make such summary proceeding as justices of the peace in many cases may do; yet the party is not without remedy for he may have a Certiorari to remove the record of conviction, and then it may be examined and reviewed, to see whether it be pursuant to their authority; for in every case where a new jurisdiction is set up for a special purpose this court by virtue of its original power may award a Mandamus to make them put their authority in execution, and a Certiorari to look into their proceeding whether it be conformable to their authority or not. Thus a Certiorari lies to remove an indictment for felony before the justices of the peace (bro. Eliz. 489. Long’s case) to remove orders before commissioners of sewers, or by justices of the peace who have authority to make conviction of a force in their presence, or for deer-stealing, but although no Certiorari did lie (in the present case) it is not consequential that the cause of their commitment is traversable; for if the parliament intrusts them with a power so great that no act of theirs shall be reversed or reviewed, there is the less reason that their proceeding should be examined or traversed in an action; a jury is not finable for giving a verdict against evidence; and though there are many cases where jurymen have been fined (1) yet Bushel’s case, in which all the others are cited, is sufficient to controul all the rest. Vauq. 135 (a) and if a juror shall not be fined or imprisoned or otherwise punished for refusing to find a man guilty upon apparent and plain evidence, much less shall a judge be liable to censure. In the case (b) of Hammond and Powell, P. 29 Car. 2 an action for false-imprisonment was brought after the resolution in Bushel’s case for his imprisonment (for Hammond was one of the same jury with Bushel and fined 40l. and imprisoned for it at the same time,) and notwithstanding that the fine and imprisonment were illegal yet it was adjudged that the action did not lie for false-imprisonment against the judge or the officer; so a fine imposed by a judge of a court is not traversable as an amercement is. 7 H. 6. 13. a. As to the case between Terry and Huntington Hard. 480 which may be objected; that is good law; for there an action was brought against the commissioners of excise, who had charged a man for the duty upon strong waters, where the liquor made by him was low wine of the first extraction, and the action well lay, for they had exceeded their jurisdiction; for low wines of the first extraction were not chargeable within the act of parliament; and if they had charged a duty upon a liquor not chargeable with it, they were not to be excused for having named it strong waters. If a justice of the peace commits a man for being the Father of a bastard child no action lies against the justice if the man was the father of a bastard otherwise if he had no bastard at all. So the case between Nickols and Walker, Cro. Car. 394, (_a_) is