NARRATIONES MODERNAE OR MODERN REPORTS Begun in the now UPPER BENCH COURT AT VVESTMINSTER In the beginning of Hillary Term 21 Caroli and continued to the end of Michaelmas Term 1655. as well on the Criminall as on the Pleas side Most of which time the late Lord Chief Justice Roll gave the Rule there With necessary Tables for the ready finding out and making use of the matters contained in the whole Book And an Addition of the Number Rolls to most of the remarkable Cases By William Style of the Inner Temple Esquire Ut singulis prosim opto precor Nam Genus et proavos quae non fecimus ipsi Vix ea nostra voco Ovid Metamorph. lib. 13. LONDON Printed by F.L. for W. Lee D. Pakeman G. Bedel and C. Adams and are to be sold at their shops in Fleetstreet 1658. To the Honourable IOHN PARKER One of the BARONS Of his Highness the LORD PROTECTORS COVRT OF THE Publique Exchequer SIR IN pursuance of what I not long since intimated in the close of the Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to my Practical Register and in hopes of as favourable an acceptance of this tender of my respectfull service as you then pleased to afford my weak endeavours am I now encouraged to make this my second humble adress Though this be but a yonger brother in respect of its time of production yet in reference to its first conception growth parts I may justly say it far excels the elder birth and is much more fit to do your Honour and the Publique service and may be I conceive capable of as large if not of a greater measure of your favour and protection I will not be troublesome to you in relating the pains time I have taken and spent in this Collection and Publication but shal leave it to your judicious consideration How great soever they have been I repent me not but am in my self abundantly satisfied and do think it reward enough that I have thereby gained this opportunity to shew my continuing humble respects to your Honour and my willingness to be some way serviceable to others whatever I have been to my self in that Vocation God hath of his goodness been pleased to place me in and to give an Accompt to the World a thing which I hold every good Christian is bound to do of the expence of my time It may be objected that the Press hath been very fertile in this our Age and hath brought forth many if not too many births of this nature I must confess this Truth but how legitimate most of them are let the Learned judge This I am sure of there is not a father alive to own many of them and they speak so plain in the Language of Ashdod Neh. 13. v. 23. that a knowing man cannot believe they ever sprung from Israelitish Parents but by their pronouncing of Siboleth insteed of Shiboleth Jud. 12. v. 5. may easily collect of what extract they are What I here present you with is though a Homely yet a lawfull Issue and I dare call it mine own and that I believe I may do with as good a right as any ever might a work of the like nature having had as little if not less assistance from others in the bringing it forth as any that have travelled in this kind before me I am not so blindly fond or so opiniastre as to think it free from Errors and Misprisions I fear there may too many be found in it and no wonder for Humanum est errare labi decipi yet this I do knowingly aver that I have not herein ex proposito or willingly injured any but have been as studious and carefull in the penning of this my Collection to do right to every person concerned and to make the Truth appear clearly in its native colours as was possible at a throngued Bar to do Nor have I been less wanting in my best endeavours to prevent and correct the Errors of the Press though I must acknowledge my pains and care are not herein fully answered that it might appear in publick though not in so rich a Dress as to be a Companion for the best yet at least be by your favour suffered to pass as tollerable amidst the crowd of a multitude of Editions cloathed in as ill if not in a worse and more unbeseeming habit Inner Temple May the 17th 1658. Sir I am yours most obliged respectively to serve you WILLIAM STYLE To the Industrious and Ingenuous Professors and Students of the Common Laws of England but more particularly and affectionately to the Associates of the honourable Society of the Inner Temple GENTLEMEN FOr a more noble Epithite I know not how to give you the greatest best of men on earth being in truth no more These ensuing Reports were at first briefly taken by me in the Law-french without any thought of making other use of them then for my one privat satisfaction And they did for some time after lye so confusedly scattered in my Note-books that as they then lay they were altogether uselesse to any but my self and that not without much expence of time and great trouble so that what of them my unhappy memory could not retain which was not much was in a manner lost as wel to my self as unto others to remedy this inconvenience if I may so call it of the losse of my constant attendance pains for so many years together taken at the now upper Bench Bar with very litle profit either to others or my self than some small improvement of my knowledge in the practical part of the law and in pursuance of that antient Moral Axiome Omne agens agit propter aliquem sinem I was encouraged to continue my travail and expence of time in the gathering together transcribing and putting of them into that order and method you now behold them yet as then not having any intent or desire to make them publique but only more readily usefull to my self and such of my Friends and Acquaintance as should at any time desire to be satisfied in any thing I was able to impart unto them But this not answering the expectation and importunities of some of my neer relations and many of my intimate Friends and Acquaintance nor knowing into whose hands my papers might fall nor how my self and others be injured in the publishing of them after my decease which I was uncertain when it might happen and did believe it could not be many years off by reason of my declining years but more especially in respect of the weak and crasy constitution of my Body much macerated by sharp and tedious sicknesses and being willing to leave some testimony behind me that I have not slighted or wholy neglected my calling but have ever had an honourable esteem of it though I have hitherto reaped but little of that benefit which too too many do so eagerly hunt after but have been doing something therein and have not lived
Reg. MEmorandum on Wednesday the 14 of November 1648 Henry Roll Serjeant at law then one of the Iustices of this Bench took his place in Court as Lord chief Iustice of England and Twisden moved for a day to plead between Dunch and Smith being the first motion that was made in Court after he took his place The Lord chief Iustice Roll first took his place Popham against Hunt Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg Mich. 23 Car. rot 558. POpham brings an Action of Covenant upon an Indenture against Hunt Demurrer to a Declaration in an action of Covenant the Defendant demurs to the Declaration and the Plaintiff joyns in the Demurrer Vpon the pleading the Case appeared to be this a Feme sole delivers a certain sum of mony into the hands of I. S. and the Defendant thereupon Covenants with the Feme to pay unto A. B. 100 l. a yeer so long as the mony should continue in the hands of I. S. The Feme takes Baron The hundred pound per annum is arrere The Baron makes his Executor and dyes and after his death the 100 l. a yeer is behind also Popham the Executor brings this Action of Covenant Covenant and the question was whether the Action was well brought and the Court held the Action did lye for the Covenant doth concern the Executor because he represents the Testator but the question here is whether the rent due after the death of the Husband ought to be paid and how it shall be known whether he be dead for it is not specially alleged and if he be not dead there is no cause of Action Therefore consider of this Bragg against Nightingall Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 24 Car. rot 601. BRagg brought an Action of Covenant against Nightingall upon an Indenture Demurrer to a Declaration in an action of covenant The Defendant demurs to the Declaration The Case was this The Plaintiff let by Indenture certain houses for divers years to the Defendant and covenanted with him to repair the houses by such a day expressed in the Indenture The Defendant by the same Indenture covenanted with the Plaintiff that from the time that the Plaintiff was to repair the houses unto the end of the Term for which they were demised he would well sufficiently repair and leave them so repaired at the end of the Term for not performing of this Covenant on the Defendants part the Plaintiff brought his Action The cause shewed for the demurrer to the Declaration was that the Plaintiff had not shewed that he on his part had repaired the houses according to his Covenant and so the Defendant supposed he was not bound to repair because he was to repair from the time the Plaintiff had repaired them and not before and so there is no cause of Action After divers motions Roll chief Iustice said That here was a reciprocal Covenant to be performed on each part Covenant and although one do not perform the Covenant on his part this doth not excuse the other party but he is tyed to perform his Covenant neverthelesse and if he do not an Action lyes against him and he may bring his Action also against the other that first broke his Covenant and therefore the Action lyes here against the Defendant and so the demurrer is not good upon the cause shewed But if this were not a reciprocal Covenant the Law would be otherwise and cited Hayes and Hayes Case 11 Car. and Skippon and Lucas his case 10 Car. But Bacon Iustice held the contrary that the demurrer was good for that it appears that it was the intent of both partyes that the Plaintiff should first repair and after that the Defendant should keep the houses in repair The Court would advise Smithson against VVells Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. SMithson brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise against Wells A special verdict in an action upon the Case upon a promise and declared upon a promise made to save the Plaintiff harmlesse from such an obligation when he should be thereunto required The Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit and upon this a special verdict was found viz. generally that the Defendant did make promise to save the Plaintiff harmlesse from the Obligation that he had not done it The question hereupon was whether the verdict had found the same promise set forth in the Declaration because that was to save harmlesse upon request Verdict but the promise in the verdict mentions no request to be made but finds a promise generally to save one harmlesse The Court held that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment for that it was the same promise found in the verdict which was set forth in the Declaration for if one promise to save one harmlesse from a thing he that made the promise ought to do it at his perill without request Request Covenant and the request is not material although the promise say upon request But if he be damnified if I do recompence him upon request made the Covenant is not broken Emerson against Ridley Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 24 Car. rot 400. RIdley brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Emerson Error upon a Iudgement in Debt upon an Obligation The Condition of the Obligation was that the Defendant should not put his Cattel upon such a Common before a tryal and proof for the Common should be for the Commoners and assigns a breach that he did put on his Cattel upon the Common before the Tryal for the Commoners upon this an Issue was joyned and a verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintiff The Defendant brings a Writ of Error and assigns for Error that the breach of the Condition assigned doth not agree with the Condition of the Obligation and so the action being brought upon the Obligation and no breach of the Condition being rightly assigned there appears no cause of Action and so the Iudgement is erroneous But it was said by the Councel with the Defendant that tryal and proof of a matter in common intendment is all one Intendment and so the difference alleged was only verbal and not real and it shall be taken to be a breach of the Condition and so there is good cause of Action and the Iudgement thereupon given is well enough Holhead on Councel on the other side denyed it to be all one in sense for that a Tryal may be and yet the Title may not not proved and there may be a Iudgement upon a Nihil dicit where is nothing proved and so concluded the Writ of Error did lye The Court desired to have Books Postea Jones against Iacob 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IOnes a Citizen and Pewterer of London Iudgement in an action upon the Case brought an Action upon the Case against Iacob for these words spoken of him He is gone and doth hide himself for debt and for ought I know he is a Banckrupt The Plaintiff had
