case the case OF the lieutenancy OF London or the king against EVINDON a  attorney in London be former exempt from serve in the militia what shall be  consider a personal service?SC stram lee chief justice deliver the opinion of  the court upon the case after several argument at the bar in the follow manner  this be amotion for a writ of privilege to be grant to modern Mr Evindon a  attorney of this court and a housekeeper in the city of London to exempt he  from serve in the city militia this motion be ground upon a summons from the  commissioner of the lieutenancy there by which Mr Evindon be require to  provide arm and to appear along with the rest of the city militia to be review  and to exercise c upon our grant a rule to show cause why this writ of  privilege shall not issue two objection be start the one that the service  require in the militia be not proper a personal service the other admit it to  be a personal service that it be not so necessary personal but that it may be  serve by deputy as to the former objection it appear in the first place from  the summons itself that the service be personal for it require Mr Evindon to  appear personal in arm to be muster along with the rest of the militia c but  to support this objection mention be make at the bar of several very ancient  commission of array in which this service be not consider as personal for that  by they whole county and particular man of great interest and fortune be  compel to raise a certain number of man without be oblige to be soldier  themselves this we allow to have be sometime the case before the statute of  Edward c but by that statute it be enact that no man shall be constrain to  find man of arm other than those which hold by such service if it be not by  common assent of parliament this Act be make to prevent the crown force man to  find soldier who be not oblige by any service or Act of parliament to do it  and it appear by the preamble to the statute Ph mark c that this service be  personal for it take notice that the man to be raise be to be the most able  man and it be to prevent the release of such man and the take in their room  people of less strength that this statute be make as to the statute car c  which be make for order the force in the county at large how far that have  make such service in the militia not to be personal people property and  fortune be charge and not their person we think foreign to the present  question for in the same Act of parliament there be a special proviso by which  the city of London be to raise its force as in former time see the statute a  notwithstanding that statute and therefore this service be to be consider as  personal and then there can be no room to doubt but that atorneys be by the  common custom of the realm exempt from it because they can attend the field  and the court at the same time and this reason be give in the recital of these  writ of privilege which have be grant videlicet because of the oath by which  they be bind to serve the king and his people in the court of justice pursuant  to the right which the king and the subject have in their service as atorneys  of this court and the authority where atorneys have be excuse in instance that  require personal attendance be vent and Prowses case cro car b as to the other  objection it be not so certain that deputy will do in a duty of this nature  and if there be time of danger it modern will be no easy matter to get a  representative in which case a man must be compel to serve himself but suppose  deputy will do yet even that in our opinion will not make any alteration the  case in march Rep in which the follow distinction be take videlicet that in a  personal service a attorney shall not be constrain to act but if it can be  serve by deputy be shall not be excuse appear to be the same case with that in  roll Abr pl it do not appear in march by who it be say that a attorney shall  not be privilege from a office which may be serve by deputy but in roll  abridgment notice be take that it be say by justice Jones only but  notwithstanding this case there be a authority of a subsequent date that a  attorney modern er p shall be excuse from office though they may be serve by  deputy lev for though a deputy may do vet the principal shall be answerable  for his misbehaviour and the case in cro car be in point to the present case  for there a writ of privilege be sign by all the justice of the common plea to  free one Venables a clerk under the custos narrow places from be a soldier and  the writ recite that it be the immemorial custom of the court that neither  atorneys nor clerk of the court shall be press for soldier nor elect to any  office without their consent for that they ought to attend the service of the  court and there be precedent of such writ of privilege to discharge clerk from  be press for soldier in   Ent officina Bre and in queen whether time there be  a writ of privilege sign by Lord chief justice holt to one smith and another  by Lord chief justice Raymond to one Skinner both which be to discharge they  from serve as militiamen in London we have have a conference upon this case  with the judge of the court of common plea who have be apply to for a like  writ of privilege and who have have the case speak to before they several time  as well as we and it be the unanimous opinion of both court that atorneys be  entitle to such writ of privilege therefore this rule for the writ of  privilege must be make absolute see same point Hestons case barn but the  militia act now allow the person nominate to exempt himself from the  obligation of serve by the payment of ten pound and it be settle in Gerrard  case that a attorney be not entitle to writ of privilege to exempt he from  serve in the militia it be no long deem a personal service Bl Rep mayor of  Norwich v berry burr a