Plaintiff that the Action did not lye Vide this Case more at large in Cook 3. part of his Reports Cornwalls Case 869. Quo Warranto for claiming goods of Felonum de se The Defendant said that the Mannors of S. and L in the County of Gloucester were within the Principality of Wales before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and the Kings Writ did not run there and that his Grandfather seised of those Mannors as Lord Marcher used amongst others to have that Liberty of goods of Felons de se and that the Statute of 27 H. 8. which united Wales to England had a Proviso that the Lord Marchers should retain their Franchises to hold Courts to have Waifes and Estrays infangtheef outfangtheef and Felons goods and deduced the Mannors to himself and eo Warranto he claimed to have the good of Felons de se within his Mannors upon which it was demurred the Case is only argued bet not Resolved Ideo Quaere Darcy and Allens Case 870. The Queen by her Letters Patents granted to Darcy the Importation and sole making of playing Cards within the Realm of England for a certain Terme of years A Citizen and Freeman of the Company of Haberdashers in London Cards beings Merchantable Commodities brought Cards into England and sold them for which Darcy brought his Action of the Case and declared it was to his damage of 2000 l. upon which there was a demur in Law It was in this Case after long and Learned Arguments at length Resolved That the Letters Patents for the sole making of playing Cards within the Realm was void because it being a Mechanical Trade it was contrary to the Liberty and to the prejudice of the Subject 2. That the dispensation or sole License to have the Importation of Cards was a Monopoly and so void by the Law See Coo. 11. pt the Case of Monopolies Garrard and the Dean and Chapter of Rochesters Case 871. The Dean and Chapter by deed under their Common Seal granted to the King the Mannor of S. in exchange for other Lands the deed was made without a Letter of Attorney but they acknowledged it to be their deed in their Chapter house before I. S. Attorney of the Court of Augmentations who brought it into Court and it was there enrolled with a Memorandū that the enrolment was such a day which was a moneth before the date of the deed In this Case it was Resolved 1. That the acknowledgment of the deed in the Chapter house was sufficient without doing it by Attorney 2. That the Attorney of the Augmentation might take the acknowledgment of a Deed out of Court he being a Judge of the Court. 3. That the enrolment of the deed before the date of it was not void as to make the deed void because it was only the Misprision of the Clark which shall not make the deed void Prine and Allingtons Case 872. A Capias ad satisfaciend ' was 2. July delivered in Holborne to the Sheriff of C. he the same day made his Warrant to his Bailiffs but afterwards the same day there came a Supersedeas to the Sheriff the Bailiffs not having notice of it took the party in Execution who escaped and they retook him upon which false Imprisonment was brought It was adjudged the Action did lye for the retaking of him was not Lawfull because the Authority of the Sheriff was determined by the Supersedas Yet the Court held the Bailiffs were excused in this Case and no action of Debt upon the escape did lye because they had no notice of the Supersedas Webster and Allens Case 873. A Copyholder where the custome was to demise for three Lives demised to one for life the Remainder to such a one as he should marry and the first Son of his body Resolved that both the Remainders were void but the estate for his own life good Penny and Cores Case 874. Debt upon Obligation for payment of 8 l. the Defendant pleaded payment of 5 l. before the day and acceptance of it in satisfaction of the 8 l. It was adjudged a good plea. The Queen and Bishop of Peterboroughs Case 875. A Baronesse which was a Widdow retained two Chaplains they purchased Dispensation the Baronesse was married before they accepted double Benefices It was adjudged they might after take two Benefices because the marriage was no discharge of their Service but if the Baronesse dye before they accept the Benefices they cannot afterwards take two Benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. Ward and Lakins Case 876. In a Replevin the Plaintiff declared of the taking of two Heifors apud W. tali die and did not say in quodam loco vocato c. and for that cause the Declaration was held to be insufficient Scarles Case 177. Debt against an Excecutor by Original he pleaded a Recovery in the Court of I. and that ultra he had not goods the Recovery was after the Teste of the Original but the Defendant avered that he had not notice of the Original It was holden by the Court a good plea but if a man be sued upon an Obligation and he will pay another debt after without suit if he have notice of