Andrews more against wicker declaration in debt for a amercement in a  courtleet for obstruct the juror from enter the defendant shop and examine his  weight ought to show the time of the attempt to enter that it may appear to be  a reasonable time queen whether their jurisdiction be not confine to thing  happen before their be swear or during their sit also whether they have power  to enter house to examine weight and measure the plaintiff must show title as  well as a presentment SC post a action of debt be bring in the courtleet of  the manor of Stepney in which the plaintiff in substance declare that he be  lord of the manor of Stepney c and prescribe by way of and estate that he have  use to have from all those who inhabit or reside within the say manor a  courtleet c and then set out a custom that the juror swear and charge at any  such leet to present have present and use to present at such leet after their  be swear all such thing as have be before or after their be swear presentable  and that such jury have be use to be adjourn c plaintiff further declare that  the defendant from October geo till after may geo live within the jurisdiction  of the say court and use the trade of a cheesemonger and I December geo the  defendant reside within the jurisdiction c he do then and there obstruct the  juror then in the execution of their office from enter into his shop and try  his I balance and weight c that at a courtleet Andrews er p hold in and for  the say manor October geo before theed Esq steward of the court several  juryman be swear to inquire of thing presentable at that courtleet when it be  adjourn to c and then the jury present that the defendant follow the trade of  a cheesemonger and that may geo be obstruct the juror from enter into his shop  and weigh and examine his balance and weight whereupon he be amerce by the  court and the amerciament be assess to S defendant plead the general issue  upon which there be a verdict for the plaintiff and a writ of error have be  bring on the judgement the case be argue last term by Mr Clayton for he  plaintiff in error and by Mr theed steward of the Whitechapple court for the  defendant and this term it Andrews be again argue by Mr denison for the  plaintiff and solicitor general strange for the defendant on the part of the  plaintiff the follow error among several other less material be assign that  accord to the custom here set out the jury may present thing subsequent to  their swear whereas their power extend only to such ashappened before or  during the sit of the court the presentment here be ill because the juror of a  leet have no authority to enter into the shop of person to examine their  weight and measure the clerk of the market have indeed such a jurisdiction but  this be by a Act of parliament if the jury of a leet have such a power it must  be by custom and none be here set out and if there be it will be a question  whether it will be reasonable where person be suspect to have false weight and  measure the ancient and proper method of inquiry be to summon they to bring  they in order to be examine by the standard as appear by the statute of h and  h c which be the first and last act relate to this matter and there be many  precedent of such warrant but neither the jury of a leet nor a grand jury nor  justice of peace can enter into house for this purpose beside it shall have be  aver that the party weight and measure have not be examine before for if the  jury have a power of entry it ought to be confine to some limit number of time  and here perhaps they have enter into the party house the very day before the  obstruction the defendant shall have be not amerce but fine by the steward for  obstruct the juror suppose that they have a power of entry this be a contempt  of the court of which the jury be a part it appear that they be continue and  adjourn to the next courtday   b and this suggest another objection videlicet  that here the jury be party accuser and judge and as appear by the record two  of they be affeerors a the amercement ought to have be not general as here but  a particular Andrews sum which afterward shall be assess hob SC I roll pl the  amercement here be by the court whereas it shall have be by the jury   Mod Mod  the assessment be unreasonable for by car c five shilling only be impose for  sell by any weight or measure not accord to the standard and here the  defendant be assess in S   a Jones it be answer that the jury of a leet may  present thing do after they be swear and before they be discharge as well as a  grand jury by who it be frequent practice that the jury of a leet may and  ought to inquire into false weight and measure appear by the statute of the  view of frankpledge e article which be declaratory only of the commonlaw and  all entry and inspection be a much sure way than a proceed by way of summons  for person may have double weight and measure accord to the that article of  the statute and the jury at the leet can administer a oath to the party so  that his word must be take that the have good weight and measure and in fact  the jury have always exercise the power of enter into house in order to  examine weight and measure as the steward come to the knowledge of the  defendant fault by the jury a amercement be proper and not a fine this last be  only to be impose for a contempt in open court and beside a amercement be for  the benefit of the party because here there be a moderator but in the other  case none a general amercement be good because the affeerment reduce it to a  certainty and this be the constant practice salk and theed say that so it be  determine in the case of the highbailiff of Westminster it have be also the  practice for the court in such case to amerce the sum do not appear to be  unreasonable and last theed say that this form of declare be settle by sir  Edward Northey former steward of this court Andrews er p Andrews by lee c j  none of the objection seem to be very material except the second for the  attempt make by the juror to enter may possible be after a previous  examination of the weight and measure and he object further that it shall have  be set out to be at a reasonable time whereas for ought appear it may have be  in the night and probin just say that he do not know any law which give the  jury of a leet a power of enter into house for examine weight and measure they  be swear only to present and such a custom he think will not be good the  proper way he say be by summons and there be swear searcher in a courtleet for  examine weight and measure upon such a proceed chapel just also object that  the obstruction be first set out to be I December and the presentment be of a  fact do may which be different fact and in this case the plaintiff must show a  title and a presentment alone be not sufficient but otherwise it be in  trespass cro Elizabeth salk and by probin and chapel just the first objection  be material for a jury can inquire into thing do after the adjournment or  determination of the court though they be to make their presentment at the  subsequent court but their jurisdiction be confine to thing happen before  their swear or during their sit and so it be in the case of a grand jury and  here the presentment be by the jury of the first courtleet of a fact commit  afterward however the whole court be clear of opinion that the proceed be  erroneous in not set out the time of the obstruction and be incline hereupon  to reverse the judgement but this be a new objection the case be order at the  instance of the solicitor general to stand over for further argument a upon  this and the that point see hawk p c c S FitzG