boston and forest vide ante Mr fazakerly and Mr lee now make their argument  upon this case Mr fazakerly say that he do not know whether it will be  necessary for he to endeavour to show that the bind be void because the  present action be not bring by the sheriff but by the plaintiff in the  original action now he observe that the plaintiff in the original action can  not entitle himself to this but by bring himself within the term of the  statute for the amendment of the law this statute indeed do allow of the  assignment of bailbond but then it must be understand only of such as be  lawful take and therefore if any bind be give contrary to the statute of Henry  this statute have always be construe not to extend to it now Barnardiston king  b er p the statute of Geo which the present question be upon have only add  some other restriction to these bind beside those require of they before and  therefore he say that it be equal necessary that Barnardiston king b a  bailbond shall be make in pursuance of this statute to bring it within the  intent of the statute for the amendment of the law and that it shall be make  in pursuance of the first statute but that the present bind be not within the  meaning of the last statute he say be plain because the word of it be that  such bind shall be for the sum swear to be due and no more and he observe that  these bind be always give as a security for the appearance of the party and  not as a security for the debt and therefore there be no colour that such bind  shall be take in double the sum and consequent the word for the sum must be  understand the same as if they have be in the sum this argument Mr fazakerly  say be sufficient to determine the present question however to make it more  clear he offer a reason to show that the case will have be the same if the  action have be bring by the sheriff himself because he have no authority to  take bail at all in these case at commonlaw and the bind he do take be only by  the authority of parliament now he say where these bind be not within these  statute they must be consider as unlawful bind and then this case must fall  under a general principle of the commonlaw that security take unlawful by any  officer under colour of legal authority be void in themselves they be consider  as take by extortion and consequent when they appear so upon record the party  may demurrer general and demand whether he shall be require to give a answer  to the first of these objection Mr lee say that the true design of this Act of  parliament which the question turn upon be to prevent person be hold to bail  by the sheriff in the sum the action be bring for which be the practice then  and it have provide therefore that no person shall be hold to bail in any  great sum than the plaintiff shall swear be his due now he observe that  nothing can be a more natural construction upon this Act than that as before  the bail take by the sheriff be for double the sum in the ac etian so now the  bail take by he shall be for double the sum swear to and this he say equal  regulate the sum as if it shall be exact the same to the second objection he  say that there be case where act be hold to be illegal by statute law as well  as the commonlaw and yet not allow to be void but punishable in a proper  manner and to this purpose he apply a case in Inst judge page say that he  think it unquestionable that the bind be not assignable in the present case if  it do not clear comply with the intent of this last Act of parliament but he  think it do for the reason just beforementioned by Mr lee and compare it to  the case of the ac etian the rest of the court be of opinion that the bind be  not within the Act as the intent of bailbond be not to secure the debt but the  appearance of the party and therefore whatever the practice may have be before  of the sheriff take double the sum in the ac etian they think that be not a  regulation which he be confine to by the law but mere a volun Barnardiston  king b tarry one choose by himself to be a guide to his discretion for before  if the sheriff have hold the party to bail in any sum he be only punishable  for his oppression but the bind can not be avoid as this then be to be take to  be a bind not within the meaning of this last statute they think it be not  assignable no more than a bind not regulate accord to the restriction of the  first Act however this matter be order to stand over vide post