verdict finds 100 l. the Plaintiff may relinquish 60 l. and have Iudgement for the rest Ask Iustice said that his opinion was that the verdict is incertain and conceiveth that the Iury intended all in the Declaration The Court took time to advise Afterwards Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Fitton against Richardson Trin 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a prohibition to the County Palatine of Chester For a prohition to the County Palatin of Chester upon a surmise that they did proceed in the Court of equity at Chester touching the payment of rent reserved upon a lease for years which is a matter tryable at the Common Law and not in a Court of equity The Court answered we will see the Bill whether there be any matter of equity laid in it or no for if there be we will not grant a prohibition and let us also see some presidents if there be any for granting of a prohibition in such cases Powis who moved for the prohibition replyed That in Chester they hold two Courts one for matters of Common Law and another for matters of equity and so they ought to observe the due proceedings in each Court according to the nature of the cause 2ly This Court of the upper Bench is the superintendent Court over all other Courts and a writ of Error lyes out of this Court to Chester and by consequence a prohibition also to restrain the Court of equity there if they shall proceed irregularly 3ly There would otherwise be a faller of justice for the Court of Chancery here cannot grant a prohibition because the matter they proceed in there is no matter of equity Nat. brev f. 44 H. I. Cook rep Corbets case Hob. rep case 98. Owen and Holts case And though a writ from hence doth not run there nor in Wales yet a prohibition is grantable to Wales and therefore why not to Chester Mich. 2. Jac. B. R. a habeas corpus was granted to the County Palatine of Durham and to Barwick and Trin. 1650. C. B. rot 1966. in Iones and Lennards case a prohibition was granted to Chester Nicholas Iustice cited a case to be adjudged in this Court by Cook chief Iustice that it will not lye de brevi ordinario but in Wales it will ly Hales answered that there is more here than matter of equity and writs mandatory will lye in all places Roll chief Iustice said that Chester hath a Court of upper Bench and they may grant a prohibition there and it appears not to us whether they will grant it or not Prohibition so that we know not whether we need to intermedle Hales replyed that every one is bound by the Common Law and therefore writs mandatoryly at the Common Law which generally concern men as subjects and not concerning private things And 1. It is to be considered that Chesters jurisdiction is derived from this Court and so it is supposed to be subordinate to it and is to be regulated by it 2ly When the matter concerns common right it is not affixed to Chester because it concerns men as subjects at large 20 Iac. Grigs case C. Banc. And this Court sat in Chester in the 22 year of Ed. 1. as may appear by the roll Hill 31. Mich. 29. E. 3. rot a habeas corpus was granted to Durham and the liberty seised into the Kings hands for disobeying it and this Court is the conservator of the liberties of Chester Roll chief Iustice demanded can we grant a prohibition to the Court of equity in Ireland Prohibition If there did appear to be any failer of justice here we would grant a prohibition but there appears not any failer for it may be the party may have a prohibition in the upper Bench there Therefore it is good for us to hear the other party and in the mean time we will advise and then let us see the bill in Chancery In this case Halâ—s said that a prohibition had béen granted to the Lord Maiors Court of London Style against Tullye Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Hill 24. Car. rot 587. SIr Humphrey Style brought a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him in an Action of debt upon an obligation in the Common pleas for Tullye and Acton Executors of the last Will and Testament of one William Tullye Error to reverse a Iudgment in debt upon an obligation The case was this Sir Humphrey Style and one Thomas Brook were joyntly and severally bound unto William Tullye in an obligation of 120 l. for the payment of 60 l. at a certain day After the day of payment and the mony not paid Thomas Brook makes his Will and makes Mary Brook his wife his Executrix and dyes afterwards William Tullye makes his will and makes Tullye and Acton the Defendants in the writ of Error his Executors and dyes and by his will he releases unto Mary Brook all the debts which Thomas Brook her husband did owe unto him at the time of his death Tullye and Acton prove this will and after bring an Action of debt against Sir Humphrey Style in the Common pleas upon the obligation of 160 l. Sir Humphrey Style demurs to the Declaration and for cause shews that William Tullye by his will had released the Debt to Mary Brooks and upon this demurrer Iudgement was given against Sir Humphrey Style and thereupon he brings his writ of Error wherein the question was whether the debt was released by the will or no Latch of Councel for Sir Humphrey Style argued that here was an actual release and he cited 21 E. 4. f. 8. and a case Trin. 10. Car. and said that a will amounts to a release although it be not made of incorporeal things and the assent of Mary the Executor is not necessary here for this is not like the assent to the accepting of a Legacie and a debt due upon an Obligation made to the Testator is not assets in the hands of an Executor untill it be recovered and this is more than in the nature of a Legacy and here was a great personal Estate and no other creditors are deceived by this release and a devaslavit cannot be here supposed 19 H. 8. Dyer 8 E. 4. f. 5. Dyer 139 Cranmers Case and here is only an exoneration of a thing and no donation of any thing by this release Serjeant Hen. Clark of Councel on the other side argued that the debt was not discharged by the will because this release made by the will cannot take effect till after the death of the Testator and so not at all and such a release was revokeable by the Testator during his life and therefore it cannot be said that it was ever an absolute release But if this release had been in the realty it might peradventure have béen otherwise but it is not so here for the debt now rests in the Executor and it is a devastavit in the Executor to release it for this is but
more goods it is not necessary to do it And the law should do wrong if he should not be first satisfied for now he is a lawfull administrator and also a creditor of a higher nature than the other and because he cannot bring an Action against himself for his debt therefore he may by law retain the goods in satisfaction And he may satisfie a debt upon a specialty before a debt due upon a contract although a sute were commenced for the debt due upon the contract so here he may retain the goods Roll chief Iustice Why shall not here the administration purge the wrong which he did as Executor of his own wrong It is true indeed that he shall not abate the writ by taking letters of administration but he may plead this plea in bar of the Action and here it doth not appear but he is rightly Executor Abâ—tement Bar. without doubt the plea here pleaded had been good to a stranger without letters of administration and the law shall supply the retainer to him here and there is no wrong to the Defendant at another day it was moved again and the Court held the plea good and ordered Iudgement for the Defendant nisi Strode against Homes Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1651. rot 999. STrode brought an Action upon the case against Homes Arrest of judgement in an Action for words for speaking of these words of him in relation of his office he then being Church-warden of St. Clements Parish in Oxford Thou art a cheating knave and hast cosened the Parish of 40 l. Vpon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the words were not actionable because here was no special losse alleged by the Plaintiff nor is he in any danger of corporal punishment by speaking of the words Pasc 10. Iac. Hopper and Baker Roll chief Iustice answered the matter is not so much the losse of his office as the losse of his credit in being accompted a cheater At another day Crook Senior moved for Iudgement for the Plaintiff and said the words are actionable for a Church-warden is not meerly a spiritual officer but an officer by the Common Law and also by the Statute Yarly and Ellis case Sir Miles Fleetwoods case Hob. rep Bray and Haynes Crook Iunior on the other side urged that this is not an office of profit but of trouble and burden and no special losse is alleged Roll chief Iustice Officers which have no benefit by their offices have more need to be repaired if they be scandalised in their Execution of them and here the scandal is great losse to an honest man and what other remedy can he have to repair himself Case but by his Action on the case Ierman Nicholas and Ask of the same opinion And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi Trin. 1652. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court made by divers prisoners in the upper Bench-prison against Coronel Keyes a prisoner that he is very unruly Motion to remove a prisoner out of the upper Bench prison to Newgate denyed abuseth his fellow prisoners it was moved he might be removed to Newgate But Roll chief Iustice answered if he be unruly the Gaoler must put on irons upon him and kéep him safely there for this is no cause for us to remove him for he lyes there under many actions and we must not remove him to another prison Trin. 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that the party might not have a tryal at the Bar untill he had paid costs upon being nonsute in a former action for the same lands Roll chief Iustice He shall not proceed to another tryal Against a trial at the Bar till costs paid upon a former nonsute Costs untill he have paid his costs for by this means we shall incourage men to be vexatious Freind against Baker Trin. 1652. Banc. sup VVIld moved to amend a Record wherein a Iudgement was given in the Common Pleas For amendment of a record denyed after the Record was removed by a writ of Error into the Chequer Chamber the fault to be amended was that there is day given over to the parties from Easter Term to Michaelmas Term and so Trinity Term is left out which he conceived was but a misprision of the Clark and but a miscontinuance in giving a wrong day to the parties 2 H. 7.11 22 E. 4.3 But Roll chief Iustice answered Discontinuance that this is the act of the Court and by your reason you may skip over 3 or 4 Terms one after another without any continuance The giving of a day more than is necessary is no discontinuance but here wants a day which makes it not a miscontinuance but a discontinuance and so was it adjudged 1 Car. at Reading Term. Nicholas Iustice cited 21 H. 6. f. 16. to be adjudged that it is a discontinuance Roll chief Iustice A miscontinuance is where one processe is used for another and so the processe is mistaken but this is a discontinuance and cannot be amended Amendment For this is not upon a writ of Error out of the Common pleas as we supposed it to be and that the Record had been amended there for then we would have advised whether we would amend it here Miscontinuance but it is upon a writ of Error brought in the Chequer Chamber upon a Iudgement given here Brock against Vernon Trin. 1652. Banc sup BRock brought an action of Debt against Vernon as an Executor upon a bond entred into by Vernon unto the Testator of the Plaintiff Arrest of judgement in debt upon a Bond. the Defendant acknowledgeth the bond but sayes that he gave another bond in satisfaction of that Bond unto the Testator which the Testator did accept of in satisfaction Plea Thâ—ng in Action The Court held this plea ill and that the party might have demurred upon it and needed not to have joyned issue and put it to the Iury for it is no good plea to say that one did accept of one thing in Action in satisfaction of another thing in Action and here the Defendant hath confessed the debt and therefore his plea being ill Iudgement ought to be against him and Iudgement at another day was given accordingly Buckstone against Shuâ—lock Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Entred Trin. 1652. rot 177. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a given Iudgment in the Common Pleas upon an information Error to reverse a judgment in the Common Pleas upon an information for selling of Wine without licence for selling of Wine without licence contrary to the Statute The Error assigned was that the information was brought in the Court of the Common Pleas which is in the County of Midlesex whereas the offence is alleged to be done at Lambeth in the County of Surry which ought not to be as Davisons case is in Hob. rep Roll chief Iustice How do you prove this
