resolved by the Chief Justice, Warburton and Daniel, that they had not pursued it for six reasons. 1. By the act, the censors only have power to impose a fine, or amerciament; and the president and censors imposed the amerciament of 5l. upon the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff was summoned to appear coram presidente et censoribus, &c. et non comparuit, and therefore he was fined 10l. whereas the president had no authority in that case. 3. The fines or amerciaments to be imposed by them, by force of the act, do not belong to them, but to the King, for the King had not granted the fines or amerciaments to them, and yet the fine is appointed to be paid to them, in proximis comitiis, and they have imprisoned the plaintiff for non-payment thereof. 4. They ought to have committed the plaintiff presently, by construction of law, although that no time be limited in the act, as in the statute of W. 2. cap. 11[1] De servientibus, ballivis, &. qui ad compotum reddend' tenentur, &c. cum dom' hujusmodi servientium dederit eis auditores compoti, et contingat ipsos in arrearagiis super compotum suum omnibus allocatis et allocandis, arrestentur corpora eorum, et per testimonium auditorum ejusdem compoti mittantur et liberentur proximæ gaolæ domini Regis in partibus illis, etc. In that case, although no time be limited when the accomptant shall be imprisoned, yet it ought to be done[2] presently, as it is held in 27 H. 6. 8. a. and the reason thereof is given in Fogassa's case, Plowd. Com. 17. b. that the generality of the time shall be restrained to the present time, for the benefit of him upon whom the pain shall be inflicted, and therewith agrees Plow. Com. 206. b. in Stradling's case. And a Justice[3] of Peace upon view of the force, ought to commit the offender presently.
Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/336
This page needs to be proofread.
