The first section of this statute appears to have been, and to remain in force, at least as to the prohibition
therein contained.  See Espinasse 400.

    As to the 2d and 3d sections of this statute, see the note on 3 Edw. 1, Ch. 15; and see 3 Hen. 7,
Ch. 3.  While the county courts were held by justices of the peace, there was nothing to prevent a
literal compliance with the 3d section, and it appears reasonable that the powers should continue in
two justices not in court.
    The 4th section representing the examination of prisoners by the said justices appears to have been
practised under in the province in several instances; in one of which, in 1769, the examination was
stated to be the testimony adduced against the prisoner.
    The 5th section, as to the duties of coroners and justices, is considered to have been, and to remain
in force, except as to the assessment of the fines.  The 6th section related to London and Middlesex.
The 7th as to the allowance of writs of habeas corpus and certiorari by a judge or justice, was in
force in the province, and remained so until the passage of the act of July 1779, Ch. 4, which recited
the former practice, and declared that it should not be necessary.
 

    See the note on 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, Ch. 13.
 

    See the note on 35 Hen. 8, Ch. 6.  Considering the state in the place of the king, there is the same
reason for the extention of this statute, and the practice has been the same.
 

    There can be no doubt as to the extention of a part of this statute, viz. the 2d section, declaring
void fraudulent conveyances, &c.
    I have not discovered any cases of prosecutions or suits for the forfeitures mentioned in the 3d
section, although there is no reason why it should not have been in force, or why it should not remain
so.  The 4th and 5th, respecting common recoveries, and writs of formedon, do not appear necessary
to be incorporated.