the first suit Devastavit in an Execuror Gregory and Harrisons Case 878. Resolved Ejectione firme doth not lye of a Copyhold if the Plaintiff doth not declare the Custome Lease and Ejectment 879. A Woman recovered Dower in the Common pleas and had a Writ to the Sheriff to put her in possession of the same The Sheriff returned the Writ that he delivered her 84. Acres and that she had entred into 24. Acres parcel thereof and accepted of the same Resolved it was a good bar to her although it was a lesse quantity then the 3. part of the Land mentioned in the Record Aoliffe and Archdales Case 780. Resolved in this Case If a man be bounden to pay money for the Meat Drink and Apparel of an Infant and pay it and take a Bond of the Infant to repay the money such a Bond is void and the Infant shall avoid it for Nonage Broke and Smiths Case 881. It was adjudged in this Case that where a man by a Deed was to discharge Lands from all Incumbrances and before the sealing and delivery of the Deed there is Memorandum endorsed that it should not extend to such an Incumbrance It was Resolved the Endorsement is an explanation of the Deed and made parcell of it and a suit upon an Obligation to discharge Incumbrances shall not extend to the Incumbrances mentioned upon the endorsement of the Deed. Yate and Goths Case 882. A. was indebted to B. who dyed Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and brought debt and had Judgment and after dyed Intestate It was adjudged that an Administrator de bonis none of the first Intestate could not sue forth Execution upon the Judgment but is put to a new action of debt Swelman and Cuts Case 883. A Lease was made for years upon
which they have otherwise not 245. Tenant in Tail disseiseth the Discontinuee and Levyeth a Fine and the proclamation passes but the Discontinuee during the proclamation makes claime and after the Tenant in Tail dyes and the Discontinuee enters It was the opinion of the Justices that the Issue in Tail was barred by the Fine and in this Case it was said That if the Lord entreth upon his Tenant and enfeoffs a stranger and the Tenant Reenters he avoids the Disseisin and estate but the seignoury is not revived but extinct Pasch 20. Eliz. Jackson and Darceys Case 246. Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levyeth a Fine with Proclamation It was holden it shall binde the Issue notwithstanding the saving in the Statute of 32. H. 8. for that here is not any Reversion in the King but a Remainder of which the Statute speaks nothing but yet this Fine doth not devest the Remainder out of the Kâ—ng but the Conusee shall have a Fee determinable upon the Tail 247. The Master takes an Obligation of his Apprentice that he shall not use his Trade within 4. years in the Town of N. where his Master dwells and he is an Apprentice It was holden the Obligation was not good not should binde the Apprentice 248. A man hath a Warren which extends into 3. Townes and by deed makes a Lease of it for years Rendering rent and after grants the Reversion in one of the Townes to another and the Lessee Attornes It was the opinion of the Justices That the grantee should have no part of the Rent nor the Granter because no Covenant can be apportioned Duland and Cleypooles Case 248. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. of Tillage That the Defendant had Converted 300. Acres of arable Lands to Pastures and that the Conversion hath continued from 15. Eliz. to 20. Eliz. The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general pardon of 23. Eliz. upon which it was demurred It was argued that the Condition did not extend to the Continuance of the said conversion It was said That if A be seised of arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted Leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by the Statute And Note the words of the Statute are Conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted and the Statute doth not punish only the Conversion but the continuance of it One the other side It was said That the Conversion and the continuance thereof are 2. several things by it self and so the Conversion being only excepted the Continuare thereof is within the Pardon Quaere the Case was adjorned Term. Pasc 24. Eliz. Leeke and Grevells Case 249. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. for converting and using of 2000. Acres of arable into pasture The Defendant said and justified as to 800. Acres That the Queen by Deed under her Great Seal Licensed him to enclose the Mannor of Weston and Welford in the County of Gloucester and to make a Park so as it was not within any Forrest and to Convert and use the Land inclosed of tillage into pasture pro sustentatione ferarum Damarum averiorum suorum by which he enclosed them and converted the Tillage into pasture for the Sustentation of his beasts Upon which it was demurred It was argued that the License was not good because the Statute of 5. Eliz. was to continue but till the beginning of the next Session of Parliament at which time the Statute ended and was not revived till Anno 13. Eliz. so as in Anno 9. when the License was there was not any Statute to prohibit the Conversion of tillage into Pasture and therefore the License in 9. Eliz. could not dispense with the Statute of 13. Eliz. and the Statute of 13 Eliz. did not make such reviver of the Statute of 5. Eliz. as made mean Acts good by any Relation Quaere the Case was not adjudged but adjorned Dolman and the Bishop of Salisburies Case 250. Quare Imp. brought the Defendent pleaded the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benifice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8. that Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take 2. Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second benefice and dyed The question was whether the Pope before the Statute of 25 H. 8. might grant dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the Kings of England had been Soveraigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held that the dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. and that this dispensation to retain a second benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. Lacyes Case 251. In a scire facias upon a Recognizance for not appearing before the Justices of Assise at York the Defendant pleaded that after the Recognizance taken a Commission issued to the Admiral and others to hear and determine Treasons Felonies c. done within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and that the Commissioners sent to Arrest him before the day of his Appearance because he had mortally wounded a Man upon Scarborow sands if within the flux and reflux of the Sea of which wound he dyed at Scarborow and that thereupon he was Arrested and detained in prison till after the day of Appearance and afterwards was Indicted and arraigned of the said Felony before the Commissioners The Court inclined to be of opinion that the Arrest was a sufficient excuse of his appearance because the Recognizance is a duty to the Queen and the Commission is the Act of the Queen and all that the Commissioners do is by authority from the Queen and in her person and shall be accounted her Act and then when she her self is a cause that the Defendant could not appear that she should not have benefit of the Recognizance 252. The Condition of an Obligation was That if the Obligor pay at or before the 25th day of March he tenders the money the 24th day It was the opinion of Anderson that if he tender the money the last instant of the 24th day he saveth his Bond But the other Justices held the contrary because the word before is not to have any Construction but the Obligor shall be admitted to pay it before by agreement only of the Obligee Quaere 253. A man seised of 3. Mannors in Fee of the value of 300 l. Covenanted in Consideration of the Mariage of his daughter that he would suffer 20 l. yearly to discend come and remain to his daughter and her Husband and the Heirs of their bodies It was the opinion
and if they had imployed nothing that way then nothing was given to the Crown In the principal Case it was adjudged against the Queen and Informer Bossevile and the Corporation of Bridgwaters Case 263. King H. 8. Anno 33. of his Raign made a Lease to the Earl of Bath of the Rectory of Bridgewater and of the Tythes of 2. Hamlets in W. parcell of the said Rectory at the Rent of 10 l. which lease continued till 2. Eliz. in which year Bossevile purchases from the Queen the Rectory of W. of the value of 10 l. yearly and had general Words of the Tythes within the 2. Hamlets but the Lease to the Earl of Bath that was then in esse was not recited and afterwards 3. Eliz. the Queen granted the Rectory of Bridgwater and the Tythes of the 2. Hamlets and all which was in the Earl of Baths Lease to the Corporation of Bridgwater Bossevile by vertue of the Statute of 18. Eliz. of Non Recitals and Misrecitals which had retrospect to the beginning of the Raâ—gn of the said Queen claymed the Tythes within the said 2. Hamlets against the Corporation After a long Argument upon a Reference out of the Court of Wards to the Chief Justices Wray and Anderson it was Resolved by them That the Patent was good without recital to Bossevile against the Queen by relation of the Statute of 18. Eliz. which makes Patents good from 2. November in the first year of the Queen and should binde the Queen her Heirs and Successors but should not be good against the Corporation of Bridgwater and therefore the Case in the Court of Wards was decreed against Bossevile Diggs Case 264. An Annuity was granted in fee at the first day of payment the Annuity was paid to the Grantee and the Grantee made an Acquittance thereof to the Grantor and in the end of the