have judgement though the Bar was not good Rawley and Vivers Trin. 1653. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought upon a judgement given in an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit c. The Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in Trespass quare clausum fregit Value that the Plaintif did declare quare clausum fregit and for pulling down of his house but doth not shew the value of his house Roll chief Iustice It is not necessary the Action being a real action Affirmetur nisi Bariar and Windham Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IT was held by the Court that the Engagement taken before 2 Iustices of Peace in Ireland is well taken What engagement is well taken and that the Engagement ought not to be pleaded to an Alien born and subject to any forein Prince in amity with England because he is under another obedience and thereupon the Engagement pleaded to such an one was discharged in the Case of one Bariar and Windham Trin. 1653. Banc. sup ONe who was a witnesse in the cause for the Defendant being bail for him upon motion to the Court was taken off from the file Who may not be bail and another bail taken in his room in Court upon examination of his sufficiency Nota. Trin. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to dispauper the Plaintif in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment Motion to dispauper the Plaintif for that it was proved by Affidavit that he was a very vexatious person for he had béen thrice nonsute in this Action would never pay costs or make a sufficient Lessee able to pay them and had also sealed a general release to the Defendant Roll chief Iustice Let him be dispaupered and let him put in an able Lessee to pay the costs or otherwise he shall not proceed in his Action Trin. 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Laws of England and Ireland all one Error The Laws of Ireland are all one with the Laws of England and a writ of Error lies in England to reverse a judgement given in Ireland Trin. 1653. Banc. sup A Declaration was filed in the Ofice against one in custody of the Mareschal What is not good notice to a prisoner of a declaration against him Iudgement discharged and a Copy of it was left with the Clark of the prison but the prisoner had no notice of it Vpon the prisoners shewing of this matter to the Court and reading an Affidavit to prove it a judgement by a nihil dicit obtained against him was discharged and ordered that the Plaintif should accept of a plea. Trin. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to discharge a prisoner out of the Vpper Bench that had lain there ever since 14 Caroli To discharge a prisoner that had long lain in prison upon a judgement obtained against him in an Action of Debt where only common bail was filed and because no execution was ever taken out upon that judgement and the Plaintif in the Action was now dead Roll chief Iustice Let him be discharged nisi causa shewed to morrow Nota. Trin. 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Matter of Record not alterable without motion to the Court. A matter entred upon Record cannot be altered without a motion made and the Consent of the Court first obtained though the Attorneys on both sides consent to it Trin. 1653. Banc sup THe Court was moved to quash an Order of Sessions for one to pay 3.5 a week to keep a Bastard Child To quash an Order of Sessions Roll chief Iustice Let it be quashed for they can make no such Order for the party may keep the Child himself if he will and then he need pay no money to keep it Trin. 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice When the Venue may not be changed The Venue cannot be changed after a Plea pleaded in abatement of the writ much lesse after a plea pleaded in Bar. Q. Fanshaw and Bond. Mich. 1953. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said That if a Copyholder refuse to pay a reasonable fine or to be admitted to the Copyhold How a Copy-hold is forfeited This is a forfeiture of his estate Dekin and Turner Mich. 1653. Banc. sup VPon a motion in Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for these words Thou art a whore and I will prove it Arrest of judgement in an Action for words It was said by Roll chief Iustice That the words are not actionable although spoken since the Act made against Adultery because they are but words of heat and choler but if a special damage be laid by the speaking of them as per quod maritagium amisit or the like there they are actionable Price and Goodrick Mich. 1653. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Roll chief Iustice Where an Audita querela lies If there be a Iudgement against three and one of them is taken in Execution and be afterwards set at large by the Plaintifs consent if any of the other two be afterwards taken in execution upon the same Iudgement he may have an Audita querela Motion but he cannot be relieved upon a motion in Court though grounded upon an Affidavit Newton and Osborn Mich. 1653. Banc. sup NEwton brought an Action of Covenant against Osborn an Executor to a Lessee for years for non-payment of rent reserved upon the lease upon the general words yielding and paying in the lease Whether an action of Covenant did Fe or not against an Executor there being no express Covenant therein for the payment of the rent The question was whether this Action did lie against the Executor Latch argued that it did not lie because it is a meer Covenant in Law comprised only in the words yielding and paying and not an express Covenant and so only binds the Testator but not the Executor But Roll chief Iustice answered That an Action of Covenant doth lie against an Executor upon a Covenant in Law Covenant Executor although he be not named but it is otherwise of an heir for he is not bound by such a Covenant And the reservation of the rent here doth seem to be an express Covenant for it is the agreement of both parties viz. of the Lessor and Lessee Iudicium nisi Benskin and Herick Mich. 1653. Banc. sup BEnskin brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Herick A Plaintiff lost his mony by joyning false issue a Verdict against him The Defendant pleads that he tendred the mony due upon the Obligation at the day and place of payment and that the Plaintiff refused to receive it Vpon this the mony was brought into Court by rule upon the Defendants motion the Plaintiff joyns issue that there was no tender and refusal and upon this a Tryal was had and a verdict found for the Defendant that he did make tender and that the Plaintiff did refuse to receive the
demurred to the plea Demurrer and for cause shews that it doth not appear that the three Iuggs of Beer were paid or tendred by the Defendant Iudgement and upon this exception judgement was given for the Plaintif c. MEmorandum Trinity Term 1655. beginning the 15 of Iune being Friday Iustice Ask late alone in the Court of the Vpper Bench being then the sole Iudge there The late Lord chief Iustice Roll having surrendred his Patent the Tuesday sevenight before being the 5 of Iune as I was enformed MEmorandum Afterwards the same day Iohn Glyn his Highness the Lord Protectors Serjeant at Law took his place of Lord chief Iustice of England in this Court and the Lord Lisle one of the Lords Commissioners of the great Seal of England made a Speech unto him according to the Custom and Serjeant Twisden moved for a tryal at the Bar the next Michaelmas Term which was granted nisi c. The Protector and the Town of Colchester Pasch and Trin. 1655. Banc. sup VPon a Mandamus to the Bailifs of Colchester to restore Bernardiston to the Recorders place of that Town Exceptions to a return of a Mandamus to the Town of Colchester upon the return they certified the causes for removing him and why he ought not to be restored 1. That one Good all being endicted upon the Statute for having two wives and convicted thereof did pray his Clergy and was refused it by Bernardiston and was condemned to die and after at another Sessions he admitted him to his Clergy and so he was burnt in the hand 2ly That he neglected to sit at the Sessions whereby the Sessions for the Town could not be held duly as they ought to have been 3ly That he appointed a Deputy Recorder to execute his place for him who was not an utter Barrester and contracted with him for 40 l. per annum 4ly That he neglected to hold Courts whereby causes could not be tried to the prejudice of many Latch of Councel with Bernardiston to the first cause answered That although it was an Error in Iudgement to deny the Clergy where it should have been granted yet this was not committed as he was Recorder of the Town but as a Commissioner of Oyer and Terminer which was to endure but for a year and was a distinct power from his power as he was Recorder and executed by him with other Commissioners that were joyned with him in Commission To the second he answered that here doth not appear to be any prejudice to any by his not holding the Sessions nor that there was any cause to hold them and besides it doth appear that the Sessions where he neglected to sit were not legally appointed to be held for they were appointed by them that had no authority to do it viz. by the Maior and Baylifs whereas they ought to be appointed by the Maior Baylifs and Recorder and next the Iustices are mis-named for they are called the Iustices of the Borough whereas they ought to be called the Iustices of the King 4ly Here doth not appear any appointment at all of the Quarter Sessions To the 3d. he answered that it is not necessary that he should appoint a Barrester to be Deputy-Recorder and to say that he was not fit to be Deputy-Recorder is too general a charge but it ought to be shewed in what he was unfit and his contracting with him for mony concerns not the Coporation neither is it malum in se but is only punishable by the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. And as to the last viz. his neglecting to try the issues joyned at the daies appointed it is not a crime material to deprive him of his free hold and few Stewards do otherwaies for they do usually stay till they have a competent number of Causes to try before they will sit and here are but six causes alleged to be untryed and one of them was not tryable in that place nor is it averred that he had notice given him of any issues to be tryed and so the offence is the less 5 Rep. Semaignes case nor doth it appear that any tryal was disappointed by his absence for it appears not that there was any issues joyned or any warning given for tryal in any of the Causes during the time alleged wherein it is said he did for bear to sit to try them Lastly here is no just way of proceeding to deprive him of his place though he might be deprived for he was never summoned to appear to answer the matters objected against him as he ought to have been and so is Cook in Sir James Baggs case Sergeant Glyn on the same side insisted only upon the last matter urged by Latch which he said went through the whole Case Roll chief Justice He ought to have been heard how else can it be known whether they had just cause to remove him