fearing that this Daughter might be stoln from her applies her self to my Lady Gore and entreats her to take this Daughter into her House which she did accordingly My Lady had a Son then in France she sent for him and married him to this Ruth she being then under the Age of sixteen years without the Consent of her Mother who was her Guardian The Question was whether this was a Forfeiture of her Estate during Life It was proved at the Trial that the Mother had made a Bargain with the Lessor of the Plaintiff that in case he recovered she should have 1000 l. and the Chirds of the Estate and therefore she was not admitted to be a Witness The Plaintiff could not prove any thing to make a Forfeiture and therefore was nonsuited The Chief Iustice said that the Statute was made to prevent Children from being seduced from their Parents or Guardians by flattering or enticing Words Promises or Gifts and married in a secret way to their disparagement but that no such thing appeared in this Case for Dr. Hascard proved the Marriage to be at St. Clements Church in a Canonical Hour and that many People were present and that the Church Doors were open whilst he married them Anonymus BY the Statute of 21 Jacobi 't is Enacted 21 Jac. c. 23. That no Writ to remove a Suit out of an Inferior Court shall be obeyed unless it be delivered to the Steward of the same Court before Issue or Demurrer joined so as the Issue or Demurrer be not joined within six Weeks next after the Arrest or Appearance of the Defendant In this Case Issue was joined and the Steward refused to allow the Habeas Corpus and the Cause was tried but not before an Utter Barrister as is directed by the Statute Curia The Steward ought to return the Habeas Corpus and they having proceeded to try the Cause no Utter Barister being Steward let an Attachment go Claxton versus Swift Hill 1 Jac. 2. Rot. 1163. THE Plaintiff being a Merchant brought an Action upon a Bill of Exchange If the Plaintiff recover against the Drawer of a Bill he shall not afterwards recover against any of Endorsers setting forth the Custom of Merchants c. and that London and Worcester were ancient Cities and that there was a Custom amongst Merchants that if any person living in Worcester draw a Bill upon another in London and if this Bill be accepted and endorsed the first Endorser is liable to the payment That one Hughes drew a Bill of 100 l. upon Mr. Pardoe paiable to the Defendant or Order Mr. Swift endorsed this Bill to Allen or Order and Allen endorsed it to Claxton The Mony not being paid Claxton brings his Action against Hughes and recovers but did not take out Execution Afterwards he sued Mr. Swift who was the first Endorser and he pleads the first Recovery against Hughes in barr to this Action and avers that it was for the same Bill and that they were the same Parties To this Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer Mr. Pollexfen argued that it was a good Barr because the Plaintiff had his Election to bring his Action against either of the Endorsers or against the Drawer but not against all and that he had now determined his Election by suing the Drawer and shall not go back again though he never have Execution for this is not in the nature of a joint Action which may be brought against all 'T is true that it may he made joint or several by the Plaintiff but when he has made his choice by suing of one he shall never sue the rest because the Action sounds in Damages which are uncertain before the Iudgment but afterwards are made certain transeunt in rem judicatam and is as effectual in Law as a Release As in Trover the Defendant pleaded that at another time the Plaintiff had recovered against another person for the same Goods so much Damages 2 Cro. 73. Yelv. 65. Brown versus Wootton and had the Defendant in Execution and upon a Demurrer this was held a good Plea for though in that Case it was objected that a Iudgment and Execution was no satisfaction unless the Mony was paid yet it was adjudged that the cause of Action being against several for which Damages were to be recovered and because a Sum certain was recovered against one that is a good discharge against all the other but 't is otherwise in Debt because each is liable to the entire Sum. Chief Iustice If the Plaintiff had accepted of a Bond from the first Drawer in satisfaction of this Mony it had been a good Barr to any Action which might have been brought against the other Indorsers for the same and as this Case is the Drawer is still liable and if he fail in payment the first Endorser is chargeable because if he make Endorsement upon a bad Bill 't is Equity and good Conscience that the Endorsee may resort to him to make it good But the other Iustices being against the Opinion of the Chief Iustice Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pawley versus Ludlow DEBT upon a Bond. The Condition was That if John Fletcher shall appear such a day coram Justitiariis apud Westm c. that then c. The Defendant pleaded that after the 25th day of November and before the day of the appearance he did render himself to the Officer in discharge of this Bond and to this the Plaintiff demurred Darnel for the Defendant admitted that if a Scire Facias be brought against the Bail upon a Writ of Error 3 Bulstr 191. 2 Cro. 402. who plead that after the Recognizance and before the Iudgment against the Principal affirmed he rendred himself to the Marshal in discharge of his Bail that this is not a good Plea but that the Sureties are still liable 3 Jac. cap. 8. because by the Statute they are not only liable to render his Body but to pay the Debt recovered But if a Iudgment be had in this Court 1 Rol. Abr. 334. pl. 11. and a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber and pending that Writ of Error the Principal is rendred the Bail in the Action are thereby discharged It was argued on the other side E contra that this is not the like Case of Bail upon a Writ of Error for the Condition of a Recognizance and that of a Bond for Appearance are different in their nature the one is barely that the Party shall appear on such a day the other is that he shall not only appear and render his Body to Prison but the Bail likewise do undertake to pay the Debt if Iudgment should be against the Principal Now where the Condition is only for an Appearance at a day if the Party render himself either before or after the day 't is not good Chief Iustice If the Party render himself to the Officer before the
day of Appearance he is to see that he appear at the day either by keeping of him in Custody or letting of him to Bail the end of the Arrest is to have his Body here If he had not been bailed then he had still remained in Custody and the Plaintiff would have his proper remedy but being once let to Bail and not appearing in Court according to the Condition of the Bond that seems to be the fault of the Defendant who had his Body before the day of Appearance Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Serjeant Hampson's Case BY the Statute of Queen Elizabeth 't is Enacted 5 Eliz. c. 23. That if the person excommunicated have not a sufficient Addition or if 't is not contained in the Significavit that the Excommunication proceeds for some cause or contempt or of some original Matter of Heresie refusing to have his Child baptized to receive the Sacrament to come to Divine Service or Errors in Matters of Religion or Doctrine Incontinency Usury Simony Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court or Idolatry he shall not incurr the Penalties in the Act. Serjeant Hampson was excommunicated for Alimony and now Mr. Girdler moved that he might be discharged because none of the aforesaid Causes were contained in the Significavit Curia He may be discharged of the Forfeiture for that reason but not of the Excommunication Anonymus ONE who was outlawed for the Murder of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey now brought a Writ of Error in his Hand to the Bar praying that it might be read and allowed It was read by Mr. Astry Clerk of the Crown The Errors assigned were viz. That it did not appear upon the Return of the Exigent in the first Exact ' that the Court was held pro Comitatu That the Outlawry being against him and two other persons 't is said in the last Exact ' that Non comperuit but doth not say nec eorum aliquis comperuit For these Reasons the Outlawry was reversed and he held up his Hand at the Barr and pleaded Not-guilty to his Indictment and was admitted to Bail and afterwards he was brought to his Trial and no Witness in behalf of the King appearing against him he was acquitted The Mayor and Commonalty of Norwich versus Johnson A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given for the Plaintiff in the Common-Pleas in an Action of Waste Waste lies against an Executor de son tort of a Term. The Declaration was that the Plaintiff demised a Barn to one Took for a certain Term by vertue whereof he was possessed and being so possessed died that the Defendant was his Executor who entred and made Waste by pulling down of the said Barn The Defendant pleaded that Took died intestate and that he did not administer The Plaintiff replyed that he entred as Executor of his own Wrong and to this Plea the Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joined in the Demurrer This Case was argued by Mr. Appleton of Lincolns-Inn for the Plaintiff who said That an Action of Waste would not lie against the Defendant because the Mayor and Commonalty c. had a remedy by an Assise to recover the Land upon which the Barn stood and a Trover to recover the Goods or Materials and that such an Action would not lie against him at the Common Law because he neither was Tenant by the Curtesie nor in Dower against whom Waste only lay So that if the Plaintiff is entituled to this Action it must be by vertue of the Statute of Gloucester 6 Ed. 1. c. 5. but it will not lie against the Defendant even by that Statute because the Action is thereby given against the Tenant by the Curtesie in Dower for Life or Years and treble Damages c. But the Defendant is neither of those and this being a penal Law which not only gives treble damages but likewise the Recovery of the place wasted ought therefore not to be taken strictly but according to Equity Tenants at sufferance or at Will by Elegit or Tenants by Statute Staple 11 H. 6. c. 5. and also Pernors of Profits were never construed to be within this Statute and therefore a particular Act was made to give him in Reversion an Action of Waste where Tenant for life or years had granted over their Estates and yet took the Profits and committed Waste Then the Question will be Co. Lit. 371. what Estate this Executor de sontort hath gained by his Entry And as to that he argued that he had got a Fee-simple by Disseisin and that for this reason the Plaintiff was barred from this Action for if the Son purchase Lands in Fee and is disseised by his Father who maketh a Feoffment in Fee to another with Warranty and dieth the Son is for ever barred for though the Disseisin was not done with any intention to make such a Feoffment 1 Roll. Abr. 662. yet he is bound by this Alienation So where a man made a Lease for life and died and then his Heir suffered a Recovery of the same Land without making an actual Entry this is an absolute Disseisin because the Lessee had an Estate for life but if he had been Tenant at Will it might be otherwise But admitting that the Defendant is not a Disseisor then the Plaintiffs must bring their Case to be within the Statute of Gloucester as that he is either Tenant for life or years If he is Tenant for Life he must be so either by right or by wrong He cannot be so by right because he had no lawful Conveyance made to him of this Estate besides 't is quite contrary to the Pleading which is that he entred wrongfully Neither can he be so by wrong for such particular Estates 6 Co. 25. as for life or years cannot be gained by Disseisin and so is Heliar's Case in 6 Co. Then if this should be construed an Estate for years it must be gained either by the Act of the Party or by the Act of the Law but such an Estate cannot be gained by either of those means First it cannot be gained by the Act of the Party Moor 126. Kendrick versus Burges because an Executor de son tort cannot have any interest in a Term and for this there is an express Authority in this Court which was thus viz. A Lease in Reversion for years was granted to a man who died intestate his Wife before she had administred sold this Term to the Defendant and afterwards she obtained Letters of Administration and made a Conveiance of the same Term to the Plaintiff and Iudgment was given for the last Vendee because it was in the case of a Reversion of a Term for years upon which no Entry could be made and of which there could be no Executor de son tort though it was admitted by the Court that such an Executor might make a good sale of
