the justice of the county of wilts in a matter without  their county than to the justice of Northumberland or any other justice who  happen to be reside near the place where the offence be commit which can not  be the intent of the legislature and therefore such construction must be make  on this Act as to confine this jurisdiction to those justice who accord to the  common and regular method of proceed by justice of the peace have a  jurisdiction in other matter in the place where the offence arise and the  clause which give the appeal make it the strong for the appeal be give to the  justice at the next quartersession and if the justice of the county of wilts  have a concurrent jurisdiction with the justice of new Sarum it will be  uncertain to which of the quartersession the appeal must be make for it name  neither in particular and the Act will be more particular in the description  of the session unless it intend to confine the jurisdiction to those justice  who have the ordinary jurisdiction in the town or place where the offence  arise in which modern case this clause will be sensible and plain without any  other description there be several act of parliament pen in this way as  Richard c of forcible entry which give power to the justice of peace or any of  they the be Elizabeth c of bastardy which give power to justice near the  parishchurch the car c for kill dear and do not say where the fact be commit  the car c for repair the highway say in default thereof any two justice live  within the parish c in all which case and many other the jurisdiction be give  to the justice but no mention be make that they shall be of that county or  place where the fact be commit but yet the rule of construction have always be  reddendo one one to give the jurisdiction accord to the respective division or  county of the justice and the car c show the legislature have this intention  in view for it direct the justice shall meet in their respective division from  which it follow they must have jurisdiction there it have be object to this  construction that there be a clause in the car c which enact that no  commissioner farmer or subcommissioner for the excise or common brewer of ale  or beer to sell or innkeeper shall have power to act in or execute as a  justice of the peace any of the modern er p power clause or thing contain in  any of the law make for or concern the excise and it be say that in borough or  town it be a common thing to have brewer for justice so that if all the  justice in a exclusive jurisdiction shall be brewer c there will be a failure  of justice but now by Geo c S no person or person whatsoever be a common  brewer of ale or beer or innkeeper distiller or other dealer in spirituous  liquor shall act as a justice of the peace see hawk p c that edit ch S a the  answer I will give to this be that this defect do not appear in the present  case nor be there any reason to suppose it here for it be find that there be  thirteen justice for the city of Salisbury and if it shall happen that they be  all brewer c the king will in such case grant concurrent commission to some  other to be justice in new Sarum ne poplar tree to withdraw in the whole of  the laws to hold forth as in Dalton or there will at least be a remedy by  apply to parliament and therefore there be no occasion to let in the  countyjustices on this supposition another objection be make on these case by  the defendant where a Act of parliament have be construe to give justice of  the peace a power of act out of their county by way of demarcation a mask but  the case do not come up to the present for in the case of cro car the justice  act only in a matter of examination to entitle the plaintiff to a action on  the statute of Winton on a robbery and the court look on that statute not as  give the justice any jurisdiction but that he act only under a description  story a mask and it be there agree that if the Act have be for the exercise  any compulsory jurisdiction the justice can not have act out of their county  and hale hale h p c b doubt modern whether a justice may do a voluntary act  out of his jurisdiction as to take a recognizance out of the county by consent  of the party but be lie it down as a general rule that a compulsory  jurisdiction can be execute out of the county such as to compel a person out  of the county to enter into a recognizance and to commit he for not do it and  though in a Act of parliament no place be mention where the justice of peace  be to exercise his authority yet the law put this construction on it that it  must be in the county where the fact arise and where he have jurisdiction and  this construction must necessary be make on the present case or else it will  not appear who be to have jurisdiction for it be allow on the several argument  to be absurd to vest this power over the excise in any justice who be  accidental resident near the place and who have otherwise no jurisdiction  there as suppose in the justice of Cumberland who shall happen to live for a  time near Salisbury the subcommissioners act by a plain designation for that  particular purpose and so will the justice at large if they be under the same  particular description but then the question be what be mean by justice reside  near the place and we be of opinion that by this those only be mean who have a  ordinary jurisdiction in the place where the fact arise we be therefore all of  opinion that the justice of new Sarum have by their charter a power to act  there exclusive of the justice for the county at large and that the statute  relate to the excise have give to the countyjustices no power to act in new  Sarum or in any exclusive jurisdiction therefore the plaintiff must have the  postea and his judgement