so it was adjudged Mich. 16 & 17 Eliz. in Com' Banco in[1] Strowd's case. So if any act of Parliament gives to any to hold, or to have conusans of all manner of pleas arising before him within his manor of D. yet he shall hold no plea, to which he himself is party; for, as hath been said, iniquum est aliquem suæ rei esse judicem. 5. If he should forfeit 5l. for one moiety by the first clause, and should be punished for practising at any time by the second clause, two absurdities should follow, 1. That one should be punished not only twice but many times for one and the same offence. And the divine saith, Quod[2] Deus non agit bis in idipsum; and the law saith, Nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto. 2. It would be absurd, by the first clause, to punish practising for a month, and not for a lesser time, and by the second to punish practising not only for a day, but at any time, so he shall be punished by the first branch for one month by the forfeit of 5l. and by the second by fine and imprisonment, without limitation for every time of the month in which he practises physic. And all these reasons were proved by two grounds, or maxims in law; 1.[3] Generalis clausula non porrigitur ad ea quæ specialiter sunt comprehensa: and the case between Carter andə Ringstead, Hil. 34 Eliz. Rot. 120. in Communi Banco, was cited to this purpose, where the case in effect was, that A. seized of the manor of Staple in Odiham in the county of Southampton in fee, and also of other lands in Odiham aforesaid in fee, suffered a common recovery of all and declared the use by indenture, that the recoverer should stand seised of all the lands and tenements in
