[182] Denunciation "in many poyntes resembleth a Presentment," Cosen, _An Apologie_ (etc.), 70. See his book for the modes of proceeding. Cf. also Hale, _Crim. Prec_., Introd., p. lviii. In commenting on Archdeacon Hale's book, which we have so often here cited (_A Series of Precedents in Criminal Causes from the Act Books of Ecclesiastical Courts of London_, 1475-1640 [pub. in 1847]), Sir J.F. Stephen in his _History of Crim. Law in England_, ii, 413, makes these observations: "It is difficult even to imagine a state of society in which, on the bare suggestion of some miserable domestic spy, any man or woman whatever might be convened before an archdeacon or his surrogate and put upon his or her oath as to all the most private affairs of life; as to relations between husband and wife; as to relations between either and any woman or man with whom the name of either might be associated by scandal; as to contracts to marry, as to idle words, as to personal habits, and, in fact, as to anything whatever which happened to strike the ecclesiastical lawyer as immoral or irreligious." [183] The case of John Johnson in the official's court in Durham city forms an excellent commentary on the whole system. He was presented as suspected of incontinency. After repeated citations and a threat of excommunication, he appeared, denying the charge and alleging that a churchwarden with others had falsely concocted it. At the petition of an apparitor, who acted as public prosecutor, seven of Johnson's fellow-parishioners were cited to swear not to the _fact_ of his guilt, but to the general _belief_ in it. Articles were then drawn up upon which depositions were taken and published. The case was adjourned repeatedly so that the many formalities of procedure might drag out their weary length. The oath _ex officio_ was forced on Johnson, but he denied all guilt. Finally, he was enjoined to procure three compurgators. These swore that they believed _"in animis suis"_ that Johnson had sworn to the truth. Though pronounced innocent, Johnson was condemned to pay the costs of all the formalities that the apparitor had set in motion against him, and a last time was dragged into court in order to be admonished under pain of excommunication to pay these fees, amounting to £1. 3s. 4d., within a month! The case had extended from 11th June, 1600, to 22nd May, 1601. _Surtees Soc_., lxxxiv (1888), 359-362. Cf. also the following: "payed for annswerynge dyuerse faulse vntrothes suggested by [five names] to the sayd Commyssyoneres vj s. viij d." Minchinhampton, Gloucester, Acc'ts, _s.a._ 1576 (archbishop's visitation), _Archaeologia_, xxxv. "pd. for our charges to lycoln when we were p[re]sented by the apparytor unjustly for that our church should by [be] mysvsed vs. vjd." Leverton, Lincoln, Acc'ts, _s.a._ 1579, _Archaeologia_, xli, 365. Under 1595 the Leverton wardens have the entries: "pd. to the apparitor for fallts in the churche ijs. viijd.," and: "for playing in