or not and it is very hard to deprive one of his free-hold without hearing him make his defence The Court was moved at another day for their opinion and then Sergeant Twisden endeavoured to answer some exceptions taken to the retorn by Windham and to make good the exceptions taken against Bernardiston much to the same effect as formerly Whereupon Roll chief Justice answered you ought to have convented him before you had put him out that you might have heard what excuse he could make for his absence else how can it be known whether he had a just cause of absence or not Therefore let him be restored nisi Iudgement nisi c. At another day being in Trinity Term 1655. Sergeant Maynard shewed for cause why he ought not to be restored 1. That he held not the Courts duly but did absent himself for sixteen months without any cause to the endangering of the forfeiture of the Charter of the Town and sâ—â—d that if an Officer of Record do wilfully and without cause absent himself from his Office it is a for feiture thereof for by so doing the Charter is forfeited Forfeiture of an Office and here is no supposition of any excuse 2ly The retorn is good though no notice was given him for he ought to take notice of himself as he is an Officer of that Court and endict him they cannot and if his offence be true de facto they may put him out of his place as a Master may put away his Servant and this their Charter warrants them to do Twisden on the same side said he hath contracted with another for his place and so is disabled by the Statute Wild He could not be here convented for it is expresly said that he went to unknown places Glyn chief Iustice The main business insisted on was his absence but here was no notice given to him and you ought not to proceed against him and never hear him though the crime objected against him be true for it may be he was sick or had some other just excuse for his absence and
he ought also to be heard to all the other crimes objected against him Therefore let him be restored nisi c. to morrow Iudgement nisi Howard and Howard Trin. 1655. Banc. sup MY Lord Howard being taken by a Latitat out of this Court appeared upon the day of the retorn of the Writ in Court Peerage pleaded and pleaded his privilege of Péerage and demands in judgement of the Writ and thereupon to be discharged Powis of Councel against him moved that he might put in special bayl Bayl. Demurrer Glyn chief Iustice You ought to demur to his Plea for he is now in Custodia and therefore he need not put in bayl Nota. The Protector and Norrice Trin. 1655. Banc. sup NOrrice being committed to prison for speaking words against the Parliament in the year 1650. was thereupon endicted To discharge a Prisoner upon the Act of Oblivion and was convicted and fined 100 l. and ordered to lye in prison untill he could find Sureties for his good behaviour afterwards he was brought into Court by vertue of a Habeas Corpus and his Councel moved on his behalf that he might be discharged because he was pardoned by the Act of Oblivion It was urged against this for the Protector that he may be a person excepted out of the Act Surmise and therefore ought not upon this surmise to be delivered Glyn chief Iustice It doth not appear to us that he is not excepted and therefore we cannot deliver him Thereupon it was moved for the Prisoner for a Certiorari to remove the Record hither Certiorari Entry whereby he stands convicted that he might enter the suggestion upon it that he is pardoned by the Act. Glyn chief Iustice Taxe it Webberly and Sir John Lenthall Trin. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for Webberly against Sir Iohn Lenthall Motion against Sir Iohn Lenthall for detaining a Prisoner discharged Action mony False imprisonment Endictment that whereas he being a Prisoner in the Vpper Bench prison for Debt and having agreed with his Creditors was discharged by them yet Sir Iohn Lenthall did keep him Prisoner till he should pay him Action mony Glyn chief Iustice You have two remedies against Sir Iohn Lenthall for this for either you may bring your Action of false imprisonment against him or you may endict him for extortion Yet let Sir Iohn shew cause why he should not discharge him paying his fees Strowd and Keckwith Trin. 1655. Banc. sup Mich. 1653. rot 119. STrowd brought an Audita querela against Keckwith Audita querela The Case was this Strowd acknowledged a Iudgement 17 Car. for 2000 l. upon which Iudgement an Elegit was taken forth against Strowds lands in the County of B. and lands thereupon were found and extended and delivered to the Counsee and the Elegit filed and the lands enjoyed accordingly for six years then the Counsee dies and makes his wife Executrix who takes out a Scire facias upon the Iudgment for 2000 l. directed the Sherif of the County of C. being another County and upon two Nichils retorned hath judgment and execution against Strowd for the same Debt who thereupon brings his Audita querela Wadham Windham held that the Audita querela did lye and cited 15 H. 7.7 L. Q. f. 40. and said this was an illegal proceeding against Strowd because that after an Elegit executed no other execution lies but where there bath been no execution of lands in the same County or in another upon the first Elegit but here is land found Execution and the Elegit filed and the lands enjoyed Elegit to divers Counties No Elegit after an Elegit Iudgement 18 E. 12. Fitzh tit Execution 240. Dyer 1â—2 an Elegit may be prayed to divers Counties Glyn chief Iustice The Case is adjudged in Hobardâ— Reports that one cannot have an Elegit after a former Elegit if lands be thereby found and the Elegit filed Therefore shew cause why judgement shall not be given for the Plaintif Price and Carr. Hill 1654. Banc. sup PRice brought an Action upon the Case against Carr for speaking these words of her A pox upon you for a Welsh whore Arrest of judgement in an Action on the Case for words for thou wentest into the Country and emptiedst thy Caâ—k of a Bastard After a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the former words videlicet the saying the was a VVelsh Whore are not actionable because no Action lyes at the Common-law for calling a woman Whore and the last words are uncertain words and less actionable The judgement was then stayed till the Plaintif should move Whereupon at another day the Plaintif moved for judgement and a Case in 1â— Iac. in this Court was cited and 41 Eliz. VVheeler and Aâ—â—gâ—ls case and it was urged that the words shall be interpreted according to common intention and understanding of the hearers and shall be adjudged very scandalous Wild on the other side said they are frivolous words and not to be regarded for they do not say positively she is a Whore nor that she had a Bastard but the words are of a very uncertain meaning for it appears not when the words were spoken or when she went into the Country nor is there any averment what is meant by the words Glyn chief Iustice Words actionable Now since the Act the calling of a woman Whore and saying the had a Bastard will bear an Action and here are words certain enough to fix a particular Scandal upon the party by application of the words and they are made more than general words or words of heat and passion for there is a general application of them and a sufficient averment and for the time of speaking them we will not presume they were spoken four years since which was before the late Statute made against Adultery Iudgement Therefore let the Plaintif have her Iudgement Davis and Matthews Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Case was this Bond put in sure in the Prerogative Court There being a controverste in the Prerogative Court between the Widow of one that died intestate and one of the intestates next kindred who should have Letters of Administration of the goods and Chattels of the Intestatè It was at length agreed betwixt the parties that the widow should have Letters of administration and that thereupon she should enter into Bond in the prerogative Office to make an equal distribution of the goods and chattels of the intestate amongst his kindred whereupon Letters of Administration were committed unto her and she afterwards entred into bond accordingly and for not performing the condition of the bond in making an equal distribution of the estate the bond was put in sute in the prerogative Court Prohibition upon which a prohibition was prayed and a rule thereupon made for the Defendant to shew cause why it should not be granted and af
Letter of the Statute and here was no weapon drawn for the sword was in the scabbard which is no more than a staff in a mans hand Stat. 5 E. 6. C. 4. and it is like to a Pistol uncockt and if the sword had been drawn it would not have altered the case because it was not in Horwoods hand who was slain but in anothers and you cannot extend the Statute further Glyn chief Iustice Will you have it argued any more Finch No. Glyn chief Iustice I have considered of the Verdict and consulted with the Statute and advised with all the Iudges and they are of mine opinion This is a good Law and to be interpreted strictly yet I hold the prisoner is not within it for the scope of the Statute appears by the preamble the body and saving of it which do all confirm my opinion My first reason is because I find that the intent of the Statute is against sudden killing but here was nor a sudden killing and the Statute takes not away the Clergy from all manner of Manslaughter and here was a Trespass and an imprisnoment acted against the prisoner before he killed Horwood and so the act was not suddenly done 2ly The body of the act seems to mean that there ought to be malice in the case and it doth not intend we should stick to the very words of it and here the party slain might have forséen the danger and defended himself 3ly The proviso excepts divers particulars out of the Law and the word killing is only in the proviso so that there is provision made how the Statute shall be interpreted viz. That it must be sudden killing which is not so here for there so provocations and time intervenient betwixt them and the stabbing and the Verdict finds no praeconceived malice and the Statute extends to no other killing by the proviso And if one be assaulted by Theeves which have no sword drawn and the party assaulted stabs one of the Theeves he is not within the intent of the Statute although he be within the words of it or if one be assaulted in his house and the Assaultor hath no weapon drawn and one of the Assaultors be shot yet the party assaulted is not within the Statute 15 Car. in Davy and Williams case it was adjudged by all the Iudges that he that killed another by throwing a Hammer at him was not within the Statute because there was a preceding provocation of him And iâ— two assault a third person and one of them strike the third person and the third person kills the other that did not strike him I do not conceive he is within the Statute for it is the assault of both and shall also be adjudged the striking of both Ask Justice held he was within the Statute because it was not unlawfull to come to arrest him and here was no weapon drawn and so it was adjourned to another day At which day Buckner was again brought to the Bar Ask Justice repents the special verdict made the question whether this fact of Buckner be within the Statute of 1 Iac. enacted against stabbing and he argued that it was and that Buckner could not have his Clergy because the Statute shall be taken beneficially for the Commonwealth and not for the prisoner who is a particular person and the intent of the Statute is to take away the Clergy for some felony Neither by the common Law nor by the Law of God is there Clergy given for killing a man and it was the Popish power that introduced the Clergy to be given for Manslaughter and also for murther in diminution of the Common Law and of regal power yea and of the Law of God also and if a woman kill one she shall not have her Clergy but be hanged which shews that by the Common Law the Clergy was not given for Manslaughter And by the Law of God I find no difference betwéen Murther and Manslaughter for it makes no difference betwéen hot blood and cold blood as we do now distinguish and every word in the Statute me thinks doth take away the Clergy by way of argument even from the title of the Act to the very end of it and here is a great sin to be punished and great inconveniences