sees his own time and advantage he will have his own choice do what they can for before they can complain of him which is a work of time and charge and trouble he will have done his work and so prevent them And then where is the freedom of Election This could never appear more plainly than in this Case of ours where the Election by the majority is set aside and the choice made by a lesser number and in effect by Mr. Mayor only is that which carries it It plainly appears that we had no sinister design to do any thing without the Mayor for we did all we could to get him to join with us and he thrice denied us but it as plainly appears that the Mayor had a design in refusing to do it till some of us must be gone and then to steal an Election behind our backs by a lesser number when he had the advantage After all that I have said I do agree that had eleven Aldermen of us gone about an Election without so much as desiring the Mayor to join with us or it may be upon once or twice being refused or when the Mayor had been occasionally absent or had it any way appeared that we meant a surprise in it or had we made a Choice subject to the least Exception and had he not obstinately gone away from us being in person upon the place without so much as giving us the least reason for his refusal I should have held my tongue and not have concern'd my self any farther in it I hope it sufficiently appears that I have been no Enemy to Government and Order But to choose an Alderman was our Duty and we were under an Oath to do our Duty and we did but discharge our Trust I may I think save my self the labour of arguing that however if we were mistaken in the Construction of the Charter and in the point of Law in the making of our Election yet here is no Riot in the Case for we are indicted for a Riot for a Riot is the doing of an unlawful act with force and violence neither are we an unlawful Assembly for that is where there is an intent to do an unlawful Act but still with force and violence but they go away without doing it as appears by Poulton de Pace Reg. Regin fol. 25. And in case the Election we made be adjudged duly made then the pretence of a Riot vanishes of it self as is held in Eden's Case Cro. Eliz. 697. If the Indictment be void for the principal matter which in the Case there was an unlawful Entry against the Statute of 8 H. 6. where that Statute was mis-recited they were not allowed in that case to stand upon the Riot I have but a short word more I have been the Recorder of Bristol these one and twenty years longer I think than any Man can be remembred I have sworn all the Aldermen that are now upon the Bench in my time and many more who are now dead I can say it without vanity till the time of this unhappy Election of Members to the Oxford Parliament which I sought not I had the good Will of all sides even of this Mr. Mayor who was Sir Richard Hart for I never would join with any Party but did all I could when I came amongst them to join them together and unite them For ever since they grew rich and full of Trade and Knighthood too much Sail and too little Ballast they have been miserably divided And unless this Court to whom I think it properly belongs upon complaint in such Cases will examine their Dis-orders and command Peace and Order to be observed in our Proceedings I cannot safely attend there any more nor hold any Gaol Delivery I submit what I have said to the Court. Whereupon the Court arrested the Iudgment Lord Grandison versus Countess of Dover IN a Prohibition the Case was Where an Administration once granted ought not to be repealed Charles Heveningham died Intestate leaving an only Sister Abigail then an Infant The Countess of Dover who was her Great Grandmother came into the Prerogative Court and prayed to be assigned her Guardian Ex officio which was granted and thereupon she obtained Administration durante minore aetate Afterwards my Lord Grandison brought a Prohibition suggesting that the Court had granted Administration upon a surprise and being Grandfather to the Children and so nearer of kinred prayed that Administration might be committed to him The Lady replyed that it was obtained after great deliberation and without any surprize and upon a Demurrer the Question was Whether this Administration was well granted to the Lady It was argued now by Dr. Master for the Plaintiff and afterwards by a Common Lawyer on the same side in Hillary Term following And by Dr. Reines and Sir William Williams for the Defendant The Civilian argued That the Father of both the Children died intestate and that their Mother administred and afterwards made a Will of which she appointed my Lord to be Executor and thereby committed the Infant to his Custody which being in Fact true the Curatorship of the Living Child by the Civil Law draws to it the Administration of the Estate of the dead Child There is a Statute Law which empowers the Father by Deed or Will to dispose the custody of his Child under Age 12 Car. 2. cap. 24. to any in Possession or Remainder who may take the Profits of his Lands and possess himself of the said Infant 's personal Estate and bring Actions in relation thereunto as a Guardian in Socage might have done And wherever a Father or †Quare of the Mother Mother has made such a disposition a Iudge cannot assign a Guardian The Spiritual Courts have power to repeal this Administration granted to my Lady Dover the Right is not in question for whoever has it reaps no advantage because 't is for the benefit of the Infant the contest is who ought to be admitted by the Spiritual Court to Administer It cannot be denied but that the Great Grandmother is a degree more remote than the Grandfather If therefore that Court hath entrusted one who ought not to have Administration they have an undoubted power in such case to make an Alteration If my Lord had been Administrator it had been agreeable to the Common-Law for he is Guardian in Socage durante minore aetate E contra E contra It was said That my Lord was really indebted to the Estate of the Infant intestate and therefore as this Case is the Spiritual Court ought not to repeal the Administration once granted for 't is for the benefit of the Infant 'T is not material who shall be Administrator for he who is so durante minore aetate hath no power over the Estate he is only a Curator in the Civil Law which is in the nature of a Bayliff in our Law who hath only power to sell bona peritura Probate
which she had discontinued by joining in the Fine with her second Husband but yet it was adjudged no Forfeiture because it was not within the intent of the Statute to restrain Women to dispose of their own Estates but only such as came from the Husband So here Vses are in the nature of private Laws and must be governed by the like intention of the Parties now 't is not to be supposed that the Father did intend to disinherit his only Daughter and Heir without notice of this Settlement therefore though he had not appointed any person in particular to give her notice yet it must of necessity be presumed that his intention was that she should have the Estate unless she had refused upon notice to comply with those Conditions imposed upon her Now the Daughter being Heir at Law and so having a good Title by descent if there be any Conveiance made by her Ancestor to defeat that Title and to which she is a Stranger she ought by the Rules of Law and Reason to have notice of it and so is the express Resolution in Frances's Case where the Devise and the Feoffment were both made to the Heir at Law And the reason why in Fry and Porter's Case notice was not held necessary was because the Devise was to a Grandaughter who was not Heir at Law for the Earl of Newport had three Sons then living and therefore the Parties whom it concerned had the same means to inform themselves upon what Conditions they were to have the Estate 3. The notice here given was not sufficient for as the Ordinary himself in Green's Case ought to have given the Patron notice of the Deprivation before a Lapse should incurr so the Trustees here ought to give the Daughter notice of this Proviso before she shall lose her Estate for Non-performance of the Conditions on which she should take it especially since the notice she had of this Proviso was not certain for 't is said she had notice not to marry without the consent of the Trustees but 't is not shewed who they are or how she should apply her self to them Besides there is something in this Proviso which the finding in the Verdict will not supply for it may be literally true that the Daughter married without the consent of the Trustees and yet no breach of the Condition because the Proviso is to restrain her from marrying without the consent of them or their Heirs now it was not found that the Feoffees were then living and if they were dead their Consent cannot be required and she might have the consent of their Heirs Mr. Franklyn who was the Husband of Laetitia the Aunt in Remainder hath likewise forfeited that Estate which he hath or may have in right of his Wife if she had any right by not taking upon him the name of Fitzgerald for if the Father would have disinherited his Daughter for Non-performance of this Proviso a fortiori he shall be intended to disinherit his Sister for making frustrate his desire in the settlement of his Estate In Easter-Term following Iudgment was given That the Estate Tail was not determined for want of notice according to the resolution in Frances's Case Hinton versus Roffey AN Action of Debt was brought against the Defendant In pleading the Statute of Usury the Agreement and the Sum taken must be set out 12 Car. 2. c. 13. who pleaded the Statute of Usury but did not shew any particular Agreement only in general that he was indebted to the Plaintiff in a Sum not exceeding 180 l. neither did he seth forth when the Interest of the Mony did commence and on what day it became due And upon a Demurrer it was objected that this Plea was too general because the Defendant ought to shew in particular what the Sum was in which he was indebted and how much the Plaintiff took above 6 l. per Cent. for if the certainty thereof did not appear there could be no Fact applied to it But on the other side it was alledged that it was not material to shew the certain Sum which the Plaintiff took above 6 l. E contra per Cent. and therefore not necessary to set forth the particular Agreement between them for having pleaded and made a substantial Averment to bring his Case within it 't is well enough without shewing how much he took above six in the hundred And this Case was compared to Debt against an Administrator Moon versus Andrews Hob. 133. who pleaded in Bar a Iudgment c. and that he had fully administred and had not Assets praeterquam bona c. non attingen to 5 l. and upon Demurrer this was held a good Plea for though in strictness of Pleading the Defendant ought to have shewed the certain value of the Goods and not to have said non attingen to 5 l. yet the substance sufficiently appears that he had not more than 5 l. to satisfie a Debt of an 100 l. for which that Action was brought Jefferies Chief Iustice and the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff because the Defendant ought to have set forth the Agreement and to apply it to the Sum in the Declaration Smith versus Goodier IN Ejectment for the Mannor of Heythorpe Attornment must be proved where an Ejectment is brought for a Mannor parcel in Rent and Services c. Vpon Not-guilty pleaded there was a Trial at Bar by an Oxfordshire Iury. The Title of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was That Edmund Goodier Esquire was seized in Fee of the said Mannor part in Demesnes some part in Leases for years with Rent reserved and some part in Services and being so seized made a Feoffment in Fee to Sir John Robinson and Sir William Rider and their Heirs in Trust for Sir Robert Masham This Deed was dated in 1647. and the consideration was 5000 l. paid to Goodier there was a Letter of Attorny of the same date with the Deed and Livery and Seisin endorsed Serjeant Maynard who was of Council for the Defendant put the Plaintiff to prove an Attornment of the Tenants for having declared for a Mannor Lit. Sect. 553. 1 Roll. Abr. 293. parcel in Rents and Services those would not pass without an Attornment and of this Opinion was the whole Court but the Plaintiff would not prove an Attornment The Defendant made a Title under the Marriage Settlement of the said Goodier who in 17 Jacobi married Elizabeth Mees and then he setled the said Mannor upon himself for life and upon his Issue in Tail Male and that the Defendant was the Heir in Tail But on the other side it was insisted that this Settlement was fraudulent against the Purchasor Evidence of a Fraudulent Settlement and that it could not be thought otherwise because both the Original and Counterpart were found in Mr. Goodiers Study after his death and because he had made Oath before a Master in Chancery that there was no incumberance
