burrow king versus wright clerk a where a Act of parliament prescribe a  particular remedy for a offence a indictment will not lie follow r v Buchanan  Q b Cox c c refer to r v hall Q b mullis v Hubbard Ch low v Dorling king b Mr  de grey show cause against quash the indictment Mr sergeant Hewitt have move  to quash this indictment charge the defendant that be be a spiritual person do  take to farm several land c against the statute of the h c for that no  indictment will lie where a statute create a new offence and give a particular  remedy on Monday that February upon Mr de grey then come to show cause the  sergeant propose three objection videlicet saint a indictment will not lie it  ought to be a proceed byaction or by information which be the two particular  method of proceed specify and prescribe by the statute d No offence be here  charge for occupation be the offence for which the Act give the forfeiture and  here no occupation be charge it be only that he do take to farm d it can be  prosecute at the session for the word of the Act be in any of the king court  FirstAn indictment will not lie because the statute create the offence and  have prescribe a particular method of proceed and have no general word it  enact that no spiritual person shall take to farm c upon pain to forfeit for  every month that he c the one half of which forfeiture to be to the king the  other half to every such person that will sue for the same by original writ  bill or plaint of debt or by any information in any of the king court Hawkins  p c c p be in point that where a statute make a new offence and appoint a  particular manner of proceed a indictment will not lie cro James castle be  case first exception be also most express in point Mod king queen v Marriott S  p king v Gluff case tempt will tij b r S p Lord MansfieldLet we hear a answer  to this objection first for it seem a strong one this be no offence at  commonlaw Mr de grey contra proceed to show cause on behalf of the prosecutor  as to the first objection hale hist p c foe be express that if the Act burrow  do also contain a prohibitory clause the offender may be indict upon the  prohibitory clause notwithstanding the penalty castle be case cro James m I be  incorrect report as appear by Ro Rep SC which say I that the indictment be  quash for some of the exception therefore castle be case be not a authority in  the present one as it be only a partial report upon memory and have mistake in  it as instead of for one instance Mod Croftons case on c c to restrain  nonconformist minister from inhabit in corporation be most full and clear in  point to the contrary Ventr S Q this very objection be disallow keb king v  baker raym S c as to the d objection the occupation be only to ascertain the  quantum of the penalty videlicet for every month that he shall occupy but the  take to farm be the offence prohibit as to the d objection the indictment may  be bring at the session and prosecute there in answer to the case cite in  support of the first objection of king et queen v Marriott accord to Mod ld Ch  I holt hold against the other two judge dolben and Eyre and think a indictment  the proper and reasonable method a nothing at all in this case but what be  full settle long before in hawk p c c S cite in this page and in h h p cite in  page but this be only quash nisi or a rule to show cause on a motion hear ex  part only the two last be lose note and adjourn burrow er p Carthew SC king v  Marriott refer to Mod and observe that it be against the opinion of ld Ch I  holt shower be S c dominus king v Marriott and the reporter who himself take  the objection say that the rule be pronounce by ld Ch I holt to agree other  thus let it stay Lord MansfieldI always take it that where new create offence  be only prohibit by the general prohibitory clause of a Act of parliament a  indictment will lie but where there be a prohibitory particular clause specify  only particular remedy there such particular remedy must be pursue for  otherwise the defendant will be liable to a double prosecution one upon the  general prohibition and the other upon the particular specific remedy  therefore if there be any doubt or difficulty about burrow this matter it will  be better to enlarge the rule till next term Mr just denison lie down the  distinction thus videlicet that where a offence be not so at commonlaw but  make a offence by Act of parliament yet a indictment will lie where there be a  substantive prohibitory clause in such Act of parliament though there be  afterward a particular provision and a particular remedy give but it be  otherwise where the Act be not prohibitory but only inflict the forfeiture and  specify the remedy Mr just Wilmot also take it so and that this point have be  settle late than any of the case cite in hill g b r king v Pensacks and also  in king v Malard the same term it be settle that a indictment will not lie  where a Act of parliament make a new offence and prescribe a particular method  of proceed he say he have always understand it to be a settle distinction  between a substantive independent clause and a prohibition sub modus and it  will be hard to punish a man twice for the same new offence Mr just  DenisonThis Act do not seem to I to give the king alone a power to prosecute  at all for this new offence however I shall give no opinion now as the rule be  enlarge on this day sergeant Hewitt inform the court that Mr de grey give up  this matter Lord MansfieldI do not at all wonder at it I think he will do so I  have look into it and there be nothing in it that case of Crofton have be deny  many time beside Mr Clayton have inform I of a case that be determine upon the  d objection of its be at session rule to quash the indictment make absolute