case Hamond against Howell recorder of London refer to Groenvell v Burwell ld  raym S C Mod sub nom Grenville v college of physician approve Taafe v down Moo  p c n consider and follow Garnett v Ferrand b c Kemp v Neville c b n S a  action will not lie against a judge for what he do judicial though erroneous  S C Mod false imprisonment the defendant plead special the substance of which  be that there be a commission of oyer and lerminer direct to he among other c  and that before he and the other commissioner Mr Penii and Mr I d two preacher  be indict for be at a conventicle to which indictment they plead not guilty  and this be to be try by a jury whereof the plaintiff be one and that after  the witness be swear and examine in the cause he and his fellow find the  prisoner pen and mead not guilty whereby they be acquit el because the  plaintiff mal see to bear about in acquit they both against the direction of  the court in matter of law and against plain evidence the defendant and the  other commissioner then on the bench fine the jury forty mark apiece and for  nonpayment commit they to Newgate c the plaintiff reply de in an unjust manner  suit propr d vabsque hoc that he and his fellow acquit pen and mead against  evidence and to this the defendant demurrer goodfellow sergeant who will have  argue for the defendant say that be modern er p will not offer to speak to  that point whether a judge can fine a jury for give a verdict contrary to  evidence since the case be so late and solemnly resolve by all the judge of  England in bushel case a Vaugh a that he can not fine a jury for so do but  admit a judge can fine a jury yet if he do no action will lie against he for  so do because it be do as a judge Henry pl ass pl but the court tell he that  he need not to labour that point but desire to hear the argument on the other  side what can be say for the plaintiff modern Newdigate sergeant argue that  this action will lie first it must be admit that the imprisonment of the jury  be unlawful and then the consequence will be that all that be do at that time  by the commissioner or judge be both against great Charta and other act of  parliament the petition of right c and therefore their proceed be void or at  least very irregular to imprison a juryrman without presentment or due process  in law and consequent the party injure shall have a action for his false  imprisonment in the yearbook Henry f in a action bring for false imprisonment  the defendant justify the commitment to be for suspicion of felony but because  he do not show the ground of such suspicion the justification be not good the  trial of pen and mead and all incident thereunto as swear the jury examine of  the witness take of the verdict and acquit the prisoner be all within the  commission but the fine of the jury and the imprison of they for nonpayment  thereof be not justifiable by their commission and therefore what be do  therein be not as commissioner or judge if this action will not lie then the  party have a wrong do for which he can have no remedy for the order for pay of  the fine be make at the oldbailey upon which no writ of error will lie a see  the case of crawl v crawl vern and the noters case vern a and though the  objection that no action will lie against a judge of record for what he do  qualenus a judge be great the reason of which be because the king himself be  de jure to do justice to his subject and because he can distribute it himself  to all person he do therefore delegate his power to his judge and if they  misbehave themselves the king himself shall call they to account and no other  person   that concern not this case because what be do here be not warrant by  the commission and therefore the defendant do not act as a judge and this  difference have be take and allow that in the case of a officer if the court  have jurisdiction of the cause no action will lie against he for do what be  contrary to his duty but if all the proceed be in person non judge and so void  a action do lie   so in the case of a justice of the peace or constable where  he exceed his particular jurisdiction so if a judge of nisi prius do any thing  not warrant by his commission it be void and that the commissioner here have  no power to impose this fin e be argue from the very nature of the pretend  offence which be neither a crime or in any wise punishable because what the  plaintiff do be upon his oath and for that reason it have modern be adjudge in  the case of agard v wile b bridge b that a action will not lie against one of  the grand jury after a acquittal for procure one to be indict for barratry  because he be upon his oath and it can be presume that what he do be in malice  the habeas copus give the party liberty but no recompense for his imprisonment  that must be by a action of false imprisonment if otherwise there will be a  failure of justice and it may encourage the judge to act ad it pleases  especial in inferior court where mayor and bailiff may punish jury at their  pressure which will not only be a grievance to the subject but a prejudice to  the king himself because no jury will appear where they be subject to such  arbitrary proceed a action you the case lie against a justice of the peace for  refuse to take a oath of a robbery commit Leon and yet it be object that there  he be a judge quaere brook march for these reason he pray judgement for the  plaintiff but the whole court be of opinion that the bring of this action be a  great offence than the fine of the plaintiff and commit of he for nonpayment  and that it be a hold attempt both against the government and justice in  modern er p general the court at the old Bailey have jurisdiction of the cause  and may try it and have power to punish a misdemeanour in the jury they think  it to be a misdemeanour in the jury to acquit the prisoner which in truth be  not so and therefore it be a error in their judgement for which no action will  lie how often be judgement give in this court reverse in the king bench and  because the judge have be mistake in such judgement must that needs be against  great Charta the petition of right and the liberty of the subject these be  mighty word in sound but nothing to the matter there have not be one case put  which carry any resemblance with this those of justice of the peace and mayor  of corporation be weak instance neither have any authority be urge of a action  bring against a judge of record for do any thing quatenus a judge that offence  in juryman may be punish without presentment be do new doctrine as if they  shall either eat or drink before they give their verdict or for any contempt  whatsoever but it be a new doctrine to say that if a fine be set on a juryman  at the old Bailey he have no remedy but to pay it for a certiorari modern may  be bring to remove the order by which it be impose and it may be discharge if  the cc urt think fit as to what have be object concern the liberty of the  subject that be abundant secure by the law already a judge can impose a fine  upon a jury for give their verdict contrary to evidence if he do any thing  unjust or corrupt complaint may be make to the king in who name judgement be  give and the judge be by he delegate to do ustice but if there be error in  their judgement as here it be void and therefore the baron of the exchequer  may refuse to issue process upon it and there needs no writ of error for the  very estreat will be vacate though the defendant here act erroneous yet the  contrary opinion carry great colour with it because it may be suppose very  inconvenient for the jury to have such liberty as to give what verdict they  please so that though they be mistake yet they act judicial and for that  reason no action will lie against the defendant judgement be give accord a see  the case of Johnstone v Sutton term Rep and sutherland v hurray term Rep a