Acquittance he released to the Grantor all Actions and after at the next payment the same was behind and the Grantee brought a VVrit of Annuity against which the Grantor pleaded the Release in Barre It was strongly objected that by the Release the Annuity was determined being a personal thing and a thing in Action But it was resolved by the Court That for an Annuity before the day of payment an Action did not lye and that before it was not therefore resolved by the Release of all Actions before the day of payment and although an Annuity be a Personal thing for which the Grantee hath not any remedy but by way of Action yet it is not a thing in Action It was adjudged for the Plaintiff that the Action was well brought notwithstanding the Release Stantons Case 265. S. at the age of 16. years bound himself an Apprentice in London to I. S. by Indenture containing the ordinary words of every Indenture for Apprentices and afterwards by the command of his Master who was Baily of an Hospital in London and with those Moneys and other Moneys of his Masters he went away and had not discharged his Master against the Hospital for which he brought Covenant upon the Indenture The Defendant pleaded that he was within age in Barre of the Action and also said that upon this Custome the Defendant was impleadâ—â—â—e only in London and not in this Court The Court seemed to be of opinion That the Custome was a good Custome and the Defendant was lyable to the Action within the Custom and that he was impleadable within any place of England as well as in London and therefore that the Action was well brought 266. A Custome in London was set forth to be That if many are bounden in an Obligation as Sureties that if the Principal fail of payment so as that it one of the Sureties be sued upon the Obligation that he might have a VVrit De Contributione facienda against the Sureties and said that such VVrit was brought in London which was removed in C. B. It was remanded into London because the Common Pleas could not doe right upon the Custome Shelleyes Case 267. Upon a Special Verdict in Ejectione firme the Case was Ed. Shelley and Joan his VVife Tenants in special Tayle the Remainder in fee to Ed. had Issue then Hen and Richard Joan dyed Hen. dyed in the life of Ed. having Issue Mary It was found that Ed. by Indenture 1 2 Phil. Mar. covenanted with I. S. and others to suffer a common Recovery to the use of himself for life and after to I. B. for 24. years and after the years expired to the use of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Ed. and the Heirs Males of the Body of such Heirs Males and for want of such Issue to the use of the Heirs Males of the Body of John Shelly of M. c. and 9. Oct. the first day of the Term Ed. dyed between the hours of 5. and 6. in the morning and afterwards the same day the Recovery passed and that by a VVarrant of Attorney made in the life of Ed. Execution was the 19. day of October by Habere facias seisinam and it was found that 5. December following the wife of Hen. Shelly was delivered of Hen. the now Defendant The Land was also found to be in Lease for years at the time of the Recovery and that Richard Shelley the younger Son of Edward entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff In this Case there were these points 1. If the Recovery suffered by Ed. the day he dyed was good 2ly If being suffered by him Tenant in tayle it might be executed after his decease upon the Issue 3ly If any use did rise upon the Recovery before Execution 4ly If Richard the youngest Son before the birth of Hen. the Infant took the Land by purchase or by Discent This Case was many times argued at the Barre and afterwards for Difficulty was by the Command of the Queen adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber where it was argued by all the Judges of England and at last it was resolved against the Plaintiff and the reasons of their Judgements were these 1. Because they all agreed that Richard Shelley was in by Discent and not by Purchase after the death of Ed. and before the birth of Hen. the Defendant 2ly That the Recovery was good although that Ed. dyed the same day before the sitting of the Court 3ly That Execution might be sued against the Issue in tayle but that no Seisin was in the Recoverors nor any use raysed till Execution sued 268. A Lease for years was made upon Condition to re-enter for not payment of the Rent A man of ill fame out-lawed in 40. Action at the last instant of the day demanded the rent The Lessee asked him what authority he had to receive it he said he was senr thither by the Lessor but did not shew any warrant from him or that he was his Servant This was the opinion of the Justices that if any one would swear that was true against the Party who demanded
