51
the said Court, being present there officially, defended
the alleged encroachment against the alleged Rights
of the Crown and public; and that in the case of
Attorney General v. Hallett* in which a verdict was
obtained by the Crown, he was concerned on behalf
of the defendant and against the Crown. He also
himself stated to the Committee of the House of
Commons, when asked whether 'as Lord Warden's
Steward he was likely to have made some enquiries
on the subject of some timber that had been cut by
one of the Verderers within the bounds of Waltham
Forest, that he had not done so and should not
consider it his duty so to do, because he had himself
cut and sold timber in a similar manner, ' and there-
fore he could not do such an absurd thing, as Steward,
as complain of others for doing the same thing as he
had done himself ;' as also that ' if he were directed
by the Verderers to apply to a freeholder who had
cut timber on his own freehold, he must at once say,
I cannot do such an absurd thing as that because I
have myself done the same thing.'
" In the third place, three of the four Verderers,
being also Lords of Manors, appear to be similarly
interested in a high degree in violating the supposed
laws and rights, which they have been sworn to uphold.
Accordingly it has been alleged that one or more of
the Verderers have themselves made or authorised
* This is the case of Knighton Wood referred to in the note on page 6.