Definition
Not guilty by statute is a plea of the general issue in English civil practice, entered by a defendant who intends to rely at trial on a special defense authorized by one or more acts of Parliament. Rather than denying liability through ordinary pleading, the defendant signals that a specific statutory provision creates or preserves a defense — such as statutory immunity, a statutory limitation, or a privilege conferred by legislation — and that this statutory matter will be offered in evidence. The plea functions procedurally as a general denial but carries the additional obligation of identifying the relevant act or acts by reference and stating whether each act is public or private.
The plea is not a criminal verdict. It is a civil pleading device specific to English common law procedure.
---
Common Confusion
The phrase "not guilty" in modern usage is almost exclusively associated with criminal proceedings — specifically, the verdict returned by a jury or the plea entered by a criminal defendant at arraignment. Researchers encountering "not guilty by statute" in historical English sources should not mistake it for a criminal verdict, an acquittal, or any component of criminal procedure. The term belongs entirely to civil practice and reflects the older English system of pleading in which defendants were required to signal the legal basis for their defense at the pleading stage. The confusion is compounded by the fact that modern civil procedure has largely abolished the need for this category of plea, making the term unfamiliar and its criminal-sounding label misleading.
---
Core Elements
For a defendant to invoke this plea in historical English civil practice, the following conditions applied:
1. The action must be civil (not criminal).
2. The defendant must intend to offer special statutory matter — not merely general common law defenses — as the basis for defeating the claim.
3. The plea must identify the specific act or acts of Parliament on which the defendant relies.
4. The plea must state whether each cited act is public or private (the distinction affecting how the court takes notice of the statute).
5. Election and limitation: a defendant who pleads not guilty by statute is generally confined to that defense and may not add other defenses without leave of the court.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a navigational hazard for researchers working in pre-reform English legal materials, particularly sources predating the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875, which dismantled the old common law pleading system. Several research traps:
**Anachronistic reading.** The phrase sounds like a criminal verdict or a modern affirmative defense. It is neither. Misidentifying it distorts any analysis of the underlying case or pleading.
**Jurisdictional scope.** This plea was a feature of English common law procedure. American courts, which developed differently and adopted procedural codes earlier, do not use this terminology. Researchers in American sources will not encounter it as a live procedural mechanism, though they may find it referenced in early treatises drawing on Blackstone and other English authorities.
**Election trap.** The limitation that a defendant pleading not guilty by statute may not add other defenses without leave of court is a substantively important procedural consequence. Missing it leads to misreading the strategic posture of parties in historical litigation.
**Connection to statutory immunities.** When Parliament created new immunities — for turnpike trustees, poor law officials, or early railway companies, for example — defendants in tort-adjacent civil actions routinely invoked this plea. Understanding the plea unlocks why certain statutory actors were effectively shielded from civil liability during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
**Corpus connection.** The Law Mind Civil Procedure encyclopedia's treatment of statutes of repose and limitation provides useful background on how statutory defenses interact with general pleading obligations. The criminal entries on guilty pleas and verdicts are explicitly not applicable here, notwithstanding the superficial resemblance of the phrase.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both editions of Black's Law Dictionary are in agreement on the essential definition and the procedural requirements: this is an English civil plea, it involves Parliamentary authority, it requires identification of the relevant statutes with their public or private character noted, and it restricts the defendant to that defense absent court permission. The second edition adds the specific detail about leave of court being required before adding any other defense, making the election consequence explicit.
Neither edition contextualizes the plea within the broader arc of English pleading reform or notes that the procedure was effectively superseded by the Judicature Acts. Researchers relying solely on Black's will understand what the plea was but may not appreciate how thoroughly obsolete it became or why it persists only in historical materials. Neither edition addresses American practice or signals the plea's irrelevance to post-reform procedure on either side of the Atlantic.
The first edition fragment preserved in the source material appears garbled in context (the "mal condition" reference belongs to an unrelated entry), but the substantive description of the plea is consistent across both editions.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Not guilty by statute is a historical English civil procedure term with no direct American equivalent. American federal and state procedure developed through code pleading reforms beginning in the mid-nineteenth century that eliminated the need for this category of plea. Researchers in American sources will encounter the term only in treatises or early commentaries borrowing from English practice.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia: Statutes of Repose vs. Statutes of Limitation (civpro_133) — for background on how statutory provisions function as defenses in civil litigation.
---