King cannot pardon Murder by pardon of feloniam feloniacam interfectionem without a special non obstante of the Statute 980. Resolved by the Justices that if an Executor pay a Debt due upon a present Obligation it is no Devastavit though there be a Statute or Recognisance broken for not performance of Covenants Ellis and Warâ—es Case 981. Debt The case was W. was endebted to A. 100 l. upon an usurious contract and A. was endebted to E. the Plaintiff 100 l. a just Debt for which W. and A. were bound to E. In Debt brought upon this Obligation W. the Defendant pleaded the Usury betwixt him and A. The Plaintâ—ff said that before that bond upon usury W. was indebted to him and bound for his debt and that he knew not of the usurious Contract betwixt W. and A. It was Resolved the Obligation made by W. the Defendant was a good bond pro vero debâ—to and that it was not usury in the Plaintiff and the usurious Contract betwixt W. and A. should not prejudice the Plaintiff Hall and Trusseâ—ls Case 982. Debt brought against the Defendant the Defendant pleaded an Attainder of himself after the debt due to the Plaintiff adjudged no plea. Oldcot and Levells Case 983. It was Resolved in this Case That a surrender by Tenant in Tail of a Copyhold was not a Discontinuance Also that a surrender by Tenant for life to the use of another in Fee was not a forfeiture 984. Note it was holden by the Court That if one will turn the extent upon the extendors for extending the Lands or goods at too high a Rate he must do it at the first day of the Return or not at all Griffith and Smiths Case 985. A man possessed of a Term for years of a Rectory and Lands devised the profits thereof for so many years as he should live and after he devised the profits to 20. of his poor Kindred and that after the death of his Wife the Rectory should be let by the advice of his over-seers and the Rent distributed to his said poor Kindred and made his Wife his Exâ—cutrix It was Resolved in this Case by all the Justices in the Exchequer Chamber that although a devise of the profits is a devise of the Land it self if there be no other circumstance in the Case yet because in this Case the devisor hath declared that the poor Kindred should not have the property oâ— the Term and he appoints a Lease to be made for Rent and the Rent to be distributed amongst them that the Executors should have the Term upon the Consideration to make the Lease and distribution and that the poor Kindred had only Trust and no Interest in the Term. 986. A man having spent his estate and living in great necessity said to his Wife that he was weary of his life and that he would kill himself The Wife said that then she would dye also with him he prayed her that she would go and buy Ratsbane and they would drink it together which she did and put it in drink and both of them drank of it the Husband dyed but the Wife recovered by vomiting Quâ—re if it was Murder in the Wife Not Resolved Baker and Bacons Case 987. The King having by the Statute of Dissolution all the Tyâ—â—es within St. Edmonds-Bury granted omnes decimaâ— nostras grandrum soem es in Buâ—y Sancti Edmundi Ac omnes alias decimas nostras infra Bury praedict ' quas Eleemosynaâ—â—us monasterii praedicti colligere solebâ—t Resolved that the Tâ—thes passed which the Almoner used to collect and that the Relation is to be expounded to the ac omnes alias decimas and not to the whole sentence 988. Note Tr. 2 Jac. in the Star Chamber It was Resolved by all the Justices of England that the Deprivation of â—uritan Ministers by High Commissioners for their refusal to conforme themselves to the Ceremonies appointed by the late Canons was Lawfull because the King hath the supream Ecclesiastical power which he hath delegated to them by which they had power of the Deprivation by the Canons of the Realm and the Statute of 1 Eliz doth not give them any new power but explaines and declares their ancient power 2. Resolved that the King may without Parliament make Institutions for the Government of the Clergy and may deprive them if they do not obey them and so the Commissioners may deprive them but they cannot make any Institution without the King 3. Resolved that to frame Petitions and to collect hands of multitudes of people to prefer to the King publike causes is an offence finable at discretion and deserves the punishment next to Treason and Fellony because it tends to raise Sedition Rebellion and discontent amongst the people 989. It was Resolved by all the Justices of England That Clergy is not allowable for Piracy upon an Indictment upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. unlesse the Piracy be done in a Creek in which the Common Law before the said Statute had Jurisdiction but not if it be done in alâ—o mari for such is felony by the Civil Law in which no Clergy was allowed 2. Resolved if the King pardon all Felonies by the Common Law or any Statute Felony done super altum mare is not pardoned Adyn and Ayâ—es Case 990. A Fieri sacias