This was an action of trespass for an assault, battery, wounding and false imprisonment. The defendants as to the beating and wounding, plead not guilty, and as to the residue of the trespass they justify; for that by letters patent dated the 23 of September 10 H. 8 the king granted, that they, viz. the doctors of physick in London, should be a body and perpetual community, _per nomen præsidentis & collegii five communitat’ facultat’ medicin’ London’, &c._ and that they might make By-Laws; _& quod quatour singulis annis eligerentur qui haberent scrutinium correctionem & gubernationem omnium & singulorum dictæ civitatis medicorum & aliorum medicorum forinsecorum facultate illa utentium infra eandem civitatem & suburbia, ac infra septem milliaria in circuitu ejusdem, ac punitionem eorundem pro delictis suis in non bene exercendo, &c. per fines amerciamenta & imprisonamentum corporum suorum_; and that these letters patent were confirmed by an act of parliament of 14 H. 8. And that on the 1st of January 8 W. 3. the plaintiff exercised the art of physick in London, and that he administered bad and unwholesome physick to one woman and that the said woman and her husband complained to the defendants, being the censors of the said college; upon which complaint the plaintiff was summoned before them, and upon examination they found him guilty of administering unwholesome physick, by means of which the said woman languished; and thereupon they fined the plaintiff 20l. and made a warrant under their hands and seals to —— —— who was also a defendant, to take the plaintiff; who took him pursuant to such warrant and conveyed him to prison; which is the residue of the trespass of which the plaintiff complains. The plaintiff replies _protestando_, that there are no such letters patent, and no such act of parliament; and _protestando_, that the plaintiff did not administer such unwholesome physick; that the defendants of their own wrong committed the trespass; _absque hoc quod_, that the plaintiff was taken and committed by force of the said warrant: and to this it was demurred. And this case was divers times argued, and many exceptions were taken to the plea and to the replication; and now this term judgment was given for the defendants. And Holt C. J. delivered the opinion of the court; and said, that the rest of the Judges were agreed, that the replication of the plaintiff was ill, and that the plea of the defendants was good. The plaintiff in his replication traverses the taking by the warrant mentioned in the plea of the defendants; and this is ill both in substance and in form; for in point of form he ought not to traverse the taking by force of the warrant, but that there was not any such warrant; for if it were necessary that the arrest of the plaintiff should be by the same warrant that was mentioned before in the pleading that if the defendants had shewn in their plea another warrant than that which was