case the king against the warden OF the fleet it be not a good cause of  challenge to the array that the jury shall have come from a different county S  c holt at a trial at bar of issue join in plead on a to point out de law in  chancery to a inquisition return there find several misdemeanour in the warden  in the execution of his office which office be find to be a ancient office  exercisable in Middlesex whereby the say office and the prisonhouse in London  which be find to be appendant to the office be forfeit there be two issue one  upon the escape the other upon the appendance in London a jury of Middlesex be  come to the bar the counsel of the defendant challenge the array and have it  draw up in parchment in French and read by counsel the cause be that the jury  ought to come from London where the house be and not from Middlesex and return  by the London sheriff and not a Middlesex sheriff and he conclude et hoc a  preparation be verify prout cur c et petit ind judgment per quod arraiam empty  it be insist on the inquisition be in the nature of a information declaration  or indictment and take notice that the house of prison be in London and that  suppose the office be in Middlesex yet that only make it like a common in one  county appendant to a manor in another in which case both county ought to join  and if it be a good challenge to a jury that they be not indifferent though of  legal venue a strong when they have no legal capacity at all and cro be quote  where cattle distrain in one county and drive into another and adjudge that  the jury to try that fact shall come from both county and though in truth  London can join with another county yet that ought to be suggest on the roll  and the court can otherwise take notice of it beside if the venire be award  into both the county and a London jury come to the bar and do not insist upon  the privilege the trial will be regular but if they insist upon their  privilege then perhaps the court for necessity may award a venire facias to  Middlesex only and it be no reason to say that because we may have advantage  of this in arrest of judgement we may not offer it modern report now for  though we waive what we may move in arrest of judgement yet we may assign it  after for error in a writ of error the attorneygeneral contra the cause of  challenge to the array be the want of indifference in the officer and the  reason why they may challenge the panel be because that cause do not appear on  record and therefore they have no other way to take advantage of it and that  too be the reason of challenge to the poll holt chief justice the matter of  challenge ought not to be to the court as here you make it for you say we have  award a writ to a wrong officer for the array be right make accord to the writ  if the panel be return by a sheriff be a party concern or be a member of a  body politic concern it will be a good cause of challenge but we do not take  notice upon the award the venire facias of any such thing if we be not apprise  of it by suggestion of party and the want of a proper venue be never yet a  challenge to the array if he be akin to either party or interest or not  qualify by law to make a return or have make it at the request of either party  or if the cause do concern the corporation of London the venire ought to go to  the coroner at first but if you insist upon it you must demurrer for the king  and they join in demurrer then all appear to we on record we may give  judgement immediate or take time to consider and a dermurrer be order to be  draw instant and a joinder in demurrer and the challenge overrule and holt  chief justice say it have be proper for they to move to quash the venire  facias before but now the jury be at the bar to prove the escape here a  witness who real have be a prisoner and voluntary suffer to escape be produce  a opinion with holt chief justice see also term Rep and hawk p c that edit ch  page a that the party escape may be a witness to prove a voluntary escape see  king v ford salk modern report er p to who be a witness it be object that he  have give a bind for his be a true prisoner which he have forfeit by escape  and beside he have be retake now by his evidence he will make this a bind of  ease and favour and the retake a false imprisonment for if the defendant be  convict upon his evidence and after debt be bring by he on the bind the  conviction will be evidence to make it void as take for ease and favour and in  a action of false imprisonment for retake the conviction will be likewise  evidence and it be compare to a information for usurious contract even in the  king name the party to the contract shall not be a witness if the debt be not  pay b modern report so in information of perjury neither party who title be  support or invalidate by the oath be a witness for if there natural do follow  from his evidence if believe any consequential advantage to himself he be no  witness and the case of the king v tip c and the king v hobby d be quote in  the case of the perjury it be answer and resolve by the court first that if  this be a bind for true imprisonment it will be good but if for ease and  favour void and a escape second that a conviction here can be no evidence  against the warden upon debt on the bind nor for the prisoner in false  imprisonment against the warden because it will not be between the same party  for conviction at the suit of the king for battery c can be give in evidence  in a action of trespass for the same battery nor vice line the like law of a  usurious contract three that no record of conviction or verdict can be give in  evidence but such whereof the benefit may be mutual videlicet where the  defendant as well as the plaintiff may have make use of it bring it into court  and give it in evidence in case it do for he so if the record have be for the  plaintiff advantage and that they can not give it in evidence the defendant  shall not give it in evidence for that very reason and this be resolve at  another trial at bar before this term between Sherwin and sir Walter Clarges e  where a verdict between the earl of bath and Montague upon the very same point  and title now in question videlicet the legitimacy of Christopher duke of  Albemarle be deny for evidence and by holt chief justice and the court suppose  here have be no bind or retake in this case he will be a good witness for he  will be subject to be retake by his plaintiff and then his swear will not  avail he for since be be liable to be retake no matter to he at who suit it be  then there be no objection against he but the bind and sure the bind be a  distinct and collateral matter to the escape shall not hinder be a witness and  it be not like the case of all usurious contract for there the very bind be  part