case the queen against tracy see S c sub nom Muriel v Tracy Mod on a  indictment for false arrest a man by a certain warrant and thereby extort  diverse sum of money know the say warrant to be forgedQuaere whether the  forgery be matter of description or of aggravation only S c post S c salk S c  holt Tracy a justice of the peace for Middlesex be indict for that be together  with tailor and Jeoffries by pretence of a certain warrant in write suppose to  be sign and seal by sir Simon Lovel recorder of London do arrest I Muriel and  bring he before I chamberlain a justice of peace for Middlesex although the  warrant be not direct to any of they and although it be forge and   to tracy  knowledge and that Tracy when Muriel be before the justice of peace persuade  he to refuse to bail he though the fault be a misdemeanour be in its nature  bailable and that when I Muriel be commit by the justice Tracy and the other  two at the persuasion and instance of Tracy extort diverse sum of money from  he the jury acquit the defendant of the forgery and of know that the warrant  be forge and find he guilty of all the rest well and Parker now move in arrest  of judgement modern first that the verdict be contradictory for it acquit he  of that which be the foundation of all that whereof he be find guilty for the  charge be that he do so and so by virtue of a certain forge warrant and if the  warrant be not forge the rest either be no crime or rather it be another  offence than what the defendant be charge with for to get one take up upon a  real warrant not direct to he and to do whatever be charge here thereupon be  another offence than be describe here therefore defendant be argue of the  offence wherewith he be charge and find guilty of another and upon the first  objection a case of a indictment against the player of Drury lane be cite  where the indictment be for building a scandalous house for the act of profane  and lewd play and that they act such play and though they can prove the act of  immoral play yet because they can not prove the building the defendant be  acquit to this it be answer that though the indictment do not allege the  warrant to have be forge but only under a although by way of aggravation and  not by way of description and though the warrant be not forge yet the fact  charge upon the defendant be criminal as to persuade one by wicked and false  insinuation to refuse bail to have cruel use he in goal and by duress to  extort money of he second that it be lie that he prevail with the justice of  peace to refuse bail and it be not lie that any bail be offer to this  objection it be answer that it be not say that bail be offer it be say every  refusal must be of a offer and refusal can not possible be without a offer  three it be not direct say that the justice do commit he but only that when he  do commit he Tracy do so and so to he and it may be he never be commit for  aught that appear here to this objection it be answer that the commitment be  not charge as a crime but only as a inducement to the extortion which be  direct charge and what come under a inducement need not that preciseness  fourthly they ought to show the certainty of the sum take and for what they be  take otherwise the defendant may not know what answer to make five as to some  part of the charge they charge he as accessary when it be trespass they all be  principal and ought to be charge as such holt chief justice as to the first  objection the question be whether the forgery be the groundwork or whether it  be a unnecessary addition put in only for aggravation for if it be matter of  description the objection be of weight modern er p modern as to the second  objection that no bail be offer it be true a justice of peace be not bind to  ask for bail if they be not offer to he and therefore the objection seem of  weight and something have be offer that a verdict will influence the case but  it do not for in criminal matter the jury be only charge to inquire of matter  as they be allege as to the three objection that he can not procure if it be  not actual do that be true but that be but argumentative and indictment ought  to be positive and direct as to the four objection to the execution the crime  do not consist in the quantum of the money extort but in take any at all as to  the five objection that he be not in some thing charge as principal it be to  be know that a fact which will make one accessary in felony in treason and in  tres pass make he a principal and sure one may lie the matter either way  videlicet make he principal or lie it special as it will appear upon evidence  in treason all be principal and if upon the statute of Edward c one conspire  the death of the queen and be commit to prison for the same and one procure he  to escape or harbour he after such time as he know he charge with treason or  to have commit treason you may indict he upon the special matter that a commit  treason that b know of it and receive he and yet this be not one of the  treason mention by that statute but it be so by necessary consequence of law  as if a thing be make felony all accessary before and after be felon in  consequence and if a offence which be felony be make treason they that will  have be accessary before shall now be principal Powell justice sure the fact  may be lie special in trespass for indictment need not be like other plead  accord to the construction of law upon the matter and so it may be in case of  treason it be the case of Abingdon v gardener in the gunpowder plot in ancient  indictment of murder upon malice in law the malice in law use to be special  lie but since it have be agree that it may be general ex ill will and I think  in the principal case it be more prudent and safe to draw the indictment upon  the special matter for otherwise it may be difficult to persuade the lie  gentle that procure incite command c will make one a principal as to the first  two exception he agree with the chief justice but he doubt whether if a  indictment charge one to have procure a crime to be do it need be direct  allege that it be do as if the indictment be for malicious procure one to be  indict of felony whether it need be direct aver that he be indict because the  word to take care of necessary seem to import it and not only that he procure  ad faciend as you will have it that be to consent and agree to do it as to the  uncertainty of the sum extort all indictment for engross great magnitude grain  be hold good and where you insist that the warrant be true and real the arrest  be lawful and that falsely et wickedly be only pepper and vinegar which will  riot determine any act to a ill sense modern sure it be hard to maintain that  falsely et wickedly be only pepper and vinegar for those word discover the  evil root from which the fact spring holt chief justice say that ex ill will  praecogitata in a indictment for kill a man be such sauce as will cut his  throat and though it be admit that the warrant be true the arrest be lawful  yet that the arrest a man upon a true warrant and procure the refusal of bail  when tender as the fact appear and follow the party in gaol and extort money  from he there by duress and threat of iron be such a complicate offence as  deserve a indictment and that the subsequent tort make the original Act  illegal as be a abuse of legal process and at another day holt chief justice  declare that they be all of opinion that they can not give judgement upon the  indictment that it be too uncertain and one complicate offence that it do not  appear by it that any bail have be offer or what sum or that any certain sum  be extort but they only give judgement to quash the indictment and not for the  defendant who they order to enter into a new recognizance to appear to a new  indictment modern er p