case the king against ludlam chamberlain of London a bylaw of the city of  London that every person use the trade of a joiner shall be free of the joiner  company and that every apprentice to a joiner shall forfeit ten pound if he be  admit to the freedom of any other company be good but if a person who have  serve a apprenticship to a merchanttailor use the trade of a joiner the court  will grant a mandamus to the joiner company to admit he to his freedom in  order to avoid the penalty S c stram upon a mandamus to admit George warren to  his freedom of the city of London be have serve a apprenticeship to the warden  of the company of merchant tailor the chamberlain make a return of the custom  of London to make bylaw and that a bylaw be make the nineteenth of October in  the six year of William and mary that no person use the trade of a joiner  shall be make free of any other company but that of the joiner with a express  prohibition to the chamberlain to that effect and that every person who have  serve a apprenticeship to a joiner shall upon notice take up his freedom with  a penalty of ten pound if he be admit of any other company that this man have  use the trade of a joiner modern report wherefore he be never admit the  question be whether this be a good bylaw or not it be argue against the return  that it be not because the city of London for many age pass have be supply  with all their superior officer out of the twelve great company of which this  of the merchanttailors be one and that warren be free of that company and  therefore he shall not be compel to be free of any other there be but two way  of be free either by birth and by acquisition for every freeman child be free  of the same company of which his father be free and if such child shall be of  another trade certain he will not be oblige to purchase his freedom in another  company beside this return be ill for it be that he who exercise the trade of  a joiner in London must take his freedom in the company of joiner if summon  for that purpose and it be not set forth that warren be summon on the other  side it be argue that this be a good bylaw and well return that it be a bylaw  find upon a custom and confirm by act of parliament and make by a great number  of citizen in common council assemble to prevent abuse and fraud in trade and  as these guild and fraternity have obtain this freedom as a encouragement of  trade so no custom shall be establish which be detrimental to it as this  custom will be that a man who be free of one company shall not be compel to be  free of another more suitable to his trade and employment it be argue in reply  against this bylaw that though all the custom of the city of London be confirm  by Act of parliament yet modern report whenever a unreasonable custom be  return it be always adjudge void now if warren be free of the merchanttailors  company do screen he or his work from the inspection or inquiry of the joiner  company it may be reasonable that he shall be admit of that company but when  it do not there can be no manner of inconvenience of take his freedom in  another company and not in this and so be the case of Robinson v Groscourt Mod  a which have be already cite and unanswered modern report er p it be thus a  action of debt be bring for ten pound forfeit upon the breach of a bylaw which  be that every person exercise the occupation of music and dance within the  city of London who shall have a privilege to be make free by patrimony shall  at the next court of assistant of the company of musician after notice accept  and take the freedom of the say company under the penalty of ten pound this be  adjudge a void bylaw for it have no custom to support it it be true the custom  be lie to be that whoever be free of the city must be free of some company but  that custom do not oblige a man to be of any particular company but leaves it  at large to be free of some company now in this case though Groscourt the  defendant shall be entitle by birth or by apprenticeship to be free of a  company yet he must likewise be free of the company of musician so that this  bylaw exceed the custom and for that reason it be hold void and so shall this  and for the same reason the court the commoncourt have power to make any  reasonable bylaw and this in the principal case seem to be such for it be make  to prevent fraud in trade by subject a man to the inspection of those who  understand the same trade videlicet the trade of a joiner which the company of  merchant tailor do not but the only question which admit any doubt be whether  a man who be free of the merchant tailor company and exercise the trade of a  joiner may demand his freedom in the joiner company for if he may not demand  it then this bylaw be manifest injurious to he because it take away his right  of freedom in one company and give he no right to his freedom in another  company but by fortescue justice certain a bylaw which make it penal for a man  to exercise any other trade entitle he to his freedom in the company of the  same trade and it be a reasonable bylaw which hinder man from exercise such  trade and be free of such company who modern report have no knowledge in those  trade Raymond justice the case of Robinson v Groscourt differ from this  because in that case there be no company of dancingmaster of which the  defendant may be make free and beside this case be never determine but be  adjourn by reason of another exception to the proceed now this bylaw be  agreeable to the constitution of the city and not restrain trade but rather  regulate it by subject several artificer to be under the inspection of other  who understand the same trade which can be better do than by compel they to  take their freedom in a company of that trade in which they be employ  therefore this be adjudge a reasonable bylaw the court the freedom of the city  can be take from a man provide he will take his freedom in a proper company  and if that company will not admit he the court will grant a mandamus to  compel they but on this return it appear that every man who exercise the trade  of a joiner c within the city of London ought to be free of the company of  joiner but it do not show that the defendant do exercise that trade in the  city c but that be do exercise the trade of a joiner general without say where  and then it may be at York or anywhere else but it be his exercise it within  the city of London which give they jurisdiction and for this reason it be  adjourn this case be argue again in Trinity term Geo and in the Michaelmas  term follow the court be all of opinion first that this be a good bylaw be  make in regulation of trade and to prevent fraud and unskilfulness of which  none but a company that exercise the same trade can be judge second that this  do not take away the apprentice right to his freedom but only his election of  what company be shall be free and direct he to the proper company three that  it be say be shall take up his freedom in that company under the penalty of  ten pound be be entitle to a mandamus to prevent the forfeiture S c stram and  see the case of Harrison v goodman burr and king v sir Thomas Harrison burr in  which last case the above decision be recognize as law a modern report er p