of the crime and no distinct act from it and the party come to prove it  be a discredit to the bind it be part of the crime a and as to the case of tip  they will have one who title depend on the perjury be a witness when the  conviction will make a end of the title but all this be where the thing be  part of the crime another case be in a action on a agreement modern report ill  write in the common plea and verdict for the plaintiff and one hundred pound  damage in the common plea and a information bring for the forgery now the  defendant below be deny to be a witness to convict he another reason be add  from the nature of the thing which be a secret transaction if any of the party  concern be not for the necessity of the thing admit for evidence it will be  impossible to detect the practice as in case upon the statute of hue and cry  the party rob shall be a witness to charge the hundred and the case of cook v  Watts in the exchequer where one who have be prejudice by the will be admit  evidence to prove it forge and the case of the king v parish b see hard salk  Abraham who tam v Bunn burr Walton v Shelley term Rep master who tam v Drayton  term Rep and hawk p c that edit ch page c hard and see king v Eden sit after  Hilary term Geo Espinasses case nisi prius d keb e post a see the case cite  above note b modern report er p say to be well report in side c a feme covert  be receive as a witness to convict one upon a information for a practice in  draw her in when sole to give a warrant of attorney for confess a judgement  upon a unlawful consideration whereby execution be sue against the husband and  holt chief justice say that though a feme covert can not by law be a witness  for or against her husband d yet in Lord audley case e it be a rape upon her  person she be receive to give evidence against he and the court concur with he  because it be the best the thing can bear and a verdict here can not be give  in evidence against the bind but holt chief justice deny what be urge that at  commonlaw the party who deed be forge or to who prejudice the perjury be can  be a witness and that the statute have make any alteration another exception  to the same person evidence be that he have be convict of common barratry and  a record of his conviction be produce and that he have be fine one hundred  pound holt chief justice say if he have have the handle of he he have not  escape the pillory a and that he remember sergeant Maynard use to say it be  better for the country to be rid of one barretor than of twenty highwayman but  in answer to the exception be read the late statute of will mary which pardon  all the king can pardon and the court hold that a pardon make he a legal  witness and that even the king pardon by charter will make he a legal witness  b though such a one as they can not encourage a jury to believe and this  diversity be take by they videlicet that if the disability be by Act of  parliament and part of the judgement that the king can pardon it but if the  disability be only consequential modern report the king may pardon it but the  defendant counsel not be satisfy with the resolution of the court upon the  first exception pray to have bill of exception whereupon holt chief justice  direct they to draw up their exception for the statute say to scratch  exception and it be agree that the consent of the party at who suit the  commitment be to the escape be good evidence for the defendant and holt chief  justice say if there be a executor in trust and beneficiary and trust agree to  the enlargement of the prisoner that be evidence of the consent of the  executor but not conclusive evidence another question be whether one who have  be attorney for the defendant shall be compel to be a witness darnel say this  be a criminal matter he shall but not so in a civil matter but Pratt say that  if he be swear we must ask he his whole knowledge and perhaps he can discover  that without charge himself for if one declaration general may be make use of  against he a strong what he say upon oath shall and this seem to weigh with  the court but holt chief justice say he be of opinion against his brother some  year before in the case of one Holford that anything a attorney know otherwise  than c report also keb vent d see   light hill v hill stram field v Curtis  Cowp king v Cliviger term Rep and hawk p c that edit ch page e Hutton hale f  see hawk p c that edit ch page a but it be now decide that it be not the  nature of the punishment but the infamy of the crime which destroy the  competency of the convict Pendock v Mackender will and see hawk p c that edit  page sect b see the case of Thomas Riley case in crown law where on the  authority of Cuddington v Wilkins hob it be decide that a convict on the  statute Geo c for take a false oath c who be pardon before judgement be a  competent witness against the person who suborn he to take such oath for by  the allowance of the pardon he be restore to his former competency and credit  modern report er p quatenus a attorney he ought to declare but his brother  hold that a attorney ought not upon any account to be receive to reveal his  client secret a and holt chief justice say if a client bring a forge deed to  counsel the counsel ought to prosecute he and that he have know such a thing  do holt chief justice upon occasion of a witness that be burn in the hand say  that one may be burn in the hand twice as suppose the record of the first  conviction be mislay and so not produce b note per holt chief justice the king  may have a prison in another man house and in respect to a person who have be  burn in the hand if it be for manslaughter and afterward pardon it be no  objection to his credit for it be a accident which do not denote a ill habit  of mind but by if it be for steal for that will be a great objection to his  credit even after pardon c but the record of conviction ought to be produce  which here they have not the counsel for the defendant at last insist on this  that the house of the fleet be not appendant to the office as the house of the  roll be to the office of the master of the roll first because they pass by two  distinct grant second modern report that if ever it be appendant it be make  disappendant by letter patent in king Charles the second time whereby Caroon  house in Surrey be give to the warden and licence to sell the fleet house but  it be answer and resolve first that there be the constant reputation of its  have be appendant once and that reputation continue still second that the  grant a new house to the warden may indeed make that house appendant to the  office but not disannex any and last that the licence to sell the house do  work nothing till execution which they have not show and both issue be find  against the defendant