would follow to admit of the Clergy in such cases as this is and here was a sudden killing as the act expresseth for it was done with a dagger which was not séen but suddenly drawn out of a pocket and no weapon was drawn against him for the provocations alleged they cannot amount to the drawing of a weapon or such a provocation as the Statute intends for all the acts done by Horwood amounted but to a Trespass and cannot be such a provocation as should cause Buckner to fear his death for no violence was used to his person by striking or drawing of a weapon or other ways and the sending for Bailifs to arrest him cannot be such a provocation as the Statute intends which is to put the party in fear of his life and the party knew that Horwood came with an intent only to arrest him and not to kill him nor did the party slain do any thing against Buckner to provoke him and there is by presumption of Law a prepensed malice in Buckner to kill Horwood which is séen by his sudden manner of stabbing him and Davye and Williams case urged on the other side is not like to this case I grant if one kill a Thief suddenly it is not within the Statute for such killing was never intended to be prevented by it The worst words one man can give another are not a sufficient provocation within the Statute for speaking of words doth much differ from drawing of a weapon Nor is this a killing se defendendo or by misfortune but a killing at the Common Law and so the Clergy is taken away by the Statute and those of Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet amongst whom are Barkly and Foster and Roll who have been Iudges are of my opinion Glyn chief Iustice held it not within the Statute he argued long much to the effect as formerly but having taken cold I could not distinctly hear him Adjourned This Case was again argued Trin. 1656. to enform Iustice Warburton who was called to that Bench after the former arguments and opinion of the Court delivered much to the same manner as formerly By Finch for the prisoner and Baldwin for the Protector and thereupon my Lord chief Iustice Glyn and Iustice Warburton were of opinion against Iustice Aâ—k and so judgement was given for the prisoner that the stabbing was not within the Statute but was only felony at the Common Law and the prisoner was admitted to his Clergy and burnt in the hand accordingly VVilliamson and Coleman Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VPon evidence given in an Action of Trespass betwéen Williamson and Coleman at the Bar Iust fication in Trespass It was said by Glyn chief Justice that if one
or else let the Plaintif take his judgement Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Copyholder being sued in this Court for certain lands moved that the Steward of his Lords Court For a Steward of a Court to bring in the Court Rolls to whom he was a Copyholder might be ordered to bring in the Court-Rolls into this Court that by them he may be the better enabled to defend his title to the lands But Roll Iustice said He cannot be ordered to doe it by this Court therefore we will make no rule in it Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Debt was brought for Rent in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in the Common Pleas fortent Misnosmer where the Plaintif had a Verdict and a judgement and a Writ of Error was brought in this Court to reverse this Iudgement The Errors assigned were 1. There is an Indenture recited to be between the Plaintif and Iohn Barber whereas it should have been Iohn Barker Roll Iustice answered It may be that he is known by the one name and the other and then it is well enough A second Exception was It is said per indenturam signatam and doth not say deliberatam and then it is no deed if it be not delivered To this Roll Iustice answered Deed. If he say per factum suum it is well enough notwithstanding for that implies it to be a perfect deed 3ly He declares for Rent of Houses in Kent street and doth not shew in what Parish Kent street is Adjourned Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a habeas corpus for a Prisoner in the Kings Bench Prison that he might be a writnesse in a cause to be tryed at the next Assises in Darby Shire But Roll Iustice answered we will grant no habeas corpus for this is but a trick of the party himself to gain his Liberty that he may go a hawking and hunting this long vacation But I have known it granted for one to be a witnesse at a trial at Yield Hall but at the charges and peril of the Party for whom he was to be a witnesse if he escape Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a motion for a habeas Corpus for one in Execution upon a sentence given against him in the Court of the Admiralty For a habeas corpus for one in Execution upon a sentence in the Admiralty It was said by Roll Iustice That if one be sued in the Admiralty to a sentence and be in Execution upon it and be brought hither by a habeas corpus if upon the retorn it doth not appear that the Admiralty had not jurisdiction of the cause but it appears only that they had proceeded to a sentence against the rules of their own Court This Court will not deliver the Prisoner out of Execution Appeal for he ought to have made his appeal before he was taken in Execution And so is it touching the proceedings in other Courts of equity Cage Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. ONe Cage was in Execution in the Kings Bench upon a Iudgement had against him for a hundred pound To vacate a satisfaction acknowledged upon a Iudgement The Plaintiffs Attorney by fraud without the consent of his Clyent acknowledgeth satisfaction upon this Iudgement afterwards the Attorney of the Defendant without the consent of his Clyent acknowledgeth another Iudgement for the same Debt The Plaintiffs Councel moved that the Defendant might be in Execution upon the first Iudgement and that the satisfaction acknowledged thereupon might be vacated Roll Iustice answered Commitment The Attorney ought to be committed for acknowledging the second Iudgement without Warrant But here are two frauds one of each side so that there is fraud against fraud and so the partyes are left to their remedyse one against the other but both the Attorneys shall be committed for their false practie And we will examine the whole truth of the matter Saturday next against Loveday Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved upon an affidavit that one of the Iurors that gave the verdict against the Plaintiff had a sute in law depending at that time with the Plaintiff and therefore that the tryal was not indifferent For a new tryal after verdict because a Iuror not indiste rent Challenge Tryal and therefore it was prayed there might be a new tryall But the Court said it could not be and asked the party why he did not challenge the Iuror for this cause at the tryal for want of which he had now lost that advantage Stradling and his wife against Boreman Mich. 24 Car. â—anc Reg. STradling and his wife brought an Action of Trespasse of Assault and battery Arrest of judgement in Trespasse Ioyn in Action and taking of a horse agianst Boreman and the Plaintiffs declare ad damnum ipsorum and have a verdict the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and shewed for cause that the Baron and Feme cannot joyn in this Action but ought to bring severall Actions for the wrong done to each was severall The Iudgement was thereupon stayed till the Plaintiff should move Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these words Arrest of juogement in an action upon the Case He is gon and dares not shew himself for Debt and he is a Banckrupt for ought that I know the Plaintiff had a verdict the Defendant moves in attest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are general and uncertain But the Court held that all the words taken together are actioanble but stayed the Iudgement for a week Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IVrors who appeared for a tryal at the Bar which fel off for want of a full Iury Iurors move for their charges prayed the Court they might have their charges because they came a great way and had attended long in town The Court answered them that it was their neighbours fault who did not appear that the tryal went not on for both the partyes are ready and if the cause had been tryed you should have had all your charges But now we can order nothing Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a Retorn of a certiorari to remove an order of Sessions made against a Parish for not repairing of a high way Exception to an order and fine of Sessions Hales of Councel for the Parish took this exception viz. That the fine was set upon the Parish without any processe issued out against the Parish only upon a certificate of one of the Iustices of the peace made upon his own view that the way was not repaired and so the Parish was condemned before they were heard To this the Court answered That a Iustice of Peace may make a certificate upon his own view Certificate of the want of reparations of a Highway by the Statute Therefore bring a certificate that the way is repaired else we will do nothing for we
there is no use here to result but the party is in by the Common Law To the 3 point if the use doth result yet the estate of Hamond hinders the bargain and sale for he is a wrong doer because that the fee being determined by his holding over he is a wrong doer but if not yet his Estate is paramount For the 4th he held that the bargain and sale is not good upon the consideration expressed because it is not made for monies paid nor secured to be paid 37 Eâ—z VVard and Lamberts case C. B. For the 5th point he held that it doth not enure as a Covenant to stand seized because here are no words of Coveliant Boyntons case Plow Coment 301. 2ly There are plain words to shew the intent of the party to be against it and also actions following thereupon Foxes Case â— Rep. 15 Car. Pitfield and Pierce Banc. reg 17 Eliz. Gallards case And whether the use ariseth or not it matters not if the use ariseth Lease Watson hath title if not Cumberland hath the estate and so it is an ill feofment and prays judgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said there is a variance Variance and it cannot be the same lease yet it is a good lease to raise a use because the feoffor joyns in it Ierman Iustice to the same effect and he held that the words at and from are all one Nicholas Iustice doubted Use Roll chief Iustice said that it is a distinct lease but the party hath made such a lease and more and a feofment made habendum a die datus if the seisin be not made at the last instant of the day it is not good Feofment The Court ordered it should be argued again Tuesday sevennight following Postea Hill 1649. Banc. super VPon an Endictment preferred 22 Car. at the Assizes in Kent against one for engrossing Apples Arrest â—f Iudgement in an Action upon the Stat. against engâ—â—ssing Victual Pears and Cherries framed upon the Statute made against engrossers of Victuals the Defendant pleaded and was found guilty formerly judgement was arrested and the Councel heard Edward Iohnson of the Inner Temple prayed for Iudgement for the Keepers of the liberty notwithstanding what had been objected formerly and that upon these reasons 1. Because that Apples Pears and Cherries are Victuals within the Statute and that because the Statute is not to be abridged And the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. made concerning fruiterers expounds this Statute that Apples and Pears are Victuals for the Fruiterers are called sellers of Victuals and for Bois his case that is objected that Apples are not Victual it is not to be meant of all sorts of victual in a general acception and without doubt engrossing of them is engrossing at the Common Law 26 Eliz. Salt is no Victual per se nor is used as Victual in any Country yet it is there said to be Victual But Apples are Victual per se and Costermongers are called Victuallers by their Charters Roll chief Iustice said That 4 Iac. Apples were adjudged no Victuals and after upon a writ of Error this Iudgement was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber and therefore that judgement is not to be lightly passed over and if they should be adjudged Victuals the trade of the Costerwongers would be destroyed and for Salt it is no Victual but a preservative of Victual and Hops was adjudged to be no Victual 20 Iac. upon a reference made to the Iudges Neither are Apples to be accompted Victual within the Statute Ierman Iustice differed and Nicholas Iustice held that Apples are Victual within the Statute because they are better than Fish Ask Iustice held that Apples are Victual but not within the Statute for a Statute cannot alter by reason of time but the Common Law may It was adjourned Barnwell against Graunt Hill 1649. Banc. sup Entred Trin. 1649. rot 791. THe Court was moved for their opinion in this cause whether the writ of Error did lie or not Error to reverse a judgement where some are found guilty and others acquirred Abatement Error It was said that a writ of Error is not like another writ for another writ may be abated for one person and stand good to another but if the writ of Error will not lie it is abated in all Hacker and Wotton Pasch 24 Car. rot 342. And Roll chief Iustice asked the Counsel what he could say to the Books of 2 Ed. 3. and 3 Ed. 3. Privies in Record may joyn in a writ of Error so is it here and an inconvenience may come to all the parties by this judgement although but some of the parites against whom the action was commenced are found guilty and others are acquitted and therefore they may all well joyn in the writ And therefore let the Iudgement be reversed if cause be not shewn Wednesday next to the contrary Roberts against Tucker Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 18 Car. rot 116. