case butler against the precedent OF the college OF physician easter term car  roll a action who tam may be who tam pro lord ring how pro he himself but a  information shall only say who tam pro ring how pro he himself sequitur post  Jones Bulst more dyer Plowd new bk Ent old bk Ent ld ray Com dig Bac Abr hawk  p c a action for practice physic contrary to the charter Henry confirm by  statute Henry the defendant plead the Henry authorize the practice he have use  the plaintiff reply that by I mary c the charter and the statute of Henry be  confirm any other statute or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding this be  no departure from the declaration post Yelv sand cro James   light a Plowd b  lev Com dig Bac Abr quaere if Henry c be repeal by the general word of I mary  c any Act or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding light Rep cro James  Jones Com dig error of a judgement on a demurrer in the common plea the first  error assign be because the record be ad to answer lord king et presidenti  college c who tam pro lord ring how pro he himself sequitur quod croak car er  p To give back the dawn sixty libras unde idem presidens who tam c to say c  whereas the action ought to have be bring by the precedent only who tam c and  not by the king and precedent c say non allocatur for be a original writ the  writ be most often so and sometime the other way and they conceive it good  both way but information be always that the party who tam for the king how pro  he himself sequitur the second error be that the replication be a departure  from the count for the count set forth that king Henry the eight year Decimus  royal power Himself incorporavit and by the statute of Henry c to make firm  the college of physician by the name of the precedent c that no man shall  practice physic in London or within seven mile without licence under the seal  of the college upon the penalty of five pound for every month that be so  practice the one moiety to the king the other to the precedent of the college  to the use of the say college and for that the defendant not be allow c have  practice physic for twelve month in London the say action be bring c the  defendant plead the statute of Henry c that every one who have science and  experience of the nature of herb root and water or of the operation of the  same by speculation or practice may minister or apply in and to any outward  sore umome wound a posthumations outward swell or disease any herb ointment  bath pultees or implaisters accord to their cunning experience and knowledge c  or drink for the stone and strangury or ague in any part of the realm without  suit vexation c any act or statute to the contrary notwithstanding and that be  have skill in the nature of herb root and water by speculation and practice  apply to person require his skill herb ointment bath drink c to their croak  car sore come wound and for the stone and strangury or ague and to all other  disease in the say statute mention prout ei bene to be for sale et quoad  aliquan alian practisationem seu means art of medicine aliter well elsewhere  modus quod non be worthy of blame et de hoc to put down c and make his  averment et hoc a preparation be verify the plaintiff reply and show the  statute of mary c which confirm the charter of Henry and the statute of Henry  and appoint that it shall be in force notwithstanding any statute or ordinance  to the contrary and upon this it be demurrer because it be a departure for it  entitle he by another Act videlicet the I mary c which be not mention in the  count and therefore it be assign for error but all the court here conceive  that it be no departure because it fortify the count and be as to revive the  statute of Henry if it be repeal in this particular by the Henry c and for  that the case of wood v Hawkshead a be show to the court in Michaelmas term  Elizabeth roll where the precedent of the college of Allsouls bring a action  upon the case for take toll and show a charter of Henry to be discharge of  toll the defendant plead the Act of resumption of liberty grant by Henry the  six and so the liberty go the plaintiff plead a revivor of they by the statute  of Henry and it be hold to be no departure but as it be a confession and avoid  the three and principal error assign be if the statute of Henry c be not  repeal by the statute of mary c and if not whether the defendant have make a  sufficient justification and quoad that whether the say statute be repeal the  court be not resolve but Richardson chief justice conceive it be repeat by I  mary c by the general word any act or statute to the contrary of the Act of  Henry notwithstanding but I conceive that the Act of Henry c not mention the  statute of Henry be for physician but the part of the Act of Henry c be  concern chirurgeon and their apply outward medicine to outward sore and  disease and drink only for the stone strangullion and ague that statute be  never intend to be take away by the Act of I mary c but to this point Jones  and Whitlock will not deliver their opinion but admit the Henry c be in force  yet they all resolve the defendant plea be nought and not warrant by the  statute for he plead that he apply and minister medicine plaster drink ulcer  norbis et maladiis calculator strangurio fever el other in to cause to stand  mentionatis so he leaves out the principal word in the statute videlicet  outward and do not refer and show that he minister potion a Yelv light Rep  croak car er p for the stone strangullion or ague as the statute appoint to  these three disease only and to no other and by his plea his potion may be  minister to any other sickness wherefore they all hold his plea be nought for  this cause and that judgement be well give against he whereupon judgement be  affirm