case the king and queen against Marriot if a statute create a new offence and  prescribe a particular mode of punishment that mode of punishment alone must  be pursue and not the commonlaw method by indictment S c Carth S c show by the  statute of Edward c it be enact that no person shall keep a alehouse but such  who shall be admit thereunto and allow in open session of the peace or else by  two justice of the peace quorum One c under the penalty of three day  imprisonment without bail and not to be discharge without give a recognizance  with two surety to do so no more the defendant be indict for keep of a  alehouse without a licence it be object that it will not lie because it be not  a offence at the commonlaw but be make so by this statute which give power to  the justice of peace in their session to make enquiry into these offence by  presentment information or otherwise c but a indictment be another sort of  punishment which be not provide for by this or any other statute now where a  law make a offence and appoint the method of prosecution it must be punish  accord to such method and not otherwise   a this be the opinion of the court  in castle be case cro James roll Rep b who be indict upon the statute of Henry  c for take upon he the office of a justice of the peace not have twenty pound  ayear and send out a warrant by virtue of his commission the penalty appoint  by the statute be twenty pound a moiety to the king and the other to the  informer to be recover by action of debt at the commonlaw and therefore the  offender can be indict e contra the party may proceed by way of indictment  though it be in a case where a new offence be create by a particular law and  where the penalty be direct to be recover by bill plaint or information for  those be modern affirmative word and shall not take away the general method of  proceed accord to the course of the commonlaw the thing prohibit be of public  concernment Mod c and a indictment will lie against the offender if there be  no negative word to restrain that way of proceed the chief justice a  indictment be a summary way of proceed be more beneficial for the subject and  therefore it seem reasonable that such a method shall be pursue to convey a  maid from her parent under the age of sixteen year be no offence at the  commonlaw it be make so by a particular statute by Phil mary c for which see  hawk p c ch but by the court in the case of king v more this be a offence at  commonlaw for it be malum in see Mod and so adjudge in king v Twisleton lev  side and in king v Lord Oussoulton stram see also king v Pigott Mod holt king  v Thorpe Com Rep SC Mod and case tempt Talb Peer wms Peer wms Peer wms d and  authority modern er p be give to the starchamber by information and to the  justice of assize by indictment to determine the offence but yet the court of  king bench be not exclude and so it have be constant hold since the make of  the law it be prohibit by the statute of car c to travel with more than five  horse at length this be a new law and a new offence and yet it be hold that a  indictment will lie in the court of king bench against the offender though a  particular punishment be direct by that statute but dolben and Eyre justice be  of a different opinion they never beard of a indictment before for keep a  unlicensed alehouse and this seem to be the judgement of the parliament in the  statute car c that a indictment will not lie because the conviction be to be  upon view by the chief officer within his limit or by confession of the party  or by oath of two witness and then the penalty be to be levy by distress c The  court it seem take time to consider of this case S c show and in the Hilary  term follow the indictment be quash SC Carth in the case of Stephens v Watson  mich term will it be say that keep a alehouse without licence be not a  indictable offence because the statute Edward c which make it a offence have  make it punishable in another manner salk see Geo c S and hawk p c ch and this  be confirm by the case of king v Pensax bar king b Sess case and king v wright  burr for wherever a new offence be create by statute and a special  jurisdiction out of the course of the commonlaw be prescribe that special  jurisdiction must be strict follow or all the proceed will be a nullity  Hartley v Hooker Cowp if however newcreated offence be only prohibit by a  general prohibitory clause in the statute which create they or if there be a  substantive prohibitory clause and also a particular provision and a  particular remedy there a indictment will lie king v wright burr and if the  offence for the punishment of which a particular remedy be appoint be a  commonlaw offence there either the method by indictment or the particular  remedy may be pursue for the sanction in such case be cumulative king v  Robinson burr and therefore if a statute direct a act to be do without point  out any mode of punishment the mode of proceed by indictment at commonlaw for  disobey the injunction of the legislature be not take away by a subsequent  statute point out a particular mode of punishment for such disobedience king v  Davis sayer Rep dougl king v Boyal burr bott poor law Mr Consts edit king v  balm Cowp for the court of king bench can be oust of its commonlaw  jurisdiction without negative word or necessary implication eat who tam v  knight term Rep therefore where a new offence be create by a statute and a  penalty annex to it by a separate and substantive clause it be not necessary  for the prosecutor to sue for the penalty but he may indict on the prior  clause as for a misdemeanour in disobey the direction of the legislature king  v Harris term Rep for wherever a statute forbid the do of a thing the do it  wilful although without any corrupt motive be indictable king v sainsbury term  Rep a