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Court at Bridgewater in an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit to pay such a sum of money at the Defendants return out of Ireland Error to reverse a judgement given in an action upon an Assumpsit The Court held that Bridgewater hath no power to enquire of a thing done beyond their jurisdiction and Ireland is out of their jurisdiction whence the party upon the Assumpsit was to return Jurisdiction Latch of Councel with the Defendant in the writ of Error said that the writ of Error is returned by the Mayor and Deputy Recorder and their Letters Patents give not power to have a Deputy Recorder Return and the writ of Error is directed Maiori Aldermannis et Recordatori quashed The Court ordered cause to be shewn why the Writ of Error should not be quashed Postea Poynes and Francis Hill 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 24 Car. rot 222. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of Trespass Error to reverse a Iudgement in Trespass and the Error assigned was that in the postea there is no association to the Iustice of Assize expressed as ought to be Roll Chief Iustice answered this is the fault of the Clark of the Assize Therefore let him attend and shew cause why the Postea shall not be amended Amendment Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for a riotous entring into certain land and carrying away 4 loads of Hay To quash an Endictment for a riot The exception taken was that the Endictment saith asportavit duo Carâ—cat sceni instead of duo Charectat soeni Roll chief Iustice answered If the party be culpable for the entry into the land although he carried away no Hay yet the Endictment is good therefore plead non cul to all the Endictment and it may be if it prove not good in all
14. 4ly He prescribes that the lands are not pleadable elsewhere which is not true for in some cases they are pleadable here in this Court Nat. Brev. 19 D. and so prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice demanded why is there not a special demurrer here Special Demurrer After imparlance one may plead that the lands are antient demesne for a plea of lands in antient Demesne to the jurisdiction of the Court differs from other pleas pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court It is true that parcel of a Manor of antient demesne is pleadalbe at the Common Law but lands held of the Manor are pleadable in the Court of the Lord. Adjourned to be heard Tuesday following Afterwards it was moved again and Roll chief Iustice said that after imparlance this plea is not good because by it he hath admitted the jurisdiction of the Court And therefore lâ—â— him shew cause why he should not plead in chief Pascall against Sparing Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 1649. rot 75. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action in Bristow upon a Concessit solvere by the Defendant Error to reverse a judgement in Debt for Concessit solvere Declaration Roll chief Iustice said that an Action of Debt did well lie upon a Concessit solvere by the custom of Bristow and so is it in London 28 H. 6. 1 E. 4. f. 6. Another Error assigned was that it is said that the party recovered the damages per juratores Compert whereas it ought to be Assess for this is the proper word but this exception was also over-ruled Latch took another exception that there wants the words pro misis et custagiis in the assessing the damages and so it doth not appear for what the damages are assessed And for this the Iudgement was reversed except better matter shewn Damages Iennings against Lee. Hill 1649. Banc. sup GEnnings brought an Action of Trespaâ—s of an assault and battery against Lee and his wife Whether an issue well joyned for an assault and battery made by the wife the Feme pleads a special plea of justification that it was in defence of her Husband The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria upon this there was an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the issue was nor well joyned because the replication was not good and so the verdict not good and so there can be no Iudgement Serjeant Parker prays judgement for the Plaintif for he held the replication was good and so a good Issue joyned and if there be not yet it is helped by the Verdict Issue or else by the Statute of Ieofails or if not yet it is at least good in part And the issue here doth imply a negative although there be not a direct negative but an affirmative in the words of it And 6 E. 4 16 b. in a Replevin and 9 H. 5. f. 1. b. there are good issues joyned in the affirmative because they imply a negative Trin. 18 Jac. Banc. reg Aldridge and Walthalls case and here wants only a Traverse which is but only matter of form and not material 2ly The Verdict hath made the issue good although it be not well joyned 5 H. 7. f. 15. 3ly If the Verdict helps it not yet the Statute of Ieofails helps it 5 Rep. Nichols case 19 Eliz. Dallisons Reports 8 9 Eliz. Bendloes Reports and 14 Car. Banc. Reg. 4ly If the Statute help not yet it is well enough because it is good in part and for part it is well found and damages shall be intented to be given for that which is well found Damages 9 H. 7. f. 4. 16 H. 7. f. 1â— 10 Rep. James and Osburns case 3 Iac. Banc. Reg. Bigrane and Selling Mich. 1649. Desmond Osborn this case the Court denied Roll chief Iustice said Issue if there be 2 issues and one issue is not well joyned and damages be given entire this is not good but will make all naught 40 Ed. 3. f. 40. 18 Iac. Aldridges case 16 Iac. Iones and Gates adjudged and he said that the material thing is not here put in issue and so the issue is immaterial and there is a Ieofail and the damages being given entire there can be no judgement given Jeâ—â—ail Ierman Iustice did differ in opinion and said if the Defendant plead an immaterial thing and the Plaintif joyn issue and it be found for him he shall have judgement otherwise where the plea is partly material partly immaterial for there the issue ought to be upon the material thing otherwise there can be no judgement It was adjourned till Thursday following The Case was this An Action of Assault and Battery and wounding was brought the Defendant pleads non cul to the wounding and justifies the Assault and Battery in defence of her Husband in keeping possession of certain lands The Plaintif replied de injuria sua propria and doth not traverse absque tali causa The Iury find entire damages for all whereas there is not a perfect issue joyned as to the Assault and Battery for want of the Traverse Postea Hodges against Iane. Hill 1649. Banc. sup IN an Arrest of Iudgement in this case the question was Whether debt lie against an Executor sur concessit solve of the Testator Wager of Law Debt Executor Whether an Action do lie against an Executor upon a Concessit solvere of the Testator upon a special custom Roll chief Iustice held that it doth not for this would be to charge an Executor in an Action of Debt where he may by the Law wage his Law and an Action of Debt lies not against an Executor upon a simple contract made by the Testator And he said that the reason for Ley gager is because it is intended that as well as the contract to pay money may be in private so may also the payment be made in private Adjourned Giaves against Drake Hill 1649. Banc. sup IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for divers parcels of Houshold stuff an Exception was taken to the Declaration Arrest of Iudgement in a Trover and Conversion because the Plaintif amongst other things had declared pro sex parcellis plumbi cinerii Anglice Pewter Porringers whereas the word parcellis is uncertain for a parcel doth consist of many things in number and so sex parcelli cannot be properly applyed to six Porringers but if it had béen sex peciis it had been better though that be also incertain Hales held it was all one as if it had béen pro sex peciis plumbi Cinerii Roll chief Iustice enclined it was well enough because though the words are not so proper yet the description is good enough Declaration Words Ierman Iustice was of the same opinion But Nicholas Iustice held that the Latin is not good for if there be proper words for a thing they ought to
agreed that by the conference set forth in the Declaration it is agreed that there was a Bastard Child and it is a scandal to the party whether there were a Bastard Child or no and if there were none you ought to shew it on the Defendants part Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement Elsy against Mawdit Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 409. THe Case of Elsy and Maw dit was again moved Arrest of judgement in an action for words wherein the Plaintiff had a verdict against the Defendant in an Action upon the Case brought against him for speaking these words of him Thou Sirrah art a rogue and a run-away rogue and didst run away at Oxford and art a rogue upon Record at Oxford upon a motion in arrest of Iudgement Iudgement was stayed till the Plaintiff should move Hales now moved for Iudgement because the words are actionable for they make the Plaintiff to be such a Rogue as may be endicted within the Statute and receive corporal punishment But Twisden denyed it Roll chief Iustice held it was within the Statute Yet the Court would advise In this case Ierman Iustice said That if one say that another is forsworn in a Court of Record the words are not actionable but if he say that he is forsworn upon Record the words are actionable But Roll chief Iustce held there was no difference between the words but that they are both Actionable Antea et Postea More against the Earl Rivers Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Mich. 1649 rot 588. MOre Arrested the Earl Rivers by a bill of Midlesex in a plea of Debt The Earl was therupon brought before Mr. Iustice Nicholas to put in bail Earl Rivers case touching privilege of pecrage and not being able to put in sufficient bail according to the course of the Court was committed to the custody of the Mareschal of the Marshalsea the Earl being in custody brings himself into Court by a habeas corpus and there pleads his privilege of his peerage and sayes that he ought not to be arrested and demands Iudgement of the Writ and prayes to be delivered to this the Plaintiff demurred Hales of Councel with the Earl argued to divers points but I could not here him well But the main question he insisted upon was whether that by taking away the house of Lords in Parliament whereby their voice and place in Parliament was gone the Privilege of his peerage not to be arrested for Debt was also taken away and he argued that it was not for he said that at the Common Law no capias did lye against a Peer Capias and the Statute of E. 3. which gave a capias for Debt against others did not give it against a Peer and it doth appear here that the Defendant is really an Earl and not in nomination only and he cited 27 H. 8. f. 22. b The reasons he said why an Earl