case Benson against stride Trinity term car roll if a be copyholder for life  with remainder to b for life to commence from and after the death of a or  other soon determination of his estate and a be attaint of high treason the  copyhold be forfeit to the lord and he in remainder may enter without  presentment although the offender be pardon SC Pollexf SC Jones SC skin  ejectment special verdict the land in question be parcel of a copyhold b this  be a writ of error from the court of common plea the case be a latitat against  Bessi issue at the suit of I S direct to the sheriff of Norfolk who make his  warrant to the bailiff of the liberty of the duke of Norfolk call ailsham and  the bailiff of the liberty make his warrant to his deputy to arrest the say  Bessi and the deputy arrest he at a place out of the liberty and afterward  carry he into the liberty and deliver he to olliet the gaoler the question be  whether this action lie against the gaoler and all the judge of the common  plea be of opinion that it do lie and with their opinion Raymond justice agree  for the reason state SC ray see also show but the three other judge resolve  that the gaoler can not be charge because he can not have notice whether the  prisoner be legal arrest or not SC ray and he have do no wrong to the  plaintiff but have only do that which belong to his office and his duty do not  oblige he to inquire whether the first arrest be tortuous or not and if he  have be inform of it without be of the covin or practice therein he ought  nevertheless to detain the prisoner be deliver to he with a good warrant SC  Jones see the case of bodkin v Powell that trespass will not lie against a  poundkeeper mere for receive cattle though the take be tortuous for he be bind  to keep whatever be bring to he but if he go beyond his duty and assent to the  tort he be then liable Cowp see also wall v Macnamara term Rep Swinton v  Molley term Rep shower KB er p manor grantable for life and in reversion the  defendant have a grant for life and the lessor of the plaintiff have another  grant in reversion for his life to commence from and after the death or soon  determination of his estate the defendant be attaint of murder and pardon the  question be whether he in reversion may enter present it be argue this term  but I be call out of court can not bear the argument it be argue again in  Michaelmas term follow and then urge that the pardon can operate nothing in  this case for the king can not hold the estate as be Salherds case a on a  seizure of a copyhold for recusancy and the king therefore remit nothing a  bare commission of felony be no forfeiture without a attainder b so of a  conviction before a presentment of it c but by the attainder he be become dead  in law d and this be a forfeiture that do not depend upon a custom e and the  defendant be so dead be not able to hold it and the king can take it so that  the lord or the grantee of the reversion or remainder must have it the lord  can because this extinguish the copyhold and therefore the grantee must have  it immediate I confess in case of a forfeiture by custom the remainderman can  enter without a special custom for then the lord entry be sometime necessary  and other incident may be necessary but in case shower KB the estate be  determine as in the case of Allen v brach f and in many other case as if the  lord make a lease for year to his copyholder he can enter against his own  lease but the reversioner must and if in any case it be lawful why not in this  case sander for the defendant the pardon be not material that come too late  and yet the grantee can enter attainder be a royal forfeiture and not common  to every tenure for the king only have the advantage of it in case of  freeholder be attaint of felony in the king case it fall not without office  and in case of a subject a entry must be make in lieu of it how do this differ  from the other case of a freeholder there may be a possession brother of a  copyholder custom have so fix and settle it that it be almost as good as any  other estate though at the commonlaw it be only at will the question be of who  this copyhold be hold at the time of attainder it be of the lord of the manor  even after a grant of the reversion this grant in reversion be to commence  after the determination of the former estate and not by the word forfeiture  and till such determination in this case the lord may notwithstanding the  forfeiture distrain for his rend and service and after this forfeiture he have  his election whether he will have the tenancy or the service and the party can  deprive he of his election then before the lord entry the copyhold estate be  not forfeit for it be not determine by the forfeiture and so be the case of  matthews v Whellen g and lady Montague case though there be a forfeiture yet  there must be a entry before the estate can be determine and there be no  difference between that case and we if a grant have be to I for life remainder  to another for life and I have make a feoff the lord must have enter to have  determine my estate and therefore without his entry the grantee can take as in    light borough English land in case of condition the old son have the entry  and the young the estate shower KB the Lord chief justice this be not  understand to be a grant of the reversion and yet he doubt whether there have  be constant entry in such case by the lord of manor the lord do not always  make a actual entry but general there be a precept to the steward to seize the  land I and that be a sign a Owen see also the case of baste v Harding Owen pen  v Merival Owen lady Montague case cro James matthews v Whetton cro car b Jori  v Pawley Hilary term car lev SC keb Borneford v Packington Leon and see hawk p  c ch S c see the case of jefferies v Hicks will d Bulst Brownl godb vent e  Jones f winch SC winch Ent g cro car h cro James I Mod shower KB er p the lord  have a right and that be in the nature of a to have facias possession and do  not give title but suppose one because the copyhold be determine or rather  because it appear to be determine by the presentment that be make of such a  forfeiture it be quite different from a entry which vest a estate and it be  the presentment if any thing that seem to determine the estate for the precept  to seize be in nature of a execution dolben justice if a copyholder commit  waste the lord may lease without a entry the Lord chief justice there needs no  entry upon the forfeiture of a estate at commonlaw and it be say that the  entry be only necessary as to the profit for if a forfeiture be present before  seizure the lord can have trespass for the profit say quaere de eastern it be  also say suppose the tenant have make a feoff if the lord have not enter the  estate of the feoff have be good till entry and why not in this case of a  attainder it be answer that the attainder will have be a good plea in bar to a  action bring by the copyholder Adjornatur king