bush vers ralling the give of money to forbear to vote be a offence within the  meaning of the g c upon a rule to show cause why a new trial shall not he have  in a action upon the g c it appear that the action be bring for the penalty  give by the seven clause of that statute whereby it be enact that if any  person by himself or any person employ by he shall by any gift or reward or by  any promise agreement or security for any gift or reward corrupt or procure  any person to forbear to give his vote in any election of a member of  parliament such person shall forfeit the sayer sum of five hundred pound that  it be allege in the declaration that the defendant while Ralph thrall Esq be a  candidate for be a member of parliament for the borough of Abingdon do corrupt  John Harvey to forbear to give his vote for the say thrall by give the say  Harvey the sum of twenty guinea that at the trial of the cause it be rule by  foster I that Harvey be a competent witness that the evidence of Harvey be  that the defendant do give he the sum of twenty guinea to forbear to vote for  thrall but that Harvey do even at the time of take the twenty guinea intend to  vote for thrall and do afterward vote for he and that there be a verdict for  the plaintiff the rule be discharge and by denison I we be of opinion and the  late chief justice do concur in this opinion that a new trial ought not to be  grant two objection have be make to the competency of Harvey to be a witness  namely that he be a sharing in sin and that the tendency of his evidence be to  discharge himself from penalty and disability it will perhaps be a full answer  to these objection to say that a sharing in sin although the tendency of his  evidence be to obtain a pardon or even a reward for himself be in diverse case  a competent witness but another answer deducible from a clause of the statute  upon which the present action be bring may be give by par of that statute it  be enact that if any person offend against this Act shall within twelve month  after the election of a member of parliament discover any other person offend  against this Act so that such per sayer er p sayer son so discover be  thereupon convict such person so discover and not have be before convict of  any offence against this Act shall be indemnifiedand discharge from all  penalty and disability which he shall then have incur by a offence against  this Act this seem to be a legislative declaration that one person offend  against this Act may be a witness against another offend against it for it be  not probable that the legislature shall intend to discharge one offender  against this Act from all penalty and disability upon discover another  offender against it in such a manner that the latter be convict without intend  at the same time that the former shall be a witness against the latter in the  case of Phillips v foul it be rule at nisi prius by Eyre CJ of the court of  common plea that hoar to who money have be give to forbear to vote for a  candidate be a competent witness against the giver of the money in a action  for the penalty give by the g c and it be say by the Ch I that unless the  evidence of the taker of the money notwithstanding he be a sharing in sin be  in such case admit the statute will be of very little avail a new trial be  indeed grant in that case but as it appear from I barn that the new trial be  grant upon account of the juror have determine as to the find of their verdict  by cast lot it may fair be infer that the opinion of the Ch I as to the  competency of hoar to be a witness be acquiesce under it have be say that as  Harvey even at the time of take the money intend to sayer vote for thrall  there be no assent of his mind to the proposal of forbear to vote and  consequent that the defendant do not corrupt he to forbear to vote but we be  of opinion that whatever the intention of the taker of the money be at the  time of take it the offence of corrupt be complete as to the giver of the  money by give it to forbear to vote for a candidate and that it will be a very  narrow construction of a statute which be intend to prevent every mode and  species of corruption to hold that because the mind of Harvey do not assent to  the proposal of forbear to vote the defendant who by give the money do all  that be in his power to corrupt Harvey be not guilty of corrupt he it have be  say that although the word unlawful procure or suborn in the Elizabeth c be in  the disjunctive the construction have be that the offence of subornation of  perjury can be unless there have be a perjury and it be infer that although  the word corrupt or procure in the g c be in the disjunctive the construction  ought to be that the offence of corrupt to forbear to vote can be unless there  have be a forbear to vote but there be a wide difference betwixt the two case  the word suborn in the former statute which be a technical word mean the same  as unlawful procure and consequent unless there be a unlawful procure there  can be a suborn but the meaning of the word corrupt in the latter statute be  different froin that of the word procure and consequent there may be a corrupt  although there be not a procure it do moreover seem to have be the intention  of the g c to make the give sayer of money to forbear to vote a offence  although there be not a forbear to vote for the taker of money to forbear to  vote be liable to all the penalty and disability of that statute although he  do not forbear to vote and it be not to be conceive that the legislature do  mean to inflict a more severe penalty upon the person who take money to  forbear to vote than upon the giver of the money there be another reason why  the construction of g c ought to be that the offence of corrupt to forbear to  vote may be although there be not a forbear to vote namely that if the  construction shall be otherwise a action can never be maintain upon that  statute against the giver of money to forbear to vote if the taker of the  money die before the election