burrow king versus MIDDLEHURST order of session on the stat of Geo c for  prevent fraud by tenant confirm see sayer Mr Norton show cause against quash  ail order of two justice and a order of session confirm it make in pursuance  of the Act of g c for the more effectual secure the payment of rend and  prevent fraud by tenant against one Thomas Middlehurst for wilful and know aid  and assist in fraudulent remove and convey away five cow c or in conceal the  same Mr gold who have move to quash these order find his motion upon two  objection videlicet saint objection the whole adjudication refer to the  complaint of one Thomas Weston wherein there be no charge upon Chesterton the  tenant at all nor upon the defendant Middlehurst for aid and assist he neither  be it state that Chesterton the tenant do remove the good d objection the Act  create two offence videlicet assist in remove and assist see trial per pais pa  the last paragraph of the book extreme strong on this subject in favour of  jury burrow er p in conceal the good now it be not specifical charge upon the  defendant Middlehurst that he wilful and know do either one of these two thing  it be only allege that he wilful and know do one or the other in salk king v  Stocker a indictment for forge to be forge be hold ill because the charge be  in the disjunctive hawk p c a indictment charge a man disjunctively be void  for the offence be distinct and it appear not of which of the a the defendant  be accuse so here it do not appear which of the two offence the justice have  convict he of and ld raym queen v Bains prove that the court will make no  intendment against the defendant upon which objection he obtain a rule to show  cause why the order shall not be quash and now Mr Norton show the follow cause  against quash they as to the first objection that it be not describe  sufficient what the offence be he answer that this be a order and the court  will not intend it to be ill to prove which he cite king v bissex Tr g b r  burrow as to the dThe charge be in the disjunctive that he wilful and know aid  and assist the tenant in remove the good or in conceal the same p he say the  crime and the punishment be the same upon both and the defendant be hear Mr  gold for the defendant reply saint it be not at all state that the tenant do  remove the good dly the aid and assist in remove be a different offence from  aid and assist in conceal and here it be only charge in the alternative Lord  MansfieldUpon indictment it have be so determine that a alternative charge be  not good as forge or cause to be forge though one only need be prove if lie  conjunctive as forge and cause to be forge but I do not see the reason of it  the substance be exact the same the defendant must come prepare against both  and it make no difference to he in any respect but this be a order and be good  in substance needs not be literal so strict Mr just denison think also that  the case upon indictment be very nice but this be not a indictment but a order  and therefore be good in substance needs not be so strict in form as a  indictment must be and either aid or assist in remove or aid or assist in  conceal be equal a offence and these be the very word of the Act it be only  form and do not at all vary the defence or punishment I be not therefore  incline to the same strictness as be observe in the case of the king v Stocker  salk per cur rule discharge and consequent both order affirm the end of  Trinity term pound Geo burrow michaelmas term geo two b r