Bambridge versus bear and other before trespass postea just Inst title cum ex  another mince Wallop for the plaintiff this molasses be neither within the  word of the Act nor can it consist with the ground of philosophy nor ground of  law as to the first if the molasses be not at all import the necessary  consequence will be that it be not a material import but if it be at all  import it must be either when the sugar be import or before or since but it  can not be when the sugar be import be not in be but be make of sugar here in  England and therefore it can not be make a material here import suppose there  shall be a prohibition that no molasses shall be import and a man import sugar  of which molasses be afterward make this shall not be within the prohibition  as to the d molasses differ essential from sugar for what do not partake of  the same specific form differ essential but molasses do not partake of the  same specific form with sugar ergo c Raymond sir t er p now there be in this  make of molasses a separation of part and consequent a new specific form as  cheese butter c be produce by separation of part and do specifical differ from  milk when it appear further by the verdict that the English material be  contributory to this prohibition and it can be say that molasses be the faeces  of sugar since faeces Raymond sir t be only of liquid thing neither can they  be compare to the lees of wine for sugar after twenty year stand will never  produce lees and the verdict do not find that it be make of sugar but a  separation and extraction from it for the sweetness may arise from the English  material and suppose corn shall be bring from beyond sea the liquor arise  therefrom by extraction will not be a import material so rosewater from rise  import as to the three from the ground of law molasses can be say to be a  material import not accord to the rule of law form that be and different form  to move nature the ancient Roman lawyer before Justinian as to the question of  property have two several sect videlicet one of of the Sabini and the other of  Proculus but afterward it be agree among the civilian that in all case where  this new form may be reduce to the former state the property remain to he who  have the old substance but otherwise not now here molasses can be reduce to  sugar again and with this agree hill h pl more pl leather cut into shoe may be  retake but not wool make into cloth or milk make into cheese res corrupt  transformt abesse to see a thing arise from the part be not any of the part  here all the material be not foreign and import as to the value it be not  material but the quantity be as to the abstraction here be no proportion of  the molasses find in the verdict in make the low wine it be not within the Act  of parliament there be no such maxim as not to recede from the letter of the  Act if consist with the law the act of excise discourage foreign trade and  encourage home make manufacture the act charge only foreign commodity or thing  make beyond sea the book of rate say that molasses be a home manufacture these  act be penal and therefore ought to be take in the plain and not strain sense  and therefore Elizabeth cap which take away clergy from one who take money c  out of a house in the daytime extend not to a accessary I Cr Evans and Finchs  case so the statute of James against stab do not extend to a stab upon a  previous restraint of the offender by the party kill Buckners case Raymond sir  t mich b r so the statute of Elizabeth cap do not extend to a covenant to  enjoy where a statute mention particular matter and afterward conclude in  general word the general word shall be refer to thing of the same nature as  the archbishop of Canterbury case   other mean so the statute of burglary so  here other material shall be intend material of the same nature these general  word have a good effect for new foreign molasses be include but if this  molasses shall be include why not low wine make of grape or apple import  general clause non to stretch out ad she queen generally are to bind together  Bonhams case wine or cider make here of grape or apple import be not within  this law who very much to wipe the nose elicit sanguinen and so I conclude for  the plaintiff sawyer contra this Act be not penal but only to enlarge the king  revenue and so ought to be expound liberal the verdict find that molasses be  faeces of sugar and lees of wine can be make wine again so wine make vinegar  but he say little more to the purpose et adjournaturr vide post Raymond sir t  er p