case the queen against MUSCOT a witness produce on the part of the crown on a  indictment for perjury may be examine on the voir dire as to the degree of  interest he have in the prosecution a question be start in a indictment for a  judicial perjury whether one produce as a evidence for the queen may not be  examine upon a voir dire as the common usage be in civil action it be insist  by the counsel for the queen that the question shall not be put because the  consequence will modern report be that no such prosecution can ever go on for  there be scarce any prosecutor but if ask whether he be interest in the event  of a cause must say he be for example where the owner prosecute a indictment  of felony for steal good he be concern in interest for he will be entitle to  restitution and yet his evidence be admit so likewise where a indictment be  remove by certiorari from the session into the court of king bench  notwithstanding the prosecutor in that case if the defendant be convict be by  the statute of will mary c entitle to his cost yet he be allow as a witness so  likewise there be several case where though a man will in case of conviction  be entitle to forty pound yet his evidence shall be receive and as to the case  of the queen v duke of Leeds and the queen v Cobham where the informer be  refuse to be a evidence there be this difference between those and the present  case that there it appear upon the face of the record that the party produce  as witness be interest in hue and cry the evidence of the person rob be always  allow as evidence modern report er p Parker chief justice it be a principle of  the commonlaw that every man shall be try by a fair jury and that evidence  shall be give by person disinterest the law give the party try his election to  prove a person offer as evidence interest two way videlicet either by bring  other evidence to prove it or else by swear the person himself upon a voir  dire but though he may do either he can have recourse to both it be never  object before that a person shall not be swear upon a voir dire nor will it I  hope ever hereafter objection have indeed be start as to the nature of those  question that shall be put to a witness upon take such a oath as to the case  of robbery that be find upon the necessity of it and that only modern report  as to the case put upon the statute where forty pound reward c they admit of  this answer that the intention of those act will be quite defeat if the reward  be to take off their evidence the same answer likewise may serve to the case  put upon a indictment of felony for steal good and where the indictment be  remove by certiorari c for who in the first case but the owner can prove the  property of the good and in the second if the give of cost shall take off the  evidence of the prosecutor that Act of parliament which be design to  discountenance the remove of suit by certiorari will give the great  encouragement to they that be possible as for the distinction take between the  interest of the witness appear upon record and its appear some other way it be  a irrational distinction and a reflection upon the wisdom of the law as to the  objection take from the inconvenience of put the general and common question  because probable he must answer it in the affirmative there be nothing in it  for he may be ask to explain the nature of his interest that so the court may  be judge whether his interest be such as ought to exclude his evidence he be  accord swear upon a voir dire Parker chief justice in sum up the evidence say  inter alian there be this difference between a prosecution for perjury and a  bare contest about property that in the latter case the matter stand  indifferent and therefore a credible and probable witness shall turn the scale  in favour of either party but in the former presumption be ever to be make in  favour of innocence and the oath of the party will have a regard pay to it  until disprove therefore to convict a man of perjury a probable a credible  witness be not enough but it must be a strong and clear evidence and more  numerous modern report than the evidence give for the defendant for else there  be only oath against oath second a mistake be not enough to convict a man of  perjury the oath must be not only false but wilful and malicious I remember a  case rule by my predecessor where a person swear that he see and read such a  deed and it prove upon the trial to be only the counterpart which he see and  yet hold no perjury because only a mistake three it be my opinion that perjury  may be commit in a circumstantial matter though I do not remember that in fact  it be ever carry so far I have beard a case mention in king William time where  the question be put about the seal of a deed it be swear that the party be at  such a time in such a place and consequent can not seal the deed and upon this  oath he be convict of perjury but now though the matter of this oath be but a  circumstance consider in relation to the point in question upon the trial in  which the oath be give yet it be all his oath his entire evidence but if  perjury may be commit in matter of circumstance it must be a material  circumstance a circumstance of that weight that without it he can not hope to  find credit with the jury modern report er p modern report hilary term the  twelve of queen whether in the queen bench sir Thomas Parker Knt chief justice  sir Littleton powys Knt sir Robert Eyre Knt sir Thomas powys Knt justice sir  Edward Northey Knt attorneygeneral sir Robert Raymond Knt solicitor general