the Common Law for a false Oath made by any Witness and therefore an Action will not lye for a scandalous Affidavit Adjornatur Anonymus NOta An Action of Assault and Battery Release of one Def. shall not discharge the rest of a personal thing and false imprisonment was brought against four Defendants the Plaintiff had Iudgment and they brought a Writ of Error The Plaintiff in the Action pleaded the Release of one of them and to this Plea all four jointly demur The Opinion of the Court was that Iudgment might be given severally for they being compelled by Law to join in a Writ of Error the release of one shall not discharge the rest of a personal thing But where divers are to recover in the personalty 6 Co. Ruddock's Case the Release of one is a Bar to all but it is not so in point of discharge If two Coparceners make a Lease of a House and the Rent is in arrear and one of them brings the Action and recovers the Iudgment shall be arrested because one alone hath recovered in Debt for a moiety when both ought to join But it is agreed that if one Tenant in Common make a Lease rendring Rent which afterwards is in arrear Litt. Sect. 316. they must join in an Action of Debt because it savours of the Personalty But 't is otherwise in case of the Realty DE Term. Sanct. Trin. Anno 2 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1686. Herbert Chief Justice Wythens Justices Holloway Justices Wright Justices Sawyer Attorny General Powis Sollicitor General Aldridge versus Duke ASsault Trespass continued many years and the Statute of Limitations pleaded the Jury gives Damages only for the last six years Battery Wounding and Imprisoning of him from the 10th of August 24 Car. 2. usque exhibitionem Billae The Defendant pleaded not Guilty infra sex infra Annos The Plaintiff replied that the Writ was sued out 2 Octobris 1 Jacobi 2. And that the Defendant was Guilty within six years next before the Writ brought Vpon this Issue was joyned and a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff and entire damages given Mr. Pollexfen moved two Exceptions in Arrest of Iudgment 1. That a Verdict cannot help what appears to be otherwise upon the face of the Record Now here the Plaintiff declared that he was imprisoned the 10th of August 24 Car. 2. which is 13 years since and being one entire Trespass the Issue is found as laid in the Declaration which cannot be for so many years between the cause of Action and bringing of the Writ for if a Trespass be continued several years the Plaintiff must sue only for the last six years for which he hath a compleat cause of Action but when those are expired he is barred by the Statute When the Plaintiff hath any cause of Action Sid. 25. then the Statute of Limitations begins as in an Action on the Case for words if they are actionable in themselves without alledging special damages the Plaintiff will recover Damages from the time of the speaking and not according to what loss may follow So in Trover and Conversion when there is a cause of Action vested and the Goods continue in the same possession for seven years afterwards in such case 't is the first conversion which entitles the Plaintiff to an Action So in the Case at Bar tho' this be a continued imprisonment yet so much as was before the Writ brought is barred by the Statute Thompson contra The Verdict is good for the Iury reject the beginning of the trespass and give Damages only for that which falls within the six years and this may be done because 't is laid usque exhibitionem Billae If the Defendant had pleaded not Guilty generally Cro. Car. 160 381 404. then Damages must be for the 13 years though the Plaintiff of his own shewing had brought his Action for a thing done beyond the time limited by the Statute but having pleaded not Guilty at any time within six years if the Verdict find him guilty within that time 't is against him As to the Objection that the Cause of Action ariseth beyond six years tho' it doth appear so in the Declaration yet that doth not exclude the Plaintiff for there might have been Process out before or he might be disabled by an Outlawry which may be now reversed or he might be in Prison and newly discharged from which time he hath six years to begin his Action for being under either of these circumstances the Statute doth not hurt him Curia If an Action of false Imprisonment be brought for seven years and the Jury find the Defendant guilty but for two days 't is a Trespass within the Declaration This Statute relates to a distinct and not to a continued Act for after six years it will be difficult to prove a Trespass many accidents may happen within that time as the death or removal of Witnesses c. Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dobson versus Thornistone THE Plaintiff was a Husbandman Words spoken of a Farmer actionable who brought an Action against the Defendant for these words He owes more mony than he is worth he is run away and is broke He had a Verdict and it was moved now in Arrest of Iudgment that the Words being spoken of a Farmer are not actionable To say that a Gentleman is a Cozener Hill 28 Eliz. B.R. Godb. 40. a Bankrupt and hath got an Occupation to deceive Men though he used to Buy and Sell yet being no Merchant 't was the better Opinion of the Court that the Words were not actionable So to say of a Farmer Stiles 420. that he is a Whoreson Bankrupt Rogue and it not appearing that he got his living by Buying and Selling or that the Words were spoken of him relating to his Occupation 't is not actionable For it must not only appear that the Plaintiff hath a Trade Sid. 299. Hutt 50. but that he gets his Living by it otherwise the Words spoken of him will not bear an Action But the Court held the Words to be actionable the like Iudgment was given in the Case of a Carpenter Mich. 3 Jac. for Words Viz. He is broke and run away Anonymus NOta Misentry of a Writ of Enquiry amendable without paying Costs Iudgment was given upon a Demurrer and a Writ of Enquiry was awarded and in the Entry thereof upon the Roll the Words per Sacramenum duodecim proborum legalium hominum were left out and now the Question was Whether it shall be amended It was said that a Capiatur for a Misericordia shall be amended upon the new Statute of Jeofails after a Verdict but whether upon a Demurrer it was doubted In a Quo Warranto Iudgment was entred by disclaimer Cro. Car. 184. by the consent of all Parties and the Words virtute praetextu literarum patentium geren dat 17 Jacobi were wrote in the Margin of the
Sir Thomas claimed a Property whereupon he was ordered to amend his Return and then the Court of Common-Pleas bailed him Banson versus Offley AN Appeal of Murder was tried in Cambridgshire against three persons An Appeal of a Murder was tried not where the Stroak was given but where the Party died and the Count was that Offley did assault the Husband of the Appellant and wounded him in Huntingtonshire of which Wound he did languish and dye in Cambridgeshire and that Lippon and Martin were assisting The Iury found a special Verdict in which the Fact appeared to be that Lippon gave the Wound and that Martin and Offley were assisting The first Exception to this Verdict was that the Count and the Matter therein alledged must be certain and so likewise must the Verdict otherwise no Iudgment can be given but here the Verdict finding that another person gave the Stroak and not that person against whom the Appellant had declared 't is directly against her own shewing 2. This Fact was tried by a Iury of Cambridgshire when it ought to have been tried by a Iury of both Counties The Court answered to the first Exception that it was of no force and that the same Objection may be made to an Indictment where in an Indictment if one gives the Stroak and another is abetting they are both principally and equally guilty and an Indictment ought to be as certain as a Count in an Appeal As to the second Exception 't is a good Trial by a Iury of Cambridgshire alone and this upon the Statute of 2 3 Ed. 6. 2 3 Ed. 6. cap. 24. the Words of which Statute are viz. Where any person c. shall hereafter be feloniously striken in one County and dye of the same Stroak in another County that then an Indictment thereof found by the Jurors of the County where the death shall happen whether it be found before the Coroner upon the sight of the Body or before the Justices of the Peace or other Justices or Commissioners who shall have Authority to enquire of such Offences shall be as good and effectual in the Law as if the Stroak had been in the same County where the Party shall dye or where such Indictment shall be found 'T is true 4 Inst 49 that at the Common Law if a Man had received a mortal Wound in one County and died in another the Wife or next Heir had their Election to bring an Appeal in either County but the Trial must be by a Iury of both Counties But now that mischief is remedied by this Statute which doth not only provide that an Appeal shall be brought in the County where the Party dyed but that it shall be prosecuted which must be to the end of the Suit Adjornatur Dominus Rex versus Hinton and Brown AN Indictment was brought against the Defendants setting forth Subornation of Perjury that a Conventicle was held at a certain place and that they movebant persuadebant subornaverunt a certain person to swear that several Men were then present who really were at that time at another place They were found guilty and a Writ of Error was brought to reverse the Iudgment the Error assigned was that the Indictment doth not set forth that any Oath was made so it could not be Subornation There is a difference between the persuading of a man to swear falsly and Subornation it self for an Indictment for Subornation always concludes contra formam Statuti Curia 'T is not enough to say a Man suborned another to commit a Perjury but he must shew what Perjury it is which cannot be without an Oath for an Indictment cannot be framed for such an Offence unless it appear that the thing was false which he was perswaded to swear The Question therefore is If the person had sworn what the Defendants had persuaded him to do whether that had been Perjury There is a difference when a Man swears a thing which is true in Fact and yet he doth not know it to be so and to swear a thing to be true which is really false the first is Perjury before God and the other is an Offence of which the Law takes notice But the Indictment was quashed because the Words Per Sacramentum duodecim proborum legalium hominum were left out They held that if the Return had been right upon the File the Record should be amended by it Blaxton versus Stone THE Case was this viz. A Man seised in Fee c. What words make an Estate Tail in a Will had Issue two Sons he devised all his Land to his eldest Son and if he die without Heirs Males then to his other Son in like manner The Question was Whether this was an Estate Tail in the eldest Son Curia 'T is plain the Word Body which properly creates an Estate Tail is left out but the intent of the Testator may be collected out of his Will that he designed an Estate Tail for without this Devise it would have gone to his second Son if the first had died without Issue 'T is therefore an Estate Tail DE Termino Paschae Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687. Herbert Chief Justice Wythens Justices Holloway Justices Powel Justices Dominus Rex versus William Beal MEmorandum A Souldier executed not in the County where he wes condemned That on Saturday April 15. Mr. Attorny moved that this Court would award Execution upon the Defendant who was a Souldier for deserting of his Colours and was condemned for the same at the Affizes at Reading in Berks and reprieved and that he might be executed at Plymouth where the Garrison then was The Chief Iustice in some heat said that the Motion was irregular for the Prisoner was never before the Court. Mr. Attorny then moved for a Habeas Corpus and on Tuesday April the 18th the Souldier was brought to the Barr and Mr. Attorny moved it again But it was affirmed by the Chief Iustice and Iustice Wythens that it could not be done by Law for the Prisoner being condemned in Berks and reprieved by the Iudge to know the Kings Pleasure and now brought hither cannot be sent into another County to be executed it may be done in Middlesex by the Prerogative of this Court which sits in that County but no where else but in the proper County where the Trial and Conviction was so the Prisoner was committed to the Kings Bench and the Record of his Conviction was not filed But it was the King's Will that this Man should be executed at Plymouth where the Garrison was that by this Example other Souldiers might be deterred from running from their Colours SIR Robert Wright who was made Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in the room of Sir Henry Beddingfield who died the last Term as he was receiving of the Sacrament was on Friday following being the 21st of April made Chief Justice of this Court in the place of
