astell who tam vers andrews l raym SC post sell a single gallon of wine by a  unlicensed person in his own house which be drink in another be a sell by  retail under car c action of debt upon the statute car c for sell wine by  retail twenty several time without licence the defendant plead nil debet and  upon the trial the jury find the defendant not guilty as to nineteen of the  twenty time and as to one particular time they find a special verdict  videlicet that the defendant be a merchant and dealer in wine in Bristol and  that in his mansionhouse there he such a day sell one gallon of wine to one  mill who carry it to the guilder inn in Bristol and that it be there drink  that this inn belong to one I S and that the defendant have no licence for the  sell of wine et si c the question in this case be whether the sell of this one  gallon of wine in the defendant own house which be spend in another be a sell  by retail within the meaning of the statute sergeant chapel for the plaintiff  argue that the sell one gallon be a sell by retail within the statute for the  statute describe what shall be account a sell by retail videlicet sell by pint  quart bottle or gallon and though this be spend in another person house yet it  make no difference for the word of the statute be general at commonlaw every  man have liberty to sell wine as be can either by wholesale or retail until  the statute e c which be the first restrain statute and the next statute be  the car upon which this action be bring and this statute appoint commissioner  to grant licence to sell wine by retail and restrain more particular than the  former statute for the word be shall not be drink within mansionhouse or  without vide hard fazakerley contra argue that this be a penal statute ought  not to be extend further than the express word will carry it the Act be intend  only to oblige person reside in particular strange place and who make a trade  of sell by retail to take licence and not to subject a merchant to a penalty  for one particular act he cite   where it be hold that a person may use a  trade in a particular instance notwithstanding the general restraint by the  statute Elizabeth and to brew or bake for himself or family be no offence  within that Act and there be only one act find against the defendant it be  never the intention of the statute to make such a person liable to the penalty  this term the chief justice deliver the opinion of the court and declare that  they be all agree in it that the plaintiff must have judgement for the word of  the statute be plain and express and take in this very case and it be not  reasonable to allow a merchant to sell by retail without licence any more than  another person for the word be general no person or person whatsoever and  though the jury have find the defendant guilty of but one act yet that be  plain within the statute strange report er p for the statute give a distinct  penalty for every particular offence and therefore this single act of the  defendant subject he to such penalty judgement for the plaintiff