went to the Sherâ—ff â—o do Execution he seised certain Wood and after 〈…〉 discharged of his Office he â—old the Wood for satisfying the Execution It was adjudged that the sale was good upon the Statute of 34 H. 6. cap. 5. because he was charged with the value Sheldon and Handburyes Case 991. A Woman in the time she was separated from her Husband got a sum of money and with it bought Lands and took an Assuâ—ance thereof in the name of B. in trust B. lying sick at the request of the Woman made a Lease for 200. years to S. the Plaintiff upon condition he should pay the profits to the said Woman and also if B. lived to the first day of June following and then paid 12 d. to S. the Lease should be void B. lived to the day but did not pay the 12 d. but afterwards for 100 l. he made Lease to the Defendant with Covenants to save the Lessee from all Incumbrances B. dyed S. not having notice before of the Lease made to him entred It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Lease made by B. to S. at the request of the Woman in part of the performance of the Trust was not a fraudulent Lease within the Statute of 27 Eliz to defraude purchasor because he was in Conscience to perform the Trust to one who did not direct any second sale also at the time of the second Lease the power to revoke was void and the first Lease absolute Holder and Farleyes Case 992. Resolved that if a Woman be dowable of a Copyhold by Custome if the Husband after the Marriage make a Lease for years
confessed the conveying to Friends in trust to his own use The points 1. Whether R. C. by the Will of his Father-in-law or equiiy be entituled to the possibility of the Term that shall remain after the death of J. M. 2. Whether he may sue during the Life of J. M. for this possibility It was decreed in Chancery 1. P. C. is Cestuy que trust and although the possibility be not grantable nor diviseable by Law yet cestuy que trust may declare his VVill and so the VVill of P. C. doth amount to a Declaration of the Trust and ought to bind J. M. the Executor 2. That the acts of the Executor tending to destroy the possibility were breaches of the Trust 3. That Suit for prevention of Fraud or breach of Trust might be before the Trust doth fall to the intent to preserve the possibility The Bishop of Sarums Case 1032. King Edward the Fourth created the Office of Chancellor of the Garâ—er but did not annex any Fee to it and constituted B. Bishop of Sarum to be the first Chancellor during his Life and further granted that the Successors of the Bishop of Sarum for and after should be Chancellors of the Garter B. was received and did execute the Office and died Bishop of Sarum 22 E. 4. It did not appear that any Successor of the Bishop was admitted to the said office but the Kings of England have placed Chancellors If the Bishop of Sarum by Succession had title to the Office was the question It was Resolved he had no title to it 1. because the Pattent was originally void to make the Successor of a Bishop Officer for B. took the Estate for his Life in his natural Capacity and not in his politick Capacity and he could not take both in his natural and his politick Capacity together 2. Because there had not bin any use or exercise of the Office by any Successors 3. In this Case it was agreed that the constitution of a new Office and Officer was good though no Fee was annexed or given to it Tatton and Sir Richard Mollineux Case 1033. A Lessee for 99. years of the Rectory of B. by the Bishop of C. assigned the same to the Defendant and others to the use of the said A for Life the Remainder to B. the Plaintiff and to the Heirs Males of the said B. the Remainder to A. and to those he should assign the same by his Will and for want of such Limitation to the Executors and Administrators of A. A. assigned his Use Interest and Trust to I. S. B. by Decree at Chester recovered the Rectory against the Assignee paying 500 l. B. required the Defendant to assign all the Term to him and to such as he should appoint It was in the Chancery Decreed that the Defendant should make the Assignment to B. or to such as he should name because the Limitation to B. of the Trust and the Heirs Males of his body resembled a Grant or Devise of the Term itself to one and the Heirs Males of his body which cannot be an entail because against the Rules of Law that a Term should be entailed and therefore the Term for such Grant or Devise rests wholly in the Donee or Devisee and he hath the whole disposition of it and such a Term shall not go to the Issue but to the Executors of the Donee or Devise Boldney and Curties Case 1034. A man covenanted to make farâ—her assurance upon request be it by Fine c. The Plaintiff delivered to him a note of a Fine and required the Defendant to acknowledge the same before the Justices of Assize and he did not acknowledge it because no VVrit of Covenant was