forth that the Plaintiff was amerced and that it was affered at the Court and so he hath confounded the Office of the Iurors and Affearers together which he ought not to do for he should be amerced to a certain Sum Hob. 129. Rol. Abr. 542. and not in general which Sum may be mitigated or affered by others If it had been a Fine 8 Co. 38. 1 Leon. 142. it need not be affered because that is imposed by the Court but this is an Amerciament which is the act of the Jury and therefore it must be affered 3. The chiefest Exception was to the matter of the Warrant viz. the Defendant sets forth that he seised by virtue of a Precept from the Dean and Chapter whereas he ought to shew it was directed to him from the Steward of the Court and then to set forth the Warrant without which he cannot justifie to distrain for an Amerciament And of this Opinion was the whole Court and therefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in Michaelmas Term Primo Will. Mariae If it had been in Replevin where the Defendant made cognizance in the right of the Lord it might be well enough as here pleaded but where 't is to justifie by way of excuse there you must averr the Fact and alledge it to be done and set forth the Warrant it self 3 Cro. 698.748 1 Leon. 242. and the taking virtute Warranti for a Bayliff of a Liberty cannot distrain for an Amerciament by virtue of his Office but he must have a Warrant from the Steward or Lord of the Leét for so doing The other Exception that the Amerciament ought to be to a Sum Rast Ent. 606. Co. Ent. 665. the Presidents are otherwise for an Amerciament per duodecim probos legales homines adtunc ibidem jurat ad 40 s. afferat ' is well enough but the Warrant is always set forth Dominus Rex versus Darby THE Defendant was indicted for speaking of scandalous words of Sir J.K. a Justice of the Peace Viz. Sir J.K. Indictment for Scandalous words is a buffle-headed Fellow and doth not understand Law he is not fit to talk Law with me I have bafled him and he hath not done my Clyent Justice Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant said that an Indictment would not lye for these words because not spoken to the Party in the exceution of his Office but behind his back it will not lye for irreverent words but for Libels and Writings because such are publick but words are private offences But the Court being of Opinion that an Indictment would lye where an Action would not because it respects the publick Peace and that an Action would not lye in this Case unless the party had a particular loss Sid. 65. 2 Cio 5 8. and therefore it hath been held not to be actionable to call a Iustice of Peace Fool Ass Coxcomb He then took Exceptions to the Form of the Indictment 1. There is no place of Abode laid where the Defendant did inhabit which is expresly required by the Statute of H. 5. Viz. 1 H. 5. cap. 5 That in Indictments there shall be addition of the Estate Degree c. and of the Towns Hamlets Places and Counties where the Defendants dwell And by the Statute of H. 6. 8 H. 6. cap. 12 which gives the Iudges power to amend Records in affirmations of Iudgments such defects which are named in the Statute of H. 5. are excepted and therefore where a Writ of Error was brought to reverse an Outlawry upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 2 Cro. 167. the Defendant was Indicted by the Name of Nicholas Leech de Parochia de Aldgate and did not shew in what County Aldgate was and for this cause it was reversed 2. The Caption is coram Justiciariis ad pacem dicti Domini Regis conservand ' and the word nunc is left out It was the Opinion of Iustice Twisden that it ought to be nunc conservand ' Sid. 422. for otherwise it may be the Peace of King Stephen The Councel on the other side said that it was a new Doctrine that the King shall not have the same Remedy by an Indictment which the Subject may have by an Action What is the meaning of the words of all Commissions de propalationibus verborum As to the first Exception they said that the Indictment was certain enough for the Defendant is laid to be de Almondbury in the West-Riding of Yorkshire To the second Exception they said that ad pacem conservand ' without nunc is well enough for it cannot be intended upon this Indictment that they were Iustices to preserve the Peace in any other Kings Reign and what was quoted out of Siderfin is but the Opinion of one single Iudge This is a Scandal upon the Government and 't is as much as to say that the King hath appointed an ignorant Man to be a Iustice of Peace for which an Indictment will lye And of that Opinion was the whole Court and gave Iudgment accordingly Ball versus Cock A Writ of Covenant did bear Teste the first day of Trinity Term Error to reverse a Fine where the Cognisor died after the Caption and before it passed the King's Silver retornable tres Trinitatis and it was taken by Dedimus 30 Julii A Writ of Error was brought to reverse this Fine and the Error assigned was that the Cognizor died after the Caption and before the Enrolment at the King's Silver Office It was argued by the Councel for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that a Fine Sur Cognizance de droit c. is said to be levied when the Writ of Covenant is returned and the Concord and King's Silver which is an antient Revenue of the Crown pro licencia concordandi duly entred for though the Cognisor dieth afterwards Dyer 220. b. 5 Co. 37. Cro. Eliz. 469. the Fine is good and the Land passeth but if the King's Silver be not entred the Fine may be reversed by Writ of Error for it is an Action and Iudgment and the death of either Party abates it If it should be objected that this cannot be assigned for Error because 't is against the Record which is Placita terrae irrotulat de Termino Sanctae Trinitatis anno primo Jacobi c. 'T is true an Error cannot be assigned against the very essence of a Record but in the matter of time it may and so 't is in this Case 'T is like Syer's Case 32 Eliz. 3 Inst 230. 4 Co. Hind's Case 10 H. 7.24 who was indicted for a Burglary supposed to be done primo Augusti and upon the Evidence it appeared to be done primo Septembris and though he was acquitted of the Indictment for that reason viz. because the Iudgment relates to the day of the Indictment yet it was resolved by all the Iudges of England that the very day needs not be set down in
eisdem Vic. pd Alias Sci. fa. awarded per probos c. Scire fac praefati Donato Obrian qd sit coram Domino Rege apud le Kings Courts die Mercurij prox ' post quinque septimanas Paschae ad ostend in forma praed si c. Ulterius c. Idem dies dat est praefat Abel Ram ibidem c. Ad quem diem coram dicto Domino Rege apud the Kings Courts ven praed Sheriffs Return Abel per Faustinum Cuppaidge Attornatum suum praefat Vic. ut prius retorn qd praefat Donatus Obrian nihil habet in balliva sua per quod ei scire facere potuissent nec est invent in eadem super quo praed Donat. The Defendant appears and pleads another Sci. fa. against himself and Wife Obrian per Johannem Morris Attornatum suum ven defend vim injuriam quando c. Et dicit qd praed Abel Ram executionem suam versus eum de debito dampnis praed habere non debet quia dicit qd praed Abel Ram alias super recuperationem adjudicationem praed tulit breve Domini Caroli Secundi nuper Regis Angliae c. tunc Vic. dicti nuper Regis Com. Civit. Dublin direct ad praemuniend ' ipsum Donat. Obrian dictam Elizabetham tunc Uxorem ejus ad essend ' coram ipso nuper Rege apud le Kings Courts die Sabbati prox post Quinden Sancti Martini tunc dicti nuper Regis tricesimo sexto ad ostend ' si quid ipsi idem Donat. Elizabetha tunc Uxor ejus pro se haberent aut dicere scirent quare praed Abel Ram executionem suam versus eos de debito dampnis praed non haberet juxta vim formam recuperationis praed si sibi vidissent expedir ' Et ad diem ill ' coram ipso nuper Rege apud the Kings Courts praed ven praed Abel Ram in propria persona sua praed Donat Obrian Elizabetha Uxor ejus solempnit exact ' non ven Johannes Coyne Samuel Walton Ar ' tunc Vic. Com. Retorn ' vic Civit praed super breve praed eis per nomen Vic Com. Civitat Dublin direct ' retornaver ' qd praed Donat. Obrian Elizabetha tunc Uxor ejus nihil habuer ' in balliva sua super quo eis Scire fac potuissent neque fuer ' invent Alias Sci fa. in eadem balliva ideo sicut alias praecept fuit eisdem Vic. qd per probos legales homines c. Scire Fac. praefat Donat. Obrian Elizabethae qd essent coram dicto nuper Rege apud le Kings Courts praed die Mercurij prox ' post Octab. Sancti Hillarij tunc prox ' futur ad ostend si quid pro se haberent vel dice scirent quare praed Abel executionem suam versus eos de debito dampnis praed non haberet in forma praed idem dies dat fuit praefat Abel Ram ibidem c. Et eodem die ill ' coram dicto nuper Rege apud the Kings Courts praed ven praed Abel per praed ' Fustinum Cuppaidge Attornatum suum praefat tunc Vic. retornaver super breve de al. Scire fac eis in forma praed direct qd praed Donat. Elizabetha nihil habuer in balliva sua per quod eis Scire fac potuissent neque fuer ' invent in eadem praed Abel Ram obtulit se quarto die placiti versus praefat The Baron and Feme appear and plead that Execution was levied upon the Judgment by a Fieri fac Donat. Elizabetham super hoc iidem Donat. Elizabetha per Henr. Daniel tunc eorum Attorn ven dixer qd praefat Abel Ram executionem suam versus eos de debito dampnis praed habere non debuit quia dixer qd praedict Abel Ram infra unum Annum post recuperationem adjudicationem praed prosecut fuit breve Domini tunc Regis tunc Vic. Com. Civit. Dublin direct de Fier fac de bonis catallis ipsorum Donat. Elizabethe debitum dampna praed ill habere coram dicto nuper Rege die Mercurij prox post Quinden Pasch ' prox post recuperationem adjudicium praedict ad reddend praefat Abel Ram pro debito dampnis praed dixer qd iidem tunc Vic. virtute ejusdem brevis apud Civit. Dublin in Paroch Sancti Michaelis in Com. ejusdem Civitat levaver debitum dampna praed de bonis catallis ipsorum Donat. Elizabethe c. Et ideo petier judicionem si praed Abel executionem suam de debito dampnis praed versus eos iterum habere deberet Et postea scilicet die Sabbati prox ' post Crastin ' Ascentionis Domini tunc prox ' futur coram dicto tunc Rege apud le Kings Courts Relicta verificatione placiti praed vener prates praed per Attorn suos praed super hoc iidem Donatus Elizabetha per Henr. Daniel Attornatum suum praed reliquer ' verificationem placiti sui praed Judgment thereupon ideo adtunc ibidem cons fuit qd praed Abel haberet executionem suam versus prefat Donat. Elizabetham de debito dampnis praed juxta vim formam effectum recuperationis adjudicationis praedict super hoc idem Abel obtinuit executionem ill versus ipsos Donat Elizabetham praed Donat. in facto dic qd ' praed debitum dampna praed de quibus sic adjudicat fuit qd praed Abel haberet executionem suam praed in forma praed sunt eadem debitum dampna mentionat in dict brevibus de Scire fac versus ipsum Donat. nunc latis non alia neque diversa qd dict' recuperatio eadem quam sic adjudicat fuit est eadem recuperatio adjudicatio mentionat in dict' Brevibus de Scire fac versus ipsum Donat. in forma praed latis non alia neque diversa hoc idem Donatus parat est verificare unde ex quo nulla fit mentio considerationis adjudicationis praedict in dict' Brevibus de Scire fac idem Donatus Obrian pet Judicium si Cur ' hic al. executionem super recuperationem adjudicationem praed in dict' nunc Brevibus de Scire fac mentionat adjudicari debeat c. Et praed Abel Ram dic ' qd praed placitum praed Donat. Demurrer Obrian superius placitat materiaque in eodem content minus sufficiens in lege existit ad ipsum Abel Ram ab executione sua praed versus ipsum Donat. habend precludend ' quodque ipse ad placitum ill ' necesse non habet nec per legem terrae tenetur respondere hoc parat est verificare unde pet judicium executionem suam de debito dampnis praed versus ipsum Donat. sibi adjudicari pro causa
per Billam sine Brevi nostro per Judicium ejusdem Curiae recuperavit versus Donatum Obrian Armigerum Elizabetham Obrian alias Grey uxorem ejus tam quoddam debitum octingent ' libr ' sterling ' quam tres libras undecim solid ' sex denar ' consimilis monetae quae eidem Abel in in eadem Curia nostra coram nobis adjudicat ' fuer ' pro dampnis suis quae fustin ' tam occasione detentionis debiti illius quam pro mis custag ' suis per ipsum circa sectam suam in hac-parte apposit ' unde convict ' sunt sicut nobis constat de Recordo Executio tamen Judicii praed ' adhuc restar faciend ' ê‘ut ex insinuatione ipsius Abel accepimus Unde nobis supplicavit idem Abel sibi de remedio suo congruo in hac parte adhiberi nos volentes eidem Abel fieri quod est justum vobis praecipimus sicut alias vobis praeceperimus qd ' per probos legales homines de Balliva vestra Scire fac praefat ' Donat ' Obrian Elizabethae uxor ' ejus qd ' sint coram nobis apud the Kings Courts die Mercurii prox post Octab. Sancti Hillarii prox futur ' ad ostend ' si quid pro se habeant vel dicere sciant quare praed ' Abel executionem suam versus eos de debito dampnis praed habere non debet juxta vim formam effectum recuperationis praed si sibi viderit expediri ulterius factur ' receptur ' quod Curia nostra coram nobis de eo adtunc ibidem cons in hac parte Et habeas ibi tunc nomina eorum per quos eis Scire fec Et hoc breve Teste Robero Booth Mil. apud the Kings Courts vicesimo octavo die Novembris Anno Regni nostri tricesimo secundo Cuppaidge Savage Ryves Infranominat ' Donat ' Elizabetha nihil habent aut eorum alter habet in balliva nostra per quod eis aut eorum alteri Scire Fac. Return possumus neque sunt nec eorum alter est invent in eadem Sic respond ' Johannes Coyne Samuel Walton Armiger ' Vic' Record ' adjudication ' execution ' super praed breve de Scire Fac ' ult ' mentionat ' Placita coram Domino Rege apud the Kings Courts de Termino Paschae Anno Regni Domini Caroli Secundi Dei gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae Regis Fidei Defensoris c. The Placita tricesimo tertio Test Willielmo Davis Mil ' Savage Ryves Dominus Rex mandavit Vic' Com' Civitat ' Dublin Breve suum Clausum in haec verba ss The Entry of the Scire Fac. Carolus Secundus Dei gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae Rex Fidei Defensor c. Vic' Com. Civitat Dublin Salutem Cum Abel Ram de Civitate Dublin Aldermannus nuper in Curia nostra coram nobis apud the Kings Courts per Billam sine Brevi nostro ac per Judicium ejusdem Curiae recuperavit versus Donatum Obrian Armigerum Elizabetham Obrian alias Grey uxorem ejus tam quoddam debitum octingent ' librarum sterling quam tres libr. undecim solid sex denar ' consimilis monetae qui eidem Abel in eadem Curia nostra coram nobis adjudicat ' fuer ' pro dampnis suis quae sustin ' tam occasione detentionis debiti illius quam pro mis custag ' suis per ipsum circa sectam suam in hac parte apposit ' unde convict ' sunt sicut nobis constat de Recordo Executio tamen Judicii praed adhuc restat faciend ' prout ex insinuatione ipsius Abel accepimus Unde nobis supplicavit idem Abel sibi de remed ' suo congruo in hac parte adhiberi nos volentes eidem Abel fieri quod est justum vobis