had the privilege not to be arrested are two The first is in respect of the dignity of his person being called comes a comitando rege as some have thought and he is called by the King consanguineus noster The second is in respect of the presumption of his sufficiency of estate in lands to be summoned by and not by reason of his place in Parliament for they have the privilege not to be arrested as well in the vacancy of Parliaments as when the Parliament doth sit and the privilege of Parliament is that he shall not be sued but the privilege of peerage is that he shall not be arrested in his person and so they are distinct privileges and by taking away the Lords house the former privilege is taken away but not the latter and this privilege annexed to the person not to be arrested may belong to a person that hath not the privilege of Parliament as for example unto Widowes of Peers which could not be arrested and yet had no place in Parliament so that the excluding them from the Parliament doth only take away their privilege of Parliament and not their privilege of peerage and Nevlils case is that the privilege not to be arrested belongs to them in respect of the dignity of their persons 9 Rep. Salops case And it hath been a question whether comes be so called a comitando rege or in respect of their Counties whereof they were Earls and I conceive the latter derivation is the truer and then the taking away the King takes not away their privilege for the Counties remain 2ly Earls have by intendment sufficient fréehold to enfcore them to come in and answer at this day and therefore are not to be arrested and imprisonment of a mans person for debt was but a suppliment to make him answer where he had not sufficient freehold which we cannot intend here Nat. brev f. 93. And an Earl shall be amerced higher than another man in regard of the presumption of his freehold and Earls are called majores Barones in this respect 7 E. 4 Nevils case and the widow of an Earl had the privilege not to be arrested for the two very reasons that her husband had it so was it of a Bishop Abbot and Prior of England but otherwise it was of a Bishop that had a Bishoprick out of England And the late Statute that takes away the Kingly office doth not take away their names and dignities nor the presumption that they have fréeholds and therefore they are not to be arrested and their will be since the Act no more a failer of right than there was before and so he prayed the Writ might be abated Abatement Roll chief Iustice answered your Clyent ought to have prayed the Writ might have abated before he was turned over to the Marshall of this Court◠for then he was in Midlesex where he was arrested but now it is too late for now he is in custodia Marescalli Declaration and any body that hath cause of Action against him may declare against him Ierman Iustice said that the Writ is now determined which you pray to have abated so your prayer is to no purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the dignity of the person of an Earl may relate to him as he is Peer of the Parliament and the other presumption that he hath sufficient freehold may also fail but it doth not appear here by averment that he hath not freehold therefore it may be a question whether there shall be intended a sailer of Iustice for want of freehold if the party should not have been arrested and he agreed that an Earl as a Peer of Parliament had a double privilege one of his person to be free from arrests Arrests the other of his Estate to be free from sutes and he said if it had appeared by averment that the party had freehold it had been good without doubt to free him from arrests Ierman Iustice said he is now in custodia and the Declaration against him is good and now
Iustice held that a Bond given to appear upon an Attatchment out of the Chancery is within the Statute but it hath been heretofore a question whether a Serjeant at Arms of Wales were within the Statute but it hath been since ruled that he is not and here is a material variance in the Bond which makes it void and neither the upper Bench nor the Chancery are fixt Courts Obligation and therefore the Defendant ought not to be bound precisely to appear at VVestminster and then to add ubicumque fuerit is a material variance Chancery Variance and makes the Bond naught Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that the Chancery may sit at any time out of the Term when they please and their not sitting in the Vacations is for the ease and conveniency of the people Nil capiat per billamn si c. Antea Paine against Prestny Mich. 1650. Banc. sup PAine brought an Action upon the case against Prestny Arrest of judgement in an action for words for speaking these words to a Constable of him Take charge of him and carry him away for I lay flat Felony to him and for speaking these words to the Plaintiff himself I will make you hold up you hand at the Bar upon not guilty pleaded an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable but the Court held them cléerly actionable and ruled the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement except other cause were shewed to the contrary Friday following Popham against VVhite Mich. 1650. Banc. sup VPon a verdict found for the Plaintiff in a Trover Conversion Arrest of judgement in a Trover and Conversion the Defendant in Arrest of Iudgment took exception to the Declaration because the Plaintiff had declared of a Trover Conversion de decem arboribus wheras the trees were Tymber trees that were felled so they are not well expressed for the word arbor properly signifies a tree that grows and not one cut down according to the old verse Arbor dum crescit lignum dum crescere nescit and so a Trover cannot be brought pro arbore But Roll chief Iustice said that they were well enough expressed by the Declaration Declaration Description and that they ought not to be too strict in scanning some words where the thing is well described Goffs Case Mich. 1650. Banc. sup CLement Goff of Greenwitch in Kent A pardon for Felony pleaded and allowed arraigned of felony at Maidstone in Kent and there condemned was brought to this Bar and there it was demanded of him by the Clark on the criminal side what he could say why he should not suffer death according to his Iudgement whereupon the Prisoner pleaded he had a pardon and produced it and it was read openly the Prisoner kneeling on his keees in the mean time after reading of it he was asked what it was he demanded besides of the Court he answered that he prayed his pardon might be allowed which after Ierman Iustice had made a grave speech to exhort him to a better carriage for the future was done accordingly VVood against Topham Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe case between VVood and Topham being an Action of Trespasse Arrest of judgement in trespass quare filium et heredem rapuit maritavit quare filium et heredem suum rapuit et maritavit was again spoken unto and in arrest of Iudgement Green took these exceptions to the Declaration 1. That it is too short because that after the words quare filium suum heredem rapuit maritavit there ought to have been added cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet for else it appears not that the Plaintiff hath cause of Action Instit f. 20. 35 El. Child and Towrs case Banc. Reg. 2ly The Declaration doth not say filium suum apparentem which it ought to do because the Father is alive 3ly It doth not expresse the Heir to be infra aetatem 4ly It doth not say the Heir is in custodia sua 5ly It doth not shew that the Heir was not married before 6ly It doth not shew that the Plaintiffs Father is dead 12 H. 4. f. 16. Broo◠Tit. Trespasse 101 Nat. brev 142. Reg. 163 Nat. Brev. 140. 20 H. 6. f. 44. And he said that a Declaration ought to be certain but that here was no certainty by reason of the former exceptions Declaration Trespass VVilmot on the other side said the Declaration was certain enough and according to the presidents and cited the Register f. 88 89. ◠rep Ratcliffs case Roll chief Iustice said It is a Trespasse to take away a mans Son and Heir although he be not within age but if it be another Son it is not so Nicholas Iustice to the same effect But because the Court was not full in regard that the damages given by the Iury were excessive the Court deferred to give Iudgement that time and perswaded the Plaintiffs councell to go to a new new try all Antea et Postea Marshall against Ledsham Mich. 1650. Banc. sup MArshall brought an Action of Debt as an Administrator against Ledsham Arrest of judgement in debt by an Administator and obteins a verdict against the Defendant It was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgement That the Plaintiff had not shewed in his Declaration by whom the Letters of Administration were granted unto him as he ought to do according to the books of 26 H. 6.29 35 H. 6. The Court answered that he ought to have set it forth and therefore the Plaintiff might have demurred to the Declaration but it now being after a verdict Demurrer the question is Whether that fault be not helped by it And therefore they would advise Postea VVats and his wife against Lord. Mich. 1650. Banc. sup VVAts and his wife brought an Action of Trespasse of an Assault and Battery against Lord Arrest of judgement in an Assault and Battery and obtein a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement That the Declaration was by the Baron and Feme for an Assault and Battery made to the Feme and they also declare that the Defendant alia enormia eis intulit which ought not to be for the wrong being but a personal wrong done to the person of the Feme only could not be said to be done to the Husband To which Roll chief Iustice agreed Fairefax against Fairfax Mich. 1650. Banc. sup IN a writ of Error brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a writ of Dowr these exceptions were taken Error to reverse a judgment in down 1. That the original was not well returned for their appears not to be any return of the Proclamation of the summons and though the party do appear yet it was said that it is not helped thereby 2ly The demand is incertain for the demand is de tertia parte decimarum garbarum
in Colton and by this demand the Kind of the Tithes demanded is not made certain for the word garba admits of divers constructions and so Lynwood the Civilian shews 3ly It is not expressed whether the Defendant be terr-Tenant or heir 4ly The demaund is ac etiam de rectoria de Acerstall Malvis which is incertain for it ought to be de rectoria ecclesiae Roll chief Iustice to the 1. Exception said Miscontinuance that the appearance of the party will help miscontinuance of proces and so it doth here Hales to the 2d exception said that decimae garbarum is certain enough to common understanding To the 3d. Exception he held it not necessary to say de rectoria ecclesiae for it must be so necessarily intended The Court desired to see books and so it was adjourned At another day the case was again moved and these spoken to and answered 1. As before that decimae garbarum is certain enough so common intendment 2ly That it is not necessary to expresse the setting forth of the dowr in the tithes by metes and bounds for tithes cannot be so set forth and it is not constant to use the expression per metas et bundas Latch took another exception that it was improperly expressed for one to enter into an Advowson And to the exception formerly taken he held that the Proclamation of summons ought to have been returned and that fault is not helped by the late Act because it is matter of substance and not meer matter of form and he said that appearance of the party doth salve a discontinuance of mean processes but not of originall processe as this is which is the very foundation of the Action and that though the want of a summons be helped by the partyes appearance yet the want of returning the summons is not helped by the partyes appearance Next he held as formerly that decimae garbarum is incertain and that the nature of the corn ought to be shewed Roll chief Iustice said Return that the not returning the proclamation of summons is not material for the summons is only to make the party appear and he hath appeared in this case and the late Act extends to it if it were not good without it And the demand of tertiam partem garbarum is certain enough by common intendment but it seems more certain here than so for it is tertiam