common law adjudges the said act of Parliament as to that point void. The statute of [142]Carlisle, made _anno_ 35 E. 1. enacts, that the order of the Cistercians and Augustines, who have a convent and common seal, that the common seal shall be in the keeping of the Prior, who is under the Abbot, and four others of the most grave of the house, and that any deed sealed with the common seal, which is not so in keeping shall be void: and the opinion of the court (_in an._ 27 H. 6. Annuity 41.) was, that this statute was [143]void, for it is impertinent to be observed, for the seal being in their keeping, the Abbot cannot seal any thing with it, and when it is in the Abbot’s hands, it is out of their keeping _ipso facto_; and if the statute should be [144]observed, every common seal shall be defeated upon a simple surmise, which cannot be tried. Note reader the words of the said statute at Carlisle, _anno_ 35 E. 1. (which is called _Statutum religiosorum_) are, _Et insuper ordinavit dominus Rex & statuit, quod Abbates Cisterc’ & Præmonstraten’ ordin’ religiosorum, &c. de cætero habeant sigillum commune, et illud in custodia Prioris monasterii seu domus, et quatuor de dignioribus et discretioribus ejusdem loci conventus sub privato sigillo Abbatis ipsius loci custod’ depo, &c. Et si forsan aliqua scripta obligationum, donationum, emptionum, venditionum, alienationum, seu aliorum quorumcunque, contractuum alio sigillo quam tali sigillo, communi sicut præmittit’ custodit inveniant’ a modo sigillat’, pro nullo penitus habeantur omnique careant firmitate._ So the statute of 1 E. 6. c. 14. gives chauntries, &c. to the King, saving to the donor, &c. all such rents, services, &c. and the common law controuls it, and adjudges it void as to services, and the donor shall have the rent, as a rentseck, distrainable of common right, for it would be against common right and reason that the [145]King should hold of any, or do service to any of his subjects, 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. and so it was adjudged Mich. 16 & 17 Eliz. in _Com’ Banco_ in [146]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 [147]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.