praecipimus qd per probos legales homines Balliva vestra Scire Fac ' praefat Donat ' Obrian Elizabethae uxori ejus qd ' sint coram nobis apud the Kings Courts die Sabbati prox post Quinden ' Sancti Martini prox futur ' ad ostend ' si quid pro se habeant vel dicere sciant quare praed ' Abel executionem suam versus eos de debito dampnis praed ' habere non debet juxta formam effectum recuperationis praed si sibi viderit expediri ulterius factur ' receptur ' quod Curia nostra coram nobis adtunc ibidem de eo cons in hac parte Et habeatis ibi tunc nomina eorum per quos eis Scire fec Et hoc Breve Teste Roberto Booth Mil ' apud the Kings Courts sexto die Novembris Anno Regni nostri tricesimo secundo Ad quem diem coram Domino Rege apud the Kings Courts ven ' praed ' Abel in propria persona sua Vic. Return videlicet Johannes Coyne Samuel Walton Armigeri retorn ' qd ' praed ' Donat ' Obrian Elizabetha uxor ejus nihil habuer ' in Balliva sua per quod eis Scire fac potuissent neque fuer ' invent ' in eadem praed ' Donat ' Elizabetha non ven ' Ideo sicut alias praecept ' fuit eisdem Vic. Alias Scire Fac. awarded qd ' per probos c. Scire fac praefat Donat ' Elizabethae quod essent coram Domino Rege apud the Kings Courts die Mercurii prox post Octab. Sancti Hillarii ad ostend ' in forma praed ' si c. Et ulterius c. Idem dies dat' est praefat ' Abel ibidem c. Ad quem diem coram dicto Domino Rege apud the Kings Courts ven ' praed ' Abel per praed Faustinum Cuppaidge Attornatum suum praefat ' Vic' ut prius retorn ' qd ' praed ' Donat ' Elizabetha nihil habuer ' in Balliva sua per quod eis Scire fac potuissent neque fuer ' invent ' in eadem praed Abel optulit se quarto die placiti versus praefat The Defendants appear and plead that the Mony due upon the Judgment was levied upon a Fi. Fa. Donatum Elizabetham Et super hoc idem Donat ' Elizabetha per Henricum Daniel Attornatum suum ven ' dicunt qd ' praefat ' Abel executionem versus eos de debito dampnis praed ' habere non debet quia dic qd ' praed ' Abel infra unum annum post recuperationem praed ' prosecut ' fuit Breve Domini modo Regis adtunc Vic' Com' Civitatis Dublin direct ' de Fieri fac de bonis catallis praefat ' Donati Elizabethae debit ' dampn ' praed ' qd ' ill ' haberent hic in Curia die Mercurii prox post Quinden ' Paschae prox post recuperationem debiti dampn ' praed ' ad reddend ' praefat ' Abel
which he claims he ought to shew the other Will by which it must appear that nothing is contradictory to it or that it doth confirm the first but if Presumptions shall be admitted it must be in favour of the Heir for nothing shall be presumed to disinherit him Afterwards in Trinity-Term 5 Willielmi Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error was brought in the House of Peers to reverse that Iudgment but it was affirmed Anonymus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in the Common Pleas in an Ejectment for Lands in the County of Essex in which a Special Verdict was found viz. That R. F. What Words in a Will make Tenants in Common was seized in Fee of the Lands in question who had Issue two Daughters Frances Jane Frances had Issue Philp Frances Anne R. F. the Father devised unto Philip Frances and Anne the Children of his Daughter Frances and to Jane his other Daughter the Rents and Profits of his Mannor of Spain for thirty years to hold by equal parts viz. the three Grandchildren to have one Moiety and his Daughter Jane the other Moiety And if it happen that either of them should die before the thirty years expired then the said Term should be for the benefit of the Survivor and if they all die then the same was devised over to other Relations Afterwards he made a Codicil in these words viz. I give Power and Authority to my Executors to let my whole Lands for the Term of thirty years for the benefit and behalf of my Children Anne one of the Granchildren died without Issue Frances another of the Grandchildren died but left Issue The first Question was whether the Power given to the Executors by the Codicil will take away that Interest which was vested in the Grandchildren by the Will Mr. Appleton argued that it would not because the Executors had only a bare Authority to let it or improve it for the benefit of the Children there was no Devise of the Land to them If Power be given to Executors to sell Lands 't is only an Authority and not an Interest in them but a bare Authority only to let is of much less importance 2. After the Testator had devised the Profits of these Lands to his Grandchildren and Daughter equally to be divided during the term and had provided that if any dye without Issue that then it should survive and if all dye then to remain over to collateral Relations c. Whether Frances being dead but leaving Issue her Interest shall survive to Philip or go to such her Issue As to that he held that the Testator made them Tenants in Common by equal parts and therefore he devised it by Moieties in which there can be no Survivorship 'T is like a Devise to the Wife for life 2 Cro. 448. 1 Roll. Abr. 833. King versus Rumbal Cro. Car. 185. and after her decease to his three Daughters equally to be divided and if any of them die before the other then the Survivors to be her Heirs equally to be divided and if they all die without Issue then to others c. the Daughters had an Estate Tail and there was no Survivorship So in this Case it shall never go to the third Grandchild as long as any Issue of the second are living On the other side it was argued that they are Ioyntenants and not Tenants in Common E contra for the Testator having devised one Moiety to his three Grandchildren joyntly by equal parts that will make them Ioyntenants But the Court were all of Opinion that the words in the Will shew them to be Tenants in Common for equally to be divided runs to the Moieties So the Iudgment was affirmed Woodward 's Case THE Statute of 23 H. 8. c. 9. Church Ornaments are a personal Charge upon the Inhabitants and not upon those who live else where though they occupy Lands in that Parish Godb. 134. pl. 4. 152. pl. 29. 154. pl. prohibites a Citation out of the Diocess wherein the Party dwelleth except in certain Cases therein mentioned one whereof is viz. Except for any Spiritual Cause neglected to be done within the Diocess whereunto the Party shall be lawfully cited One Woodward and others who lived in the Diocess of Litchfield and Coventry but occupied Lands in the Diocess of Peterborough were taxed by the Parishioners where they used those Lands for the Bells of the Church and they refusing to pay this Tax a Suit was commenced against them in the Bishop of Peterborough's Court who thereupon suggested this Matter and prayed a Prohibition because they were not to be charged with this Tax it being only for Church Ornaments And a Prohibition was granted the reason given was because 't is a personal charge to which the Inhabitants only are liable and not those who only occupy in that Parish and live in another but the repairing of the Church is a real Charge upon the Land let the Owner live where he will DE Term. Sanct. Trin. Anno 4 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1688. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices The Bishop 's Case Friday June 15th THE King having set forth a Declaration for Liberty of Conscience did on the 4th day of May last by Order of Council enjoyn that the same should be read twice in all Churches c. and that the Bishops should distribute it through their respective Diocesses that it might be read accordingly The Archbishop of Canterbury who then was together with six other Bishops petitioned the King setting forth that this Declaration was founded upon a dispensing Power which had been declared illegal in Parliament and therefore they could not in Honour or Conscience make themselves Parties to the Distribution and Publication of this Declaration who thereupon were summoned before the King in Council and refusing there to give Recognizance to appear before the Court of Kings Bench they were committed to the Tower by Warrant of the Council-Board The Attorney General moved for a Habeas Corpus retornable immediate and the same Morning in which that Motion was made Sir Edward Hales Lieutenant of the Tower returned the same and they were all brought into the Court. The Substance of the Return was viz. That they were committed to his Custody by Warrant under the Hands and Seals of the Lord Chanchellor Jefferies and also naming more of the Lords of the Privy-Council Dominos Concilij for contriving making and publishing a Seditious Libel against the King c. Then it was prayed that the Return might be filed and that the Information which was then exhibited against them for this Crime might be read and that they might all plead instanter Serjeant Pemberton Mr. Finch and Mr. Pollexfen oppsed the reading of it and moved that the Bishops might be discharged because they were not legally before the Court for it appears upon the Return that there is no lawful cause of
Commitment and that for two reasons 1. Because the persons committing had not any Authority so to do for upon the Return it appears that they were committed by several Lords of the Council whereas it should have been by so many Lords in Council or by Order of Council 2. They ought not to be committed for this Fact which is only a Misdemeanour The Bishops are Peers and therefore the Process ought to be a Summons by way of Subpoena out of the Crown Office and not to commit them the first time If a Man comes in voluntarily he cannot be charged with an Information neither can a person who is found in Court by any Process be so charged if it be illegal as if a Peer be committed by Capias Iustice Allybon replyed that when a Commitment was made by the Lord Chief Iustice of this Court his Name is to the Warrant but not his Office 't is not said Committitur per Capitalem Justiciarium Angliae c. for he is known to be so and why should not a Commitment by such persons Dominos Concilij be as good as a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Capitalem Justiciarium That it was enough for the Officer to return his Warrant and when that is done the Court will presume that the Commitment was by the Power which the Lords in Council had and not by that Power which they had not To which it was answered by Mr. Finch that the Lord Chief Iustice always carries an Authority with him to commit where-ever he goes in England but the Lords of the Privy Council have not so large a Power for though they be Lords of the Council always yet they do not always act in Council Then the Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 10. was read in which there is mention made of a Commitment by the Lords of the Privy Concil c. But it was answered that that Statute was to relieve against illegal Commitments and those enumerated in that Act were such only and none else And it was strongly insisted that Peers of the Realm cannot be committed at the first instance for a Misdemeanour before Iudgment and that no President can be shewed where a Peer hath been brought in by Capias which is the first Process for a bare Misdemeanour The constant Proceedings in the Starr-Chamber upon such Informations were Crompt Jurisdiction 33. Dyer 315. 4 Inst 25. Regist 287. viz. First the Lord Chancellor sent a Letter to the person then if he did not appear an Attachment went forth The Kings Council answered Sir Baptist Hick's Case Hob. that a Peer may be committed for the Breach of the Peace for which Sureties are to be given and can there be any greater Breach of the Peace than a Libel against the King and Government 'T is certainly such a Breach of the Peace for which Sureties ought to be demanded for where there is any seditious Act there must be a Breach of the Peace and if Sureties are not given then the person must be committed The Objections were over-ruled by three Iudges Then the Information was read which in Substance was viz. That the King by vertue of his Prerogative did on the 4th day of April in the third year of his Reign publish his gracious Declaration for Liberty of Conscience which was set forth in haec verba That afterwards viz. 27 Aprilis in the fourth year of his Reign the King did publish another Declaration reciting the former in which he expressed his care that the Indulgence by him granted might be preserved c. that he caused this last Declaration to be printed and to manifest his favour more signally towards his Subjects on the 4th day of May 1688. it was Ordered in Council that his Declaration dated the 27th day of April last be read on two several days in all Churches and Chappels in the Kingdom and that the Bishops cause the same to be distributed through their several Diocesses c. That after the making of the said Order c. the Bishops naming them did consult and conspire amongst themselves to lessen the Authority and Prerogative of the King and to elude the said Order and in further prosecution of their said Conspiracy they with Force and Arms did on the 18th day of May c. unlawfully maliciously c. frame compose and write a Libel of the King subscribed by them which they caused to be published under the pretence of a Petition Then the Petition was set forth in haec verba In contemptum dicti Domini Regis c. The King's Council moved that the Defendants might plead instanter for so they said is the course of the Court when a Man is brought thither in Custody or appears upon Recognizance But the Council on the other side prayed an Imparlance and a Copy of the Information