partem garbarum granorum which signifies corn And it is not necessary to express the setting forth of the dowr per metas et bundas but it is well as it is without that expression And lastly It is well enough said ingressus est into the advowson although it be not so proper an expression as might have been used for it is good enough to make the party tenant Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that if there be two Tenants in Common and one of them dye it is a great question how the wife shall be endowed viz. whether per metas bundas or no. And he doubted whether the Writ of error here brought were good or not for it is retornable coram custodibuâ— libertatis c. apud Westmonasterium whereas as it ought to be coram custodibus ubicunque for they are not fixed to Westminster Nicholas Iustice to the same effect Error Roll chief Iustice said it was a good exception that Ierman took to the Writ of error But the Court was here at Westminster at the return of the Writ and the Writ was made by the Custodes themselves and the partyes did appear upon it and therefore he questioned whether it might not be made good for these reasons Ierman Iustice held it could not Roll chief Iustice said that all the Latin presidents are agreeable to this Writ and it would be dangerous to alter them But let the cursitors attend Presidents and give their reasons why they do not alter this form and if the Writ be good me thinks the Iudgement should be affirmed Yet we will advise a little of the writ and whether the demand of decimam partem garbarum without granorum be good or not Postea Lumley against Nevil Mich. 1650. Banc. sup IN a writ of error brought upon a Judgement given in an ejectione firmae Error in an habere facias Possessionem It was said by Roll chief Iustice That if the writ of habere facias possessionem do contein more Acres of Land than are expressed in the Declaration that it is error But if the Sheriff do give possession of more Land than is conteined in the writ of habere facias possessionem an Action of the case lies against the Sheriff or an Assise lyes for the land It was also said that if a Iudgement be affirmed upon a writ of error in the Exchequer Chamber Error Case Assise Execution yet they cannot grant out execution there but it must be in this Court Hunt against Popham Mich. 1650. Banc. sup IT was moved for the Defendant to have the rule of Court for the Plaintiff to bring in the postea The court not to be moved for a rule where it may be given in the office Nonsuit that the Defendant may move in Arrest of Iudgement The Court answered they would make no rule for the Defendant may give rules in the office to force him to it and if he will not bring it in he is to be nonsuit Fairefax against Fairefax Mich. 1630. Banc. sup THe Case between Fairefax and Fairefax was moved again Whether a demand in down good or not and Hales held that the demand of dowr de decimis garbarum was certain enough though it be not garbarum granorum and he cited the Register 46. and Dyer f. 84. and one Cavendishes case 8. Iac. Roll chief Iustice took a difference between a demand of Tithes and the suing for a recompence for Tithes upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. and cited the Regist 165 and he held the demand here to be good with whom concurred the other Iudges Ask Iustice said that a garb is a french word and signifies any thing bound up into a bundle but by Cowell the Civilian it signifies Corn bound up and so is the word commonly used at the Common Law Demand Roll chief Iustice said that a demand in a praecipe ought to be more certain than it is necessary for a demand in dowr to be Latch said that the words coram nobis apud VVestmonasterium is part of the stile of the Court which Roll chief Iustice denyed yet he said it was well enough because the Court was there at the return of the writ of Error To which the other Iudges agreed and the rule was that the Iudgement should be affirmed nisi c. antea Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that one was arrested upon a day of thanks-giving appointed by the Parliament Moved to discharge an arrest and that he was forced to put in bond
he was taken and imprisoned The Defendant pleaded an award made by Sir John Rivers and Sir Nicholas Miller two Iustices of Peace between the parties in Bar. Twisden of Councel with the Plaintif said that the award doth not bind the Plaintif for the award concerns only the speaking of the words and speaks nothing of the imprisoment And 2ly the Award is not good for there is not satisfaction made by it on both parties Wild of Councel with the Defendant held that the Declaration was not good and that therefore he needs not to justifie the plea for though it should be ill yet the Plaintif can have no judgement and he said the Declaration was naught because it alleged no day when nor place where the Defendant charged the Plaintif with the felony and made him to be imprisoned Twisden answered that there is a place alleged and that though there were none yet it is well enough for part and judgement may be given for that To which Roll chief Iustice agréed Wild replyed then the plea is good But the Court answered it is not and what say you to the Arbitrement Wild answered it was good to which Ierman and Ask Iustices assented Roll chief Iustice answered It is a benefit to the Parish and so to the Overseers of the poor Nicholas Iustice to the same purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the Declaration is ill and the Plea also for the Plea is entire Declaration Plea and yet goes not to all the matter alleged in the Declaration but the plea is only to part of them and therefore if any part of the Declaration be good judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for that part and the plea in Bar is naught so judgement ought to be entirely for the Plaintif But it is to be considered concerning the damages Rosyer against Langdale Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 100. ROsyer an Executor brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against Langdale a Feme Administratrix Error to reverse a judgement in an Assumpsit by an Executor against an Administratrix and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear sute until she had taken out Letters of Administration did assume and promise to pay unto him the Plaintif a certain sum of money owing unto him by the Intestate Vpon Issue joyned and a Verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement And Baldwin of his Councel took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif had set forth no consideration in his Declaration for the Assumpsit for all that is alleged is that the Plaintif should forbear sute till the Defendant had taken out Letters of Administration which is no consideration at all for the Defendant was not lyable to be sued as Administratrix until she had taken out Letters of Administration except there were a cause depending as here is not And he cited Hob. rep Bidwell and Cottons case That if there be a sute commenced though there be no cause for it yet forbearance to sue is a good cause to ground an Assumpsit upon Assumpsit A second Exception was that the Venire facias is not awarded per Curiam nec in Curia Roll chief Iustice held the 1. a good Exception for the Defendant was not chargeable before Letters of Administration taken forth if she do not intermedle with the goods of the Intestate and it doth not appear here that she did neither is the Defendant compellable to take forth Letters of Administration for they may be granted to the next of Kin if the Ordinary pleaseth according as the Statute ordains Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same intent thereupon the rule was reversetur nisi c. But because Day being of Councel on the other side took some Exceptions to the writ of Error and the retorn thereof It was adjourned Staples Hill 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede a scire sacias brought by a prisoner of the Marshalsea For a Supersedeas to a Scire sacias upon the late Act for discharging of poor prisoners because the Certificate of the cause for which he was a prisoner was false and so the procéedings erronious for the party was in execution for Trespass which is not within the Statute made for the prisoners 2ly Because there was no due notice given to the party at whose sute he lay in execution as the Statute doth direct there should The Court ordered to view the Certificate 〈◊〉 Den uneâ— and to file it otherwise there should be no proceedings upon the scire facias and directed the party to demur upon the scire facias if it be not good because the matter alleged cannot be pleaded to it Custodes against Arskot Hill 1650. Banc. sup MAynard moved the Court for one Arskot that was outlawed for murther For time to bring a Writ of Error and had leave to bring his writ of Error that he may have longer time to bring it because the King uses to sign the writ and the Parliament had not ordered who shall do it now and therefore the Attorney General must advise with the Parliament about it which cannot spéedily be done Thereupon time was granted till the Attorney could conveniently do it Newcomin against Leigh Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 16â—0 rot 52. LEigh did assume and promise unto Newcomin Whether a good Assumpsit that if Newcomin would take one Loe for his Debtor in the room of one Cooper and would spare Loe until such a time for the money that then he would pay the money to Newcomin if he did not and upon this Assumpsit Newcomin brought his Action against Leigh The question was whether this were a good Assumpsit And the Court held it was not because it is a collateral thing and he doth not say that he will discharge Cooper and so Newcomin may sue Cooper notwithstanding the Assumpsit For though it may be it was the intention of the parties to discharge Cooper yet it appears not so by the words of the Assumpsit set forth And it was then said by Roll. That if I promise to pay to Iohn a Down a Debt which Iohn a Stile oweth to Iohn a Down Nudum pactum this is nudum pactum Bawsy and Lowdall Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 275. VPon a special verdict in an Action of Trespasse and Ejectment Special Verdict upon the devise of a Copyhold in Fee the case in effect was this A man seised of Copyhold lands in fée devisable by Custom deviseth them in this manner I give and bequeath my lands c. to my son Richard during his natural life and after to the heir of his body for ever Hales of Councel with the Plaintif made these questions 1. whether by the words of the Will a Fee-simple at the Common Law passeth because there is an estate to Richard for life and after
purpose to dispence with the want of Investiture if it were necessary and the reason of the making the new Patent of the Lord Barkeley was not for the want of the Clause of Investiture for the Investiture is a ceremony of the Heraulds and not essential to the Honour And although there be no certain place of denomination of the place of the Earldom yet is the Patent good for it may be out of England and yet she may be an English Countess notwithstanding Although I agree that forein honours may be granted by the Broad Seal of England but here be sufficient words to express her to be an English Countess the most proper that can be viz. the Patent Creations of such honours have been frequent she hath also a sufficient estate to support her dignity I confess that it is true that no person can be privileged from Arrest by grant but here the privilege ensues the Patent of her Counteship by Custom and Law as incident to it The King cannot grant a privilege to imprison but if he grant a Court the power to imprison follows necessarily upon it And the privilege which the Law gives to the person of a Countess is that which exempts her from Arrest as it appears in the Case of a Countess by Mariage and a Countess by Creation is more honourable than a Countess by Mariage and therefore ought to have as high privileges as the other and the Statute made concerning Countesses the wives of Earls and Barons do appertain to a Countess created for those Statutes were but an affirmance of the Common Law and did introduce no new Law This privilege is not taken away for it arose by Custom and by the Common Law and not from Foreiners as Latch conceives and so the reason of that cannot be as he urgeth but by the privilege of the