first brought or depending Resolved the Covenant was broken because the acknowledgment of the Note for a Fine is an Act preparatory for the Fine itself upon which a Writ of Covenant may be after sued â—orth Trot and Spâ—rlings Case 1035. In Audita Querâ—la the case was B. acknowledged a Statute to S. There was a defeazance of it That if his Lands in the county of D. should be extended the Statute should be void Afterwards B. sold his Lands in the county of D. to F. the Plaintiff which being extended he brought Audita Querela It was Resolved in this case by the Justices that the Audita Querela did well lie and F. should be relieved upon it for they held the defeazance to be good and not repugnant They agreed that if the Condition of an Obligation be that the party shall not sue the Obligation that the condition is repugnant but a Defezance by another Deed to that effect is good It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Swaine and Becketts Case 1033. The Queen seised of the Mannor of D. made a Lease thereof for years to I. S. excepting the Trees King James granted the reversion to the Plaintiff the custome of the Mannor was that a Copyholder of the Mannor might top and lop Trees The Defendant being a Copyholder cut Trees for firewood for which Trespass was brought Resolved that the Action did not lie because the Copyholder was in by the custom which was paramount the exception of the Trees in the Lease and the exception should not hinder the custom although the Copyholder came to his Estate after the Exception The Countess of Cumberlands Case 1037. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That great â—eeches of 200 years growth which were for use for Timber in the country where they did grow could not be felled or taken by Tenant for Life because they did belong to the Inheritance and so they said it was of Wind-falls which had Timber in them they did belong to the Inheritance otherwise if they were Dotards and had no Timber in them Lambs Case in the Star-Chamber 1038. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case 1. That the Procurer and also the VVriter of a Lâ—bel were both contrivers of it 2. That if a man read a Libel or heard it read the same is no publication of it but if after it is read he repeat it to another it is a publication of it 3. That he who writes a Libel by the commandment of his Master or Father is not a publisher of it Stone and Walters Case 1039. W. being robbed accused Stone being a Poulterer to be the party who robbed him but afterwards withdrew his accusation Stone not satisfied therewith brought his Action upon the case against W. W. then accused him again of the Felony for which he was bound over to the Sessions where W. swore directly that S. was the party that robbed him yet the Jury found an Ignoramus so as S. was never Indicted nor lawfully acquitted Yet for this conspiracy to accuse him W. and his conrederates were all fined and punished in the Star-chamber And in this case it was holden by the Justices that such Conspirators were punishable by Indictment although an Action upon the case did not lie for the party
The Spanish Ambassador and Plages Case 1040. Plage was pressed with his Ship at Lisbone to carry the King of Spains Soldiers to such a Port and had their Letters from the Vice-Roy of Portugal to trade to Brasil he performed the Service of Transportation and 14 months after traded at Brasil and freighted his Ship there for the transportation of Goods to Hamborough and was bound with Sureâ—ies in the Custom-house of Brasil to pay the customes due to the King of Spain at St. Michaels the Ship by tempest was forced into England and did not touch at St. Michaels The Spanish Ambassador pretending the Goods to be forfeit to the King of Spain sued for them in the Admiralty here and a Sentence was there for the King of Spain to have the Goods Plage sued to the Lord Chancellor here to have an Appeal from that Sentence and an Appeal was granted him Sir Thomas Palmers Case 1041. Sir Thomas Palmer who was attainted of Treason in the time of Ed 6. for natural affection 7 Ed 6 by Indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life the remainder to I. S. for Life the remainder to the first Son of the said I. S. in tail the remainder to his eighth Son he was attainted before I. S. had any Son It was Resolved that by the Attainder the Son of I. S. was barred which was afterwards born and the Fee-simple was in the Crown discharged of all the Remainders Jepps and Tunbridges Case 1042. The Defendant delivered a brief of the cause to some of the Jâ—rors impannelled before they appeared for their Instructions This was adjudged an offence for which he was Sentenced in the Star-chamber And in this case it was Resolved that the Plaintiff and Defendant himself may labor the Jurors to appear but a stranger cannot so do 2. That the writing of a Letter