and argued that the Defendants ought not to plead instanter because their Plea ought to be put in Writing and that they ought to have time to consider what to plead that it was impossible to make any Defence when they did not know the Accusation and that the Practice of the Court anciently was with them 'T is true when a Subpoena is taken out and the Party doth not appear but is brought in by Capias he shall plead instanter and the reason is because he hath given delay to the Cause So 't is likewise in Cases of Felony or Treason but not to an Information for a Misdemeanour Then the Clerk of the Crown informed the Court that it was the Course to plead instanter in these following Cases viz. when the person appears upon a Recognizance or in propria persona or is a Prisoner in Custody upon any Information for a Misdemeanour where no Process issued out to call him in As to the Objection that the Defendants cannot make any Defence without a Copy of the Information the Vsage is otherwise even in Cases where a Man's Life is concerned and what greater difficulty can there be to defend an Accusation for a Misdemeanour than a Charge for High-Treason certainiy the Defendants all know whether they are innocent or not These Points being over-ruled by the Court the Archbishop offered a Plea in writing the Substance of which was that they naming all the Defendants were Peers of Parliament and ought not to be compelled to answer this Misdemeanour immediately but they ought to appear upon due Process of Law and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the Information and afterwards to imparle and because they were not brought in by Process they pray the Iudgment of the Court. This Plea was offered to the end that what was denied before upon a Motion might be settled by the Opinion of the Court but it was over ruled Then they pleaded severally Not-Guilty and were tried at the Barr a Fortnight afterwards by a Middlesex Iury and acquitted Anonymus In the Common-Pleas AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond against the Defendant
the benefit of the Obligor and shall be taken most beneficially for him who had election either to perform the one or the other to save the penalty of the Bond. But the Council for the Plaintiff said that the whole intent of the Condition in that Case was to provide a Security for G. who died before her Husband so that no body could be hurt for the non-performance of that Condition there being no manner of necessity that any thing should be done in order to it after her decease 'T is quite otherwise in the Case at Bar for Hannah Goddard paid Mony for the House and certainly it was never intended that Chappel the Father to whom the Mony was paid should have both House and Mony If she had lived the House ought to have been conveyed to her now she is dead the Mony ought to be paid for 't is not lost by her death In Laughter's Case the person who was to do the thing was the Obligor himself but here the Father undertakes for his Son that he should convey when he came of Age or to repay the Mony so that 't is not properly a Condition in the disjunctive for 't is no more than if it had been penn'd after this manner Viz. The Father undertakes for his Son that he shall convey at the Age of 21 years if he refuse then the Father is to repay what mony he received Besides Cro. Eliz. 399. Laughter's Case is Reported by Iustice Croke and therein he cites two other Cases of Chew and Baker That of Chew was viz. A. promised B. that if C. did not appear at Westminster such a day he would pay him 20 l. The Defendant pleaded that C. died before the day and ruled to be no Plea for he ought to pay the Mony which Case is parallel to this for 't is the same in Reason and Sense That of Baker was viz. A Man was bound that A. should appear the first day in the next Term at the Star-Chamber or he would pay 20 l. A. died before the day so as by the act of God he could not appear yet it was adjudged that the Mony must be paid The like Case was adjudged between Huntley and Allen in the Common-Pleas in my Lord Hale 's time 't is entred Pasch 1658. Rot. 1277. The Rule in Laughter's Case cannot be denied viz. where the Condition is in the disjunctive consisting of two parts and one becomes impossible by the act of God the Obligor is not bound to perform the other but then it must be governed by the subsequent matter As in Greningham's Case Cro. Eliz. 396. Moor 395. viz. Debt upon Bond conditioned that if the Defendant delivered three Bonds to the Plaintiff wherein he was bound to the Defendant or a Release of them as should be advised by the Plaintiff's Council before such a day then c. The Defendant pleaded that neither the Plaintiff or his Council did advise a Release before the day c. and upon Demurrer it was adjudged that the Plea was good for the Defendant had an election to deliver or release as the Plaintiff should devise which if he will not do the Defendant is discharged by the neglect of the Plaintiff for the Defendant being at his choice to perform the one thing or the other 't is not reason that the Plaintiff should compel him to perform one thing only It was argued on the other side E contra that this is a disjunctive condition and not only an undertaking of the Father for the Son Where a Condition is to perform two things and if either be done no Action will lye such Condition is in the disjunctive as in this Case if the Son had conveyed or the Father repaid the Mony By the Condition of this Bond the Father did as much undertake for his Son as Laughter did for Rainsford viz. to convey the House or pay the Mony to Hannah Goddard now the last part of the Condition being discharged by the Act of God he is acquitted of the other Suppose the Condition had been single to convey to Hannah Goddard if she die the Bond is void There is an Authority to this purpose Cro. Eliz. 380. Reported by Iustice Croke which was an Action of Debt was brought by the Plaintiff as Executor c. The Condition of the Bond was for the yearly payment of a Sum of Mony twice in a year viz. at Michaelmas and Lady day during the Life of a Lady or within 30 days after either of the said Feasts the Lady died after one of the Feasts but within the 30 days it was adjudged that by her death that payment which was due at the Feast preceding was discharged In the Case at Bar the Condition is that if the Son should not convey when of Age or otherwise if the Defendant re-pay c. Now certainly these words or otherwise make the Condition disjunctive 'T is like the common Case of Bail entred into in this Court whereby the Parties undertake that the Defendant shall render himself to Prison if condemned in the Action or they shall pay the condemnation mony this is a disjunctive condition and if the Defendant dye before the return of the second Sci. Fa. the Bail are discharged Iustice Allibon said Roll. Abr. tit condition 450. pl. 4. that if a condition be to make an Assurance of Land to the Obligee and his Heirs and the Obligee dies before the Assurance made yet it shall be made to the Heir for this copulative is a disjunctive Sed Adjornatur Franshaw versus Bradshaw Mich. 1 Jac. Rot. 45. DEbt upon a Iudgment obtained in this Court 34 Car. 2. Matter of Form not amendable upon Demurrer setting forth the said Iudgment c. Sicut per Recordum processum inde remanen ' in eadem Curia nuper Domini Regis coram ipso Rege apud Westmonast plenius liquet apparet And upon a Demurrer to the Declaration this Objection was made viz. It doth not appear that the Iudgment was in force or where the Reeord was at the time of this Action brought he should have declared Coram ipso nuper Rege apud Westm sed jam coram Domino Rege nunc residen ' c. plenius liquet c. The Court held it was but matter of form but being upon a Demurrer it was not amendable Letchmere versus Thorowgood al' Vic. London TRespass by the Assignees of Commissioners of Bankrupcy for taking of their Goods When a Judgment is once executed the Goods are in Custodia Legis and shall not be taken away by an Exchequer Process or Assignment of Commissioners of Bankrupts upon not Guilty pleaded the Iury find a special Verdict the substance of which was viz. one Toplady a Vintner on the 28th of April became a Bankrupt against whom a Iudgment was formerly obtained the Iudgment Creditor sued out a Fi. Fa. and the Sheriffs of London by virtue thereof did
c. yet one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow besides in this Case they are not Tenants in Common for every Man is seized severally of his Freehold Adjornatur Ayres versus Huntington AScire Facias was brought upon a Recognizance of 1000 l. Amendment of the word Recuperatio for Recognitio after a Demurrer to shew cause quare the Plaintiff should not have Execution de praedictis mille libris recognitis juxta formam Recuperationis where it should have been Recognitionis praed And upon a Demurrer it was held that the words juxta formam Recuperationis were Surplusage The Record was amended and a Rule that the Defendant should plead over Mather and others versus Mills THE Defendant entred into a Bond to acquir Non damnificatus generally where 't is a good Plea discharge and save harmless a Parish from a Bastard Child Debt was brought upon this Bond and upon Non damnificatus generally pleaded the Plaintiff demurred and Tremain held the Demurrer to be good for if the Condition had been only to save harmless c. then the Plea had been good but 't is likewise to acquit and discharge c. and in such Case Non damnificatus generally is no good Plea 1 Leon. 71. because he should have shewed how he did acquit and discharge the Parish and not answer the Damnification only E contra E contra 2 Co. 3. 2 Cro. 363 364 2 Sand. 83 84. It was argued that if the Defendnat had pleaded that he kept harmless and discharged the Parish such Plea had not been good unless he had shewed how c. because 't is in the affirmative but here 't is in the negative viz. that the Parish was not dampnified and they should have shewed a Breach for though in strictness this Plea doth not answer the Condition of the Bond yet it doth not appear upon the whole Record that the Plaintiff was dampnified and if so then he hath no cause of Action Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Memorandum That on the 4th day of November last past the Prince of Orange landed here with an Army and by reason of the Abdication of the Government by King James and the Posture of Affairs there was no Hillary-Term kept Coram Johanne Holt Mil ' Capital ' Justic Gulielmo Dolben Mil ' Justiciar Gulielmo Gregory Mil ' Justiciar Egidio Eyre Mil ' Justiciar Kellow versus Rowden Trin. 1 Willielmi Mariae Rotulo 796. IN Debt by Walter Kellow Where the Reversion in Fee is expectant upon an Estate Tail and that being spent it descends upon a collateral Heir he must be sued as Heir to him who was last actually seized of the Fee without naming the intermediate Remainders Executor of Edward Kellow against Richard Rowden The Case was this viz. John Rowden had Issue two Sons John and Richard John the Father being seized in Fee of Lands c. made a Settlement to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Tail Male the Remainder to his own right Heirs The Father died the Reversion descended to John the Son who also died leaving Issue John his Son who died without Issue so that the Estate Tail was spent Richard the second Son of John the elder entred and an Action of Debt was brought against him as Son and Heir of John the Father upon a Bond of 120 l. entred into by his Father and this Action was brought against him without naming the intermediate Heirs viz. his Brother and Nephew The Defendant pleaded Quod ipse de debito praed ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden Patris sui virtute scripti obligatorii praed onerari non debet quia protestando quod scriptum obligatorium praed non est factum praed Johannis Rowden pro placito idem Richardus dicit quod ipse non habet aliquas terras seu tenementa per discensum haereditarium de praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici nec habuit die exhibitionis billae praed Walteri praed nec unquam postea hoc parat est ' verificare unde pet judicium si ipse ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden patris sui virtute scripti praed onerari debeat c. The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant die Exhibitionis billae praed habuit diversas terras tenementa per discensum haereditarium a praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici c. Vpon this pleading they were at Issue at the Assises in Wiltshire and the Iury found a special Verdict viz. that John Rowden the Father of Richard now the Defendant was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 20 Acres of Land in Bramshaw in the said County and being so seised had Issue John Rowden his eldest Son and the Defendant Richard that on the 22th of Januarii 18 Car. I. John the elder did settle the Premisses upon himself for Life Remainder ut supra c. That after the death of the Father John his eldest Son entred and was possessed in Fee-Tail and was likewise entituled to the Reversion in Fee and died in the 14th year of King Charles the II. that the Lands did descend to another John his only Son who died 35th Car. II. without Issue whereupon the Lands descended to the Defendant as Heir of the last mentionted John who entred before this Action brought and was seised in Fee c. But whether upon the whole matter the Defendant hath any Lands by by descent from John Rowden in Fee-simple the Iury do not know c. The Council on both sides did agree that this Land was chargable with the Debt but the Question was whether the Issue was found for the Defendant in regard the Plaintiff did not name the intermediate Heirs It was argued that the Defendant ought to be sued as immediate Heir to his Father and not to his Nephew for whoever claims by descent must claim from him who was last actually seised of the Freehold and Inheritance this is the express Doctrine of my Lord Coke in his first Institutes and if so Co. Lit. 11. the Defendant must be charged as he claims Seisin is a material thing in our Law for if I am to make a Title in a real Action I must lay an actual seisin in every Man 8 E. 3.13 Bro. Assise 6. F.N. B. 212. F. 't is so in Formedons in Descender and Remainder in both which you are to run through the whole Pedegree But none can be Filius Haeres but to him who was last actually seised of the Fee-simple and therefore the Brother being Tenant in Tail and his Son the Issue in Tail in this Case they were never seised of the Fee 1 Inst 14. b. for that was expectant upon the Estate Tail which being spent then John the Father was last seised thereof and
