MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS 37

without an apparant infringm^t upon the s^d Statute, which is evident by the
reason my Lord Cooke gives in his Comments upon the s^d Statute fol: 419:
Viz^t that they are p^rsumed to be men of integrity indefferency, Skill and
knowledge, therefore this Commission being granted contrary to the Express
intent of the s^d Statute it is Erronious and Void and consequently all the
proceedings thereupon likewise Erronious.

2 Though the s^d Commission were legall and not contrary to the s^d
Statute, the s^d information and Judgm^t thereupon is Erronious in this that
the Statute of the 3^d of Henry the 7^th upon which the s^d information is prin-
cipally brought cannot maintain the Same First because the clause of the s^d
Statute ag⁽ which the breach is Supposed to be made requires absolutely and
expressly 3: Conditions to make goods forfeited both within the letter and
meaning thereof, the first is that all goods which this Statute can by any con-
struction be extended to, must be First brought into Some Port within the
Realm of England, the Second is that they must be Entered in the book
of the Customer of Such Port where they are soe brought, and the Kings
Dutys thereof to the s^d Customers contented or therefore with him agreed the
third is that all that being done, they must be carried to Some other Port
within the Realm of England. Now it is not as much as once alleadged in
the s^d information that the beer informed ag^t was first brought into any Port
within the Realm or (if the Statute could be extended into this Province)
it is not alleadged as is [sic] ought to be to bring the beer within the Statute
that it was first brought into Some Port within the Province, and according
to the Second Condition required by the Statute, that there it was Entered
in the booke of the Customer and the Kings Duty paid or Agreed for, neither
according to the Third condition it is alleadged in the s^a information, that
the two former conditions being performed the beer was Carried from the
port where it was first Entered into Some other port of the Realm or even of
this Province therefore the information failed in the essentiall parts thereof,
and consequently it is palpably Vitious therefore the Judgm^t given thereupon
is erronious and contrary to all Law and Justice was the demurrer made to
it for the afores^d and Severall other defects overruled.

3. It is Error in this that the s^d Statute of the Third of Henry 7^th can by
no legall nor equitable construction be extended into this Province Espe-
cially in relation to Beer, first because the s^d Statute being made (as may ap-
pear by the pening thereof) particularly for the Trade of the Realm of Eng-
land, and even before any of the American plantations were [55] Sealed [sic],
and it being a penall Law must be taken Strictly and according to the Letter,
it were absurd to think it Should extend to a place not in being at the time of
the making thereof, and whose circumstances and exigencies doe farr differ
from those of the Realm of England, wherein and for w^ch it was made and
more absurd it were to think or Judge it Should extend to a liquor not in
being Even in the Realm of England at the time of the Enacting thereof