case the king against jones and another if a person be duly elect overseer and  refuse to execute the office it be a indictable offence SC stram SC Sess case  SC Const page pl upon a indictment allege to be find against the defendant at  Maidstone in ken by the juror of the king and for the body of the county set  forth that three justice quorum One c do duly appoint the defendant to be  overseer of the poor for the space of one year and that they obstinate c  refuse to take the office c contrary to the statute c the defendant demurrer  tailor for the defendant insist that this be no offence at commonlaw nor  indictable upon the statute of Elizabeth c for though it must be admit that  the refusal of a oath of office be duly tender be indictable yet where no oath  or other ceremony be require the person choose immediate become the very  officer and therefore can be punishable for not take the office upon he for it  be one thing to refuse take a office and another not to execute it when he be  a complete officer a constable may be elect at the leet or appoint by the  justice but he be not a complete officer before his oath and therefore be  indictable for refuse to take that office upon he second the Elizabeth which  prescribe the duty of overseer inflict the penalty of twenty shilling upon  they for every default of absence or neglect and a general charge in a  indictment where each particular Act create a particular offence be not good  the king v Robert Carth a this indictment be lie to be against the statute and  by the statute the defendant be punishable as a officer for each particular  neglect if the defendant be a overseer be be not indictable for not take the  office if he be not a overseer he be not punishable by indictment for the  statute have prescribe a punishment three the justice have appoint the  defendant for a year which may exceed the month after easter prescribe by the  statute and though it have be late settle that overseer may be appoint after  that time for the necessity of the thing yet in this case there be two subsist  officer at the same time fourthly the indictment be ill be say to be find by  the juror of the king whereas it shall be by the juror for the king c Mr  solicitor general contra admit that before Elizabeth c there be no overseer so  that this can not be a modern offence at commonlaw but yet it be a principle  at commonlaw that where a Act of parliament either prohibit or require a  public thing the do or omit to do it be indictable by the rule of the  commonlaw which cooperate with the statute in the queen v Darey the reason  give why a constable be not indictable for refuse the office be because be be  punishable in the leetSee Fletcher v Ingram salk ld ray b but in the king v  LoweMich term Geo c it be adjudge that a constable may be indict for refuse  though punishable in the leet and that the queen v Darey go off upon another  point to enforce obedience to the magistrate a indictment lie for disobey  order of justice second he admit that a general charge in a indictment be not  good unless in barratry and there only because the defendant have a particular  account give he of modern er p the matter wherewith be be charge in the king v  Wintringham strange e a indictment against one because male see to bear about  in his office be hold not to be good and too general three as to the  appointment they be always for the year ensue and fourthly as to the  indictment be by the king juror a swearer pro lord ring super sacrament to say  be the form of most of the indictment upon the file in the crown office lee  chief justice the exception to the form in the indictment be material in the  king v Marlow Trinity term Geo f the appointment of overseer for the year  ensue be hold to be good a overseer be by the Act of parliament a annual  officer and subsequent authority have settle that point these be say to be the  juror of the king and for the body of the county which be well enough the  statute have appoint new officer and annex penalty to their neglect of duty  now if the cause be confine to the instance of it I shall think a refusal of  the office may amount to disobedience of what must be esteem mandatory in the  Act of parliament and not provide for by the clause of the penalty and I do  not see any foundation for a distinction between a officer who be to take a  oath as a constable and such a office as this appoint by parliament without  any ceremony and every man by the principle of the commonlaw be indictable for  disobey a Act of parliament this may perhaps require further consideration as  to the remedy give by the Act but at present that seem to I to relate more  particular to a person neglect after he have undertake the office modern page  justice be of the same opinion with the chief justice in all the exception  probin justice a appointment of a overseer for a year have be hold to be well  within the Act of parliament so admit in the case of the king v Harman for it  be a annual office the caption of the indictment be well enough the great  objection be to the appointment in general that a punishment be annex to each  of the breach of duty but the nonacceptance of the office be a breach of the  law and a breach of a Act of parliament be indictable the statute say they  shall be overseer he who refuse to be overseer break the law make by the Act  and in my opinion be indictable and it be not like a general charge of a  breach or neglect of duty but be a charge of a breach of a Act of parliament  in not accept the office it have be say that a man can be indict for refuse a  office where there be no ceremony require to complete the office and this be  not only a breach of the order but of the Act of parliament itself and do not  relate to the particular offence there specify which refer only to their  behaviour in the office and my opinion rest upon this be a breach of the Act  of parliament but I submit it to further consideration chapel justice the  appointment of overseer for a year be good the caption seem well juror of the  king and for the body of the county c be well if this have be a indictment for  neglect the office it have be too general without specify the particular  breach but this be for absolute refuse the office in the case of a constable  the refusal of the oath be a refusal of the office but a man may refuse a  office by express word by a entire neglect or the like this total refusal seem  to I to be punishable no other way than by indictment if there be to be a  indictment against a overseer for not account as by the Act be ought I shall  think it ought to be allege that he do accept the office lee chief justice I  think the indictment do lie in this case and as the rest of the court be of  the same opinion there be no necessity to defer judgement in this case unless  it be desire from the bar the court let there be judgement for the king nisi c  modern er p modern hilary term the fourteenth of George the second in the king  bench sir William lee Knt chief justice sir Francis page Knt sir William  chapel Knt Martin wright Esq justice sir Dudley rider Knt attorneygeneral sir  John strange Knt solicitor general