so his Son is justly and rightly sued as Son and Heir In some Cases the persons are to be named not by way of a Title but as a Pedigree as if there be Tenant for Life the Reversion in Fee to an Ideot and an Vncle who is right Heir to the Ideot levied a Fine and died living the Ideot leaving Issue a Son named John who had Issue William who entred the Question was whether the Issue of the Vncle shall be barred by this Fine It was the Opinion of two Iudges that they were not barred because the Vncle died in the life-time of the Ideot and nothing attached in him March 94. Cro. Car. 524. and because the Issue claim in a collateral Line and do not name the Father by way of Title but by way of Pedigree But Iustice Jones who hath truly Reported the Case Jones 456. was of Opinion that the Issue of the Vncle were barred because the Son must make his Conveyance from the Father by way of Title The Iury have found that the Reversion did descend to the Defendant as Heir to the last John 't is true it descends as a Reversion but that shall not charge him as Heir to the Father Jenk's Case 1 Cro. for the other was seised of the Estate Tail which is now spent and the last who was seised of the Fee was the Father and so the Defendant must be charged as his Heir 'T is likewise true that where there is an actual Seisin you must charge all but in this Case there was nothing but a Reversion Tremaine Serjeant for the Defendant In this Case the Plaintiff should have made a special Declaration for the Estate-Tail and the Reversion in Fee are distinct and seperate Estates John the Nephew might have sold the Reversion and kept the Estate Tail if he had acknowledged a Statute or Iudgment it might have been extended and if so then he had such a Seisin that he ought to have been named A Man becomes bound in a Bond and died Debt is brought against the Heir it is not common to say that he had nothing by descent but only a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tayl. In the Case of Chappel and Lee Covenant was brought in the Common-Pleas against Judith Daughter and Heir of Robert Rudge She pleaded Riens per descent Issue was joyned before Sir Francis North then Chief Iustice and it appearing upon Evidence that Robert had a Son named Robert who died without Issue a Case was made of it and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Plaintiff took out a new Original and then the Land was sold so the Plaintiff lost his Debt Adjornatur Afterwards in Hillary Term a Gulielmi Mariae Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff by the Opinion of three Iustices against Iustice Eyre who argued that the Defendant cannot be charged as immediate Heir to his Father 't is true the Lands are Assets in his Hands and he may be charged by a special Declaration Dyer 368. pl. 460. In this Case the intermediate Heirs had a Reversion in Fee which they might have charged either by Statute Iudgment or Recognizance they were so seised that if a Writ of Right had been brought against them they might have joyned the Mise upon the Mere right which proves they had a Fee and though it was expectant on an Estate Tail 3 Co. 42. Ratcliff's Case yet the Defendant claiming the Reversion as Heir ought to make himself so to him who made the Gift The person who brings a Formeden in Descender must name every one to whom any Right did descend 8 Co. 88. F.N.B. 220. c. Rast Ent. 375. otherwise the Writ will abate A Man who is sued as Heir or who entitles himself as such must shew how Heir The Case of Duke and Spring is much stronger than this 2 Rol. Abr. 709. 2 Cro. 161. for there Debt was brought against the Daughter as Heir of B. She pleaded Riens per descent and the Iury found that B. died seised in Fee leaving Issue the Defendant and his Wife then with Child who was afterwards delivered of a Son who died within an hour and it was adjudged against the Plaintiff because he declared against the Defendant as Daughter and Heir of the Father when she was Sister and Heir of the Brother who was last seised But the other three Iudges were of a contrary Opinion The Question is not whether the Defendant is lyable to this Debt but whether he is properly charged as Heir to his Father or whether he should have been charged as Heir to his Nephew who was last seised It must be admitted that if the Lands had descended to the Brother and Nephew of the Defendant in Fee that then they ought to have been named but they had only a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate Tail which was incertain and therefore of little value now though John the Father and Son had this Reversion in them yet the Estate Tail was known only to those who were Parties to the Settlement 'T is not the Reversion in Fee Bro. Fit Descent pl. 30.37 Ass pl. 4. but the Possession which makes the party inheritable and therefore if Lands are given to Husband and Wife in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband then they have a Son and the Wife dies and the Husband hath a Son by a second Venter and dies the eldest Son enters and dies without Issue and his Vncle claimed the Land against the second Son but was barred because he had not the Remainder in Fee in possession and yet he might have sold or forfeited it But here the Reversion in Fee is now come into possession and the Defendant hath the Land as Heir to his Father t is Assets only in him and was not so either in his Brother or Nephew who were neither of them chargeable because a Reversion expectant upon an Estate Tail is not Assets Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Young versus Inhabitants de Totnam AN Action was brought against the Hundred for a Robbery in which the Plaintiff declared that he was Robbed apud quendam locum prope Faire Mile Gate in such a Parish He had a Verdict And now Serjeant Tremaine moved in arrest of Iudgment and the Exceptions taken were these viz. 1. That it doth not appear that the Parish mentioned in the Declaration was in the Hundred 2. Neither doth it appear that the Robbery was committed in the High-way 3. The Plaintiff hath not alledged that it was done in the day time for if it was not the Hundred is not lyable by Law But these Exceptions were all disallowed because it being after a Verdict the Court will suppose that there was Evidence given of these Matters at the Trial so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Eggleston al' versus Speke alias Petit.
afterwards suffered If so then the contingent Remainders to the first and other Sons is destroyed 2. If the Estate was not vested in the Surrendree till his actual assent such assent shall not relate though after the execution of the Deed so as to pass the Estate at the very time it was sealed and delivered Iudgment being given in the Common-Pleas by the Opinion of three Iustices against Iustice Ventris that the contingent Remainder was not destroied by this Surrender because it was not good without the acceptance and till the actual assent of the Surrendree this Writ of Error was now brought upon that Iudgment This Case depended several Terms and those who argued to maintain the Iudgment insisted that here was neither a mutual agreement between the Parties or acceptance or entry of the Surrendree which must be in every Surrender these being solemn acts in such Cases required to the alteration of Possessions and to prevent Frauds That the Law hath a greater regard to the transmutation of Possessions than to the alteration of Personal things and therefore more Ceremonies are made requisite to that than to transfer a Chattel from one to another In all Feoffments there must be Livery and Seisin Quaere For if Tenant for Life surrender to him in Reversion the Surrendree hath a Freehold in Law before Entry Co. Lit. 266. b. 1 Inst 266. b. so in Partitions and in Exchanges which are Conveyances at the Common Law no Estate is changed until an actual Entry though in the Deed it self such Entry is fully expressed Here the Surrendree is a Purchaser of the Estate and yet did not know any thing of it than which nothing can be more absurd 'T is admitted that every Gift and Grant enures to the benefit of the Donee and Grantee but not where the assent of the Parties is required to compleat the act Assent and Dis-assent are acts of the Mind now 't is impertinent to say that a Man gave his Assent to a thing which he never heard A Lease for years is not good without Entry nor a Surrender without Acceptance Lane 4. 3 Cro. 43. 'T is no new thing to compare a Surrender to a resignation of a Benefice 2 Cro. 198. Dyer 294. Br. Abr. tit Bar 81. Yelv. 61. Sid. 387. now if an Incumbent should resign to the Ordinary and the Patron should afterwards present to that Living such presentation is void if the Ordinary had not accepted the resignation the reason is because a resignation doth not pass the Freehold to the Bishop but puts it only in Abeyance till his acceptance and 't is not an Objection to say that this is grounded upon an Ecclesiastical Right and not at the Common Law or that a Formedon will not lie of a Rectory for tho' 't is of Ecclesiastical Right yet 't is of Temporal Cognizance and shall be tried at Law The president in Rastal may be objected where the surviving Lessee for years brought an Action of Covenant against the Lessor for disturbing of him in his possession Rast Ent. tit Covenant 136. b. Owen 97. Dyer 28. Rast Enttit Debt 183 176. b. 177. a. Br. Sur. 39. Cro. Car. 101. Fitz. Abr. tit Bar 262. Co. Ent. 335. and the Lessor pleaded a Surrender to himself without an acceptance but the Plaintiff in that Case said nothing of a Surrender In the same Book a Surrender was pleaded ad quam quidem sursum redditionem the Plaintiff agreavit so in Fitzherbert 's Abridgment issue was joyned upon the acceptance which shews 't is a material point No inconvenience can be objected that an Assent is made a Legal Ceremony to a Surrender for 't is not inconvenient even in the Case of an Infant who by reason of his non-age is not capable to take such a Conveyance because he cannot give his assent but he may take the Land by way of Feoffment or Grant or any Conveyance of like nature without his Assent By the very definition of a Surrender Co. Lit. 337. b. Bro. tit Surrender pl. 45. Dyer 110. b. Fitz. 39. it plainly appears that there must be an assent to it for 't is nothing else but a yielding up of an Estate to him who hath the immediate Reversion or Remainder wherein the Estate for Life or Years may drown by mutual Agreement between the Parties 'T is true an Agreement is not necessary in Devises nor in any other Conveyances which are directed by particular Statutes or by Custom but 't is absolutely necessary in a Surrender which is a Conveyance at the Common Law 't is such an essential Circumstance that the Deed it self is void without it 't is as necessary as an Attornment to the Grant of a Reversion or an Entry to a Deed of Exchange which are both likewise Conveyances at the Common Law There are various Circumstances in the Books which declare what acts shall amount to an Acceptance or Agreement Cro. Eliz. 488. Owen 97. 31 Ass pl. 26. but it was never yet doubted but that an acceptance was necessary to a Surrender So in the Entries Fitz. tit Debt 149. 9 E 3.7 b. contra Rast Ent. 136. a Surrender is sometimes pleaded without an Acceptance but 't is always that the Surrendree by vertue of the Surrender expulit ejecit the Plaintiff which amounts to an Agreement The Law is so careful in these Conveyances Kelwway 194 195. Dyer 358. pl. 48. that it will not presume an assent without some act done if therefore a Deed cannot operate as a Surrender without an acceptance then in this Case no such shall be presumed because the Iury have found it expresly otherwise then by the birth of Charles Leach the contingent Remainder is vested in him which arising before the Assent of the Surrendree makes such assent afterwards void for there can be no intermediate Estate Besides if an Assent should not be necessary to a Surrender this inconvenience would follow viz. if a Purchaser should take in several Mortgages and Extents and keep them all on foot in a third persons name which is usual to prevent mean incumbrances and the Mortgagor should afterwards Surrender his Estate without the assent of the Purchaser if this should be held a good Conveyance in Law it would be of very mischievous consequence 2. If the Estate is not immediately transferred to the Surrendree at the sealing of the Deed without the assent of the Surrenderor it shall not pass afterwards when he gives his consent and that by way of Relation for if that should be allowed then the Surrenderor might have kept the Deed in his Pocket as well fifty as five years after the execution thereof which would be so prejudicial that no Man could be assured of his Title 'T is true when a Bargain and Sale is made of Land 2 Inst 675. 3 Co. 36. such a day c. and two days afterwards the Bargainor enters into a Recognizance then the Deed is inrolled within
