banbury against base hill bane sup hill car rot argument upon the case concern  the manor of Callidown give to Mr Pym this case arise upon a special verdict  find in a ejection strong touch the title of the manor of Callidowne be part  of sir Thomas Morgan estate that be style report er p give to Mr Pym by  ordinance of parliament and heretofore argue on both part be again speak to  first by Twisden style report who argue for the plaintiff who say the question  be whether the estate settle by sir Thomas Morgan before the year be forfeit  by the Act of parliament and consequent well give to Mr Pym or no and he say  the intent of the parliament in make this Act be first to be interpret and he  hold that accord to the Act no estate passes but such estate as Morgan have in  the year and no more for no man can forfeit a thing that he have not but only  that which he have but Morgan then have not this estate and therefore he can  not forfeit it that there be a priority of vest the estate in the parliament  and next from the parliament to the trustee and the trustee can have no more  than be forfeit to the parliament and the estate settle before the year be not  forfeit to the parliament that the pen of the Act be considerable the Act say  all the say land that be all the say land that Morgan have in the year and not  all the land that Morgan ever have before that time and have settle for the  precedent word be restrain by the word subsequent Allhams case Rep dyer and  from the preamble of the Act to make a construction to punish innocent person  be against the law of God man and nature Nichols case f of reward and  punishment consist the essence of commonwealth and it can not be the intent of  the parliament to punish innocent person Edward the parliament do not intend  to give more of Morgan estate that what he have for then they may give that  which may be evict which they intend not and whereas it be object that there  be a clause of revocation in Morgan settlement and so the estate be not  absolute settle it be answer that notwithstanding this power of revocation the  estate be not give by this Act unto Pym for it can give a power Rep and a  power can be forfeit and mary Morgan have a interest in the land  notwithstanding the power of revocation and notwithstanding there be no save  for mary yet the estate be not pass for mary Morgan be not intend to be punish  Nichols case Com f and so there needs no save for her h f and it can be intend  because there be no save for her that therefore she shall forfeit her estate  and the save be not therefore idle for it have a operation another way the  save be not intend of the estate of a collateral ancestor only for this be the  beg of the question for the save save not any thing and the pen of the word be  against this exposition and so he conclude that nothing be give by the statute  t oh Mr Pym but the estate of Morgan which he have in the year and pray  judgement for the plaintiff steel the recorder of London for the defendant say  he will only answer the argument of Twisden because he hear no other argument  and first be hold that the ordinance reach all the estate that Morgan bad as  well before as at the time and the estate settle by Morgan before I be the  estate of Thomas Morgan in the year that the land be express name which be  give by the statute it be not material who have the estate in they for  certitude a means of knowing to lift indication Dowbly and Dudinglong case and  mildmays case Rep do interpret how the word other shall be interpret and here  can be say to be any injustice in the parliament the question here be whether  the estate be settle by the parliament and if it be settle it will be a  supposition of injustice to suppose it be not right do the law have invest the  parliament with a power to dispose of all land and therefore it can be intend  injustice and the estate be not in mary Morgan notwithstanding the conveyance  because there be a clause of revocation in it for it be a void conveyance as  to her estate by reason of the clause of revocation for that make it  fraudulent and the estate of mary Morgan be not pass by the statute  notwithstand l ing the clause of eviction in the ordinance a if or a a be no  save of a estate and here be no eviction in the case and here be no save  otherwise their estate can be save for then the land be all pass and the  savingextends to the land descend to the child of Thomas Morgan from  collateral ancestor and not from though Morgan the father and as reasonable a  construction aught to be make of a ordinance of parliament as this be as of a  Act of parliament and so he pray judgement for the defendant roll chief  justice say he do not doubt of the power of the parliament in this case but of  their meaning whether they intend these land shall be forfeit or not and the  ordinance be make by the house of Commons without style report er p any  proviso in it and the proviso be put in by the house of lord and he incline  that mary Morgan estate be save but Jerman justice say he conceive that mary  estate be not save but only the estate of stranger the court be divide and say  they will consider till next term and then give judgement in this and the case  of garret and Blizard queare what judgement be give in both case for I be not  in court at the day they be speak to again