Proprietary v. Farthing

As to the matter in law. Judgment of the pillory proper in enormous cases, even of riots. Wood’s Inst. 428. and such judgment is proper for misdemeanors, 652. 3 Inst. 219, 220. where there is a judgment at large of six days pillory for playing with false dice. Also for a libel against certain of the inhabitants of Chersie, the punishment was imprisonment, pillory, and security for good behaviour.

See the case of The King v. Sir Charles Sidney, where the Court adjudged imprisonment and a heavy fine on the defendant for exhibiting his naked body in a balcony in Covent Garden, to the view of a great multitude of people. 1 Sid. 168. In the case of- Rex v. Johnson, the judgment was a fine, and that the defendant be struck off the attorney’s roll for agreeing with another person to give him a sum of money, if he would prove a certain deed to be a forgery. 2 Show. 1. In the case of Martyn v. Page, the judgment was to stand in the pillory, with a heavy fine, for an attempt to ravish. Cro.

Car. 332. Let this case be compared with the former decisions, and it will appear to be more enormous, as it is more injurious to rob a man of his inheritance, than to cheat him of ⁶⁴ some money, or to do him some personal injury which he is immediately acquainted with, and may remedy. Corn-pare it with that of embezzling a record, which the Legisjature bought deserved death, as appears by 8 H. VI. cap. 12. l Haxvk. 112. And yet it is evident the mischief here to the party injured is greater than could happen by destroying the whole proceedings in a case, because the party grieved might sue again for his debt, having the evidence of it by him.

But here the evidence of the estate is wholly destroyed, and the estate with it. And it appears, in 1 Haxvk. 113. s. S. that such an alteration as reversed the judgment is not only within the statute, but even such as renders it reversible by our law, ubi eadem ratio, ibi idem jus, and the argument here, of a civil case, ivouhl apply a fortiori; but in criminal,