that at the Common Law a Man might exercise what Trade he would therefore this Statute is penned in the Negative to prevent many inconveniences which happened before the making of this Law Some Authorities there are where Informations have been brought upon this Statute Cro. Car. 347. 1 Sand. 312. and the Defendants have pleaded the the Custom of London for a Man Educated in one Trade to exercise another and upon Demurrer such Pleas have been over-ruled but reason in this Case is the best Authority Iourny-men who work for Hire cannot be within the meaning of this Statute but the Defendant by employing such had an influence upon the Trade and so 't is found viz. That he provided Materials and paid the Workmen and therefore he and not the Master workman who is but a Iourny-man is the person who did exercise the Trade not being an Apprentice the management was for his Profit the Workmen had no more but their Wages and it would be very mischievous if the Statute should be otherwise construed A Widow shall not exercise her Husbands Trade Hutt 132. unless she is enabled by the Custom of the place and possibly she might live so long with him as to be very skilful in it but the Act being penned in the Negative must have a large construction and therefore an Vsage against it will not take away its force Paying the Wages is as much as using the Trade himself 't is properly his driving the Trade by the Hands and Labour of his Servants 1 Jac. 1. c. 22. And it seems plain by the Statute of 1 Jac. 1. that this may be done for that Statute Enacts that no person using the Mystery of Tanning Leather by himself or any other person shall exercise the Craft of a Shoe-Maker c. which shews that the Trade may be carried on by Servants and Workmen A Goldsmith never makes his own Plate he only provides Materials for the Workmen but yet he is a Trader within the Statute because he makes profit of the Plate An Inn-keeper who sells Beer Bread c. in his House is not within this Statute because 't is part of his Trade to provide such things for his Guests but if he sells any quantities out of Doors 2 Bulst 187. he is then within the reach of this Law which ought to have a very beneficial construction because 't is made to maintain skilful Men in Trades which is for the publick good of Mankind 2. 'T is plain that he who useth one Trade cannot exercise another therefore a Coach-maker shall not make his own Whéels if he doth 't is exercising the Trade of a Wheel-right and so of the Iron and Leather and the other Materials which make up a Coach In Mr. Noy 133. Hunter versus Moon Attorney Noy 's Reports there is a Case of an Information brought upon this Statute against the Defendant being a Felt-maker for dying of his own Hatts and it was adjudged for him that 't is part of his Trade but this is but a single Authority and many have been against it since that time At the Assises in Cambridge the like Information was tryed against a Comb-maker for exercisng the Trade of a Horner it was insisted on that it was part of his Trade for he fitted the Horn for his use in making of Combs but there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff for it was held to be an exercising of the Trade of an Horner and the Council for the Defendant who were learned Men did acquiesce under that Iudgment He who is a Servant who undergoes no hazard but is to have a certain reward for his labour doth not exercise a Trade but 't is the Master who emploies him who hath all the Profit and who in this Case sells at the same rate as if he paid the Clothworker The Statute saith That none who hath not served as an Apprentice in any Mystery c. shall use the same c. Now he who employs Men in his House useth the Trade c. For suppose a Merchant should hire Iourny-men Shoemakers to work in his House for the Plantations this can be no other thing than the exercising of the Trade of a Shoemaker Private usage is not within the meaning of this Law but if what is done be for profit and gain and not confined to a particular Family 't is an exercising of a Trade within the intention of this Statute If the Defendant had sold these Cloths in England he had been a Draper and having exported them he is a Merchant Wherefore for these Reasons Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But Iustice Dolbin was of another Opinion he said that no encouragement was ever given to Prosecutions upon this Statute and that it would be for the common good if it was repealed for no greater punishment can be to the Seller than to expose Goods to Sale ill wrought for by such means he will never sell more In this Case there is no inconvenience to the Company of Clothworkers because that Trade is a manual Occupation for hire the Master Workman is the person who useth the Trade and the Defendant hath done nothing but what is the proper work of a Merchant in his own House which cannot be a publick use of the Trade The intent of the making of this Statute was to prevent Idleness and that there might be generally a good Manufacture Now the Defendant hath well answered both these ends for he hath employed Men in the working and not only so but such Men who were bound Apprentices and served seven years in that very Trade such who could work well and to whom he gave good Wages 'T is the interest of a Merchant that his Cloth be well wrought but the Clothworker careth not how 't is done so he hath his Wages and by this care and industry of the Defendant that Trade which was almost lost abroad is now come into Reputation again Bradburn versus Kennerdale Mich. 4 Jac. Rot. 640. ERror to reverse a Iudgment in an inferior Court at Chester in Replevin for the taking of a Cow Replication whether good without a Traverse The Defendant made Cognizance as Bailiff to Sir Peter Warburton setting forth that before the taking c. Sir Peter was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Arkey of which the locus in quo was parcel and for that the Cow was there Damage Feasant he took it c. The Plaintiff in barr to the Avowry confesseth That Sir Peter Warburton was seised in Fee c. but that before that time Sir George Warburton his Father was seised of the said Mannor and likewise of one Mesuage in Fee c. and being so seised made a Lease thereof for three Lives viz. for the Life of G. H. the Father and for the Lives of his two Sons George and John alterius eorum diutius viventis that one of them was dead and that the other entred and was seised as
Proctor 2. Whether a sufficient cause was returned to displace Mr. Leigh As to the first It was held that a Mandamus doth lie because 't is a publick Office and concerns the Administration of Iustice and the Proctors being limited to a certain number viz. 28. if many of them should be displaced it would be a means to hinder Iustice This Court doth judicially take notice of the Ecclesiastical Courts by prohibiting them by taking notice of their Excommutions or of any proceedings when they are against the Law of the Land A Proctor doth the Business in that Court as as Attorney in B. R. and Notice is taken of his place as judicially as of any other Officer Sid. 94 152. and as to this purpose those Officers cannot be distinguished if therefore a Mandamus hath been granted to restore an Attorny why not a Proctor The Plaintiff hath no remedy but by a Mandamus because an Assize will not lie of this Office 't is admitted that an Action on the Case may be brought but then Damages only are to be recovered and not the Office and it would be very inconvenient to leave it to a Iury to give such Damages as the Party may sustain for the loss of his Livelyhood 'T is no Objection to say that there is a proper Visitor in this Case to whom to appeal viz. to the Archbishop for they have not set out any such visitatorial power in the Return or if any that he had power to restore him But if such Power had appeared upon the Return yet a Proctor ought not to appeal to the Archbishop or to the Guardian of the Spiritualties Sede vacante because ' is in effect to appeal to themselves for the Dean of the Arches before whom the Appeal must be brought is an Officer appointed by the Archbishop himself and hath the same Iurisdiction with him Besides the Proctors there are not properly under any Visitatorial Power they have a particular Iurisdiction within themselves and their Courts have been held in several places as at Bow Christchurch c. Then as to the Causes of this removal 't is returned 1. For receiving and prosecuting of a Cause without the advice of an Advocate contrary to a Statute made by the Archbishop Abbot 2. For refusing to pay 10 s. set upon him as a Tax towards the Charges of the House Now neither of these are sufficient Causes to displace him As to the first Cause if that Statute gives them any such Power 't is void because it deprives a Man of his Freehold which cannot be done but by the Law of the Land 'T is not said when this Offence was committed for it may be before a general Pardon and then 't is discharged But if it is an Offence that will not make a Forfeiture without warning and no such thing appears upon the Return 11 Co. 99. a. for if he had notice publickly he might have offered something in excuse of himself as Sickness c. which might have been allowed by the Court. 'T is as unreasonable a Law to put the Clients to unnecessary Charges to advise with an Advocate upon an ordinary Libel as it would be for an Attorny of the King's Bench to advise with Council to draw a Declaration on a Bond. 2. They do not shew by what Authority they may levy a Tax neither do they set forth what Tax was made in the whole so that it might appear that 10 s. was a proportionable part for him to pay neither doth it appear when this Tax was made or that Mr. Leigh was a Proctor when it was made E contra E contra This is not an Offence in matter of Iudgment but 't is a Misdemeanour and punishable 'T is very like the Case of Fellows of Colleges who have proper Visitors and therefore the King's Bench will not grant a Mandamus in such Cases A Proctor is an Officer of a Court different from the Courts of Law and therefore the King's Bench cannot take notice of his Office judicially they have no other way of punishing of a Proctor but by displacing of him and if this should be remedied by a Mandamus then those persons may offend without punishment 'T is not like the Case of an Attorny for he being an Officer of the King's Bench the Court doth judicially take notice of him but not of a Proctor 'T is more like the Case of a Steward of a Court Baron which is of private Iurisdiction and for which a Mandamus hath been denied 'T is like Midleton 's Case who was Treasurer of the New River Water 't is true a Mandamus was granted to restore him to that Office but it was only de bene esse to bring the Matter before the Court though that was a Corporation settled by Act of Parliament 'T is also like the Cases of Abbots Priors and Monks for whom a Mandamus was never granted because they are Ecclesiastical Corporations and have proper Visitors which is now by Law devolved upon the Archbishop So also Lay Corporations have Visitors which are their Founders and their Heirs 'T is an Objection of no force to say that this Appeal must be to the Dean of the Arches which is to appeal to the same person because though 't is true that the Dean is constituted by the Archbishop yet when once he is invested with that Office he is in for his Life and the Archbishop cannot afterwards come into that Court and execute the Office of Dean himself so he is not the same person neither hath he the same Iurisdiction Curia A Proctor is not an Officer properly speaking 't is only an Employment in that Court which acts by different Laws and Rules from the King's Bench they have an original Iurisdiction over this matter and a Mandamus is in the nature of an Appeal which will not be granted where they have such a Iurisdiction but when they exceed it and encroach upon the Common Law then Prohibitions are granted 'T is for this reason that in cases of Divorce which are of a higher nature than this case is no Appeal can be to the King's Bench for it would be an endless business for persons to Appeal ab uno ad aliud examen and therefore credit must be given to the determinations of those Courts who have such Original Iurisdiction Officers are incident to all Courts 1 Roll. Abr. 526. and must partake of the nature of those several and respective Courts in which they attend and the Iudges or those who have the supream Authority in such Courts are the proper persons to censure the Behaviour of their own Officers and if they should be mistaken the King's Bench cannot relieve for in all cases where such Iudges keep within their Bounds no other Court can correct their Errors in Proceedings Now for a Church-Warden of a Parish Clerk an Attorny or the like all these are Temporal Officers and are to be ordered by the Temporal Laws