case smith v read march the that SC ba ab SC vin Abr pl a bill bring to  discover whether a under who will the defendant claim be a papist at the time  of a purchase make by a of the estate from the plaintiff ancestor defendant  plead as to the discovery the statute of the that and that of will bywhich if  a be a papist she be disable to take under the rule a man be not oblige to  accuse himself be imply that he be not to discover a disability in himself and  as a will not have be oblige to discover the defendant who claim under the  same title be entitle to the same privilege and take the estate under the same  circumstance the plea allow the bill be bring for the rend and profit of the  estate and to discover whether a under who will the defendant claim be a  papist at the time of a purchase make by a of the estate from the plaintiff  ancestor the defendant plead a title under a and as to the discovery plead the  statute of the eleventh and that of will against papist by which stat if a be  a papist she be disable to take see stat Geo chap atkins therefore as the  defendant counsel insist this bill seek to discover what if true will be a  forfeiture and a penalty which no one be bind in equity to discover and as a  be a purchaser the defendant as stand in his place be equal so the law oblige  no man to accuse himself and for this purpose they cite Charles can Molings  and Molings and the Southsea company and Dolliff where a disability be hold  equivalent to a penalty or a forfeiture Mr attorney general for the plaintiff  say here the estate if she be a papist never be vest or can descend and  therefore it be not to be compare to forfeiture the case of Molings and  Molings be not a determination accord to equity for they claim under one who  it do not appear but that they have notice can not take Mr fazakerley on the  same side this prevent the estate come to they but do not divest it as a  forfeiture and the bill be no more than to discover a title the estate never  move from the grantee Lord chancellor I think the defendant be not bind to  discover for there be no rule more establish in equity than that a person  shall not be oblige to discover what will subject he to a penalty or any thing  in the nature of a penalty under the rule a man be not oblige to accuse  himself be imply that he be not to discover a disability in himself and there  be no difference between a forfeiture of a thing vest and disability to take  inflict as a penalty and the that and that of will be a penal statute if this  bill have be bring against the person himself and there be no other penalty  than this I think he will not have be oblige to discover therefore they who  claim under the same title be entitle to the same privilege and take the  estate under the same circumstance as to its be a defective title only it be  true but then it be a defect arise from a penalty the law of bankrupt be not  all penal law and in the case of alien bastard c there be a difference where  the disability arise from the rule of law and where it be impose as a penalty  if this plea be not allow it will affect numberless inheritance and protestant  more than papist and where the legislature have intend discovery of what be  penal they have put in clause for that purpose as in the statute of the that  of whether ch of the live belong to papist the plea allow see Harrison v  Southcole next case atkins er p