case LEWSLY against bud if a statute direct the street within the bill of  mortality to be pave at the expense of all the inhabitant not only those  inhabitant who live in the street which be pave but those who house stand on  the adjoin road not pave but within the parish shall equal contribute to such  expense S c salk S c skin S c holt holt chief justice this case stand for the  resolution of the court it be on two order ground on the statute will mary c S  and for scavenger rate for cleanse the street of Newington one order state  that all the inhabitant shall contribute to it the other state that only those  that live on the pavement shall contribute and the question be which of they  be good we be of opinion that all the inhabitant shall contribute for though  it may be think hard that they shall pay any thing towards the pavement who do  not live on it yet the word of the statute be so strong that it lie the charge  on all the inhabitant without distinction and where the statute do not  distinguish we have no power to do it now in Newington there be a street that  be pave and a great part of the town that modern er p be not and there be  several of the parish that live out of the town and yet they be all bind to  contribute beside they that live on the pavement be bind to pave their own  door then they be not exempt from repair the highway and therefore it be as  reasonable they shall repair the pavement of which they have the benefit and a  indefinite proposition be equal to a general one then the statute appoint that  they who do not live on the pavement as well as they who do shall settle the  rate and therefore it be reasonable that they shall contribute to their own  rate then the penalty of the scavenger be give to the overseer general how  this will be on the statute car c we can tell but on this statute all the  inhabitant ought to contribute towards the cleanse of the pavement and  therefore one of the order be good and the other be bad and ought to be quash