or a request by wordâ— by one not a party to the Suit to the Jurors to appear is Maintenance 3. It is not lawful for the party himself to instruct the Jurors either by writing or by word nor to promise them any Reward for their appearance for it is Embracery in them aswell as in a stranger Sis Tho. Dâ—wbridgecourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys Case 1043. The Defendant was decreed â—n Chanceâ—y to pay 1000 l. to the Plaintiff after the Decree the Defendant procured the Son of Sir Thomas by a Letter of Attorney which he had from his Father to agree only the Suit for 200 l. whereof 100 l. was paid in hand and the rest to be paid at a day certain to make a Release which the Son did in his own name but not in the name of his Father It was the opinion of the Justices and also of the Lord Chancellor that this Release was void Crew and Vernons Case in the Star-chamber 1644 Sir Randolph Crew and all those whose Estate c. he had in the Mannor of Crew time out of mind c. had had Turf to born in the House of Crew-hall in a great Waste called Okehanger Moor being interâ—upted he sued in the Exchequer at Chester whereupon Affidavit of the possession 60. years his possession was established After the hearing of the Cause there Vernon interrupted the servants of Crew and with Harrows tore the Turffs for which cause a Bill was exhibited in the Star-chamber against the said Vernon and others they put in a scandalous Answer saying that the Judge at Chester ought not in Justice have made such an Order and called the Affidavit an equivocating Affidavit and affirmed the owners of the Mannor of Crew had taken the Turff but by License and Vernon affirmed to the Court that he had a Release to shew for the discharging of the Prescription but no such Prescription could be shewed nor was but a Grant of Turff to be there taken In this case it was Resolved by the Court the Prescription was not determined by the new Grant but the Grant enured as a confirmation and so the title of Prescription remained 2. Resolved that the words spoken of the Court of Chester were very scandalous and the Affidavit which he called an equivocating Affidavit was approved by the whole wherefore the Defendants were sentenced and fined by the Court and the defendants were to acknowledge their offence to the Court of Chester Sir Anthony Barkers Case 1046. I. S. exhiâ—ited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Sir Anthony Barker and divers other Gentry of Credit and charged the Defendants with the forging of the Will of M. P. and with many undue practices in drawing the said M. P. to make such a Will At the hearing of the Cause the Plaintiff relinquished the Forgery confessing it was no Forgery but would have insisted upon the practices of the Defendants for drawing the said M. P. to make the Will The Court refused to permit the Plaintiff to insist upon the practices for if he would have insisted upon the practices he ought to have confessed the Will and then have shewed the undue practises used to draw her to make such Will Wherefore the Plaintiff was fined 200 l. to the King and the Court gave Damages to each of the Defendants and the reason why they gave damages they declared to be because the Bill being scandalous no action lay for the Defendants at Law because the Bill was prefered before competent Judges to punish the Offences if there had been any and therefore it was reason by reason of such defect of the Common Law in giving damages the Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause supplied the said defect Goodricks Case 1047. Goodrick at a Tavero said to D. being a Master of Arts at Cambridge That there was late a great Contestation befor the King betwixt the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northampton Lord Privy Seal because the Archbishop enformed that since the said Lord had been Warden of the Cinque Ports there were more Jesuites and Seminary Priests come into the Realm then before which he said was the Newes of the Court Another offence was That Ingram a Merchant had heard at Ligorne in Florence by two Students out of the Colledge at Rome that the Earl of Northampton writ a Letter to Cardinal Bellaâ—ine to pray him that no answer should be made to his book which he had Written upon the Treason of Garnet the Jesuite because he writ it only ad placandum Regem faciendum populum The Defendants were found Guilty upon their Confessions It was Resolved by the Justices it was a slander within the Statute of Z. R. 2. which moved sedition betwixt the King and his Nobles and that although the publisher did produce his author of such false newes yet he himself was punishable and if one saith there is common Rumor that such a one hath done such an act an action upon the Case lyeth although he doth produce his Author And in this Case it was agreed that if one sayes to another the effect of