case the king against Wyvill and other a information grant against copyholder  for a not in pull down enclosure on a claim of common they have neglect to try  their right to common pursuant to a rule of court the defendant be copyholder  who claim a right of common to be take in the field after harvest till the  land be sow again c except in their own ground be keep out by enclosure they  assemble together and begin to pull down the fence upon be forbid to proceed  from pull down any more they desist but soon after return again and in all  pull down two hundred and ninety rod of enclosure for which they be now to  show cause why a information shall not be grant against they for a riot it be  argue for the defendant that this case be a matter of private right ought not  to be try by a criminal proceed as a information king v Rhodes the case of the  manor of Hampstead a and it be compare to the common of strack in sir mile  Corbetts case   b modern er p it be insist for the king that commoner can not  under a pretence of right justify act of violence and injustice for where they  be injure the law have provide a remedy for they roll Abr c and therefore if  commoner break down hedge or pale or throw down ditch they be rioter Inst d  lee chief justice the rule be for the defendant to show cause why all  information shall not go against they for a riot the time when these enclosure  be make do not appear there seem to be a confession of right of common in they  videlicet that the freeholder c have a right of common between the reap and  sow the field except in their own ground I can interpret this to be a common  pur cause de vicinage there be no warrant of that opinion where the court see  a doubt whether the party who have do the act have a right to prevent the  trial of it there shall be something show very strong in this case I seem  incline to the right of the copyholder if a man have a right of common be  exclude by erection he may have a special action modern on the case against  the lord set forth that he can not thereby enjoy his common in so full a  manner as he shall and a information for a not in remove hedge by copyholder c  be deny since I sit here there be a claim of a right and no great force c use  than be necessary to remove they and when it appear that the party bad no  right then be must answer it therefore I think this rule ought to be enlarge  until it appear what right the copyholder have to remove these fence agreeable  to the common practice and this matter be try in a civil way you may apply  again to the court Mr sergeant Eyre propose that the rule shall be enlarge by  consent page justice who assent to this proposal cite burnet v sir Robert  Barnell probin justice of the same opinion if the enclosure be make before the  tenant come in it be more inexcusable to pull they down than if erect  afterward and new erect here be two hundred and ninety rod of fence throw down  though there be sufficient gap for they where copyholder assert their right in  this manner and be forbid as in the present case return again it be a illegal  method of assert a civil right and seem to I a act of force the distinction  seem to be this if the lord of the manor make a hedge round the common or do  any other act that entire exclude the commoner from exercise his right the  Iatter may do whatever be necessary to let himself into the common but if the  commoner can get at the common and enjoy it to a certain extent and his right  be mere abridge by the act of the lord in that case his remedy be by action on  the case or by a assize and he can assert his right by any act of his own per  Lord Kenyon Sadgrove v kerby term Rep see also mason v Cesar Mod Rep and  Cooper v martial burr a in the case put there be no more do than be necessary  and I agree to they in the case of Whaddon chase all the party be tenant and  the information be grant and the manner of act in this case distinguish it  from those put but if you will try this civil right I be for enlarge the rule  but it must be do within a certain time chapel justice absent in the  DutchyCourt page justice let they agree in try this I do not think their be  forbid signify anything the rule for the information have be enlarge upon term  namely that the copyholder shall try their right the follow assize be in  Michaelmas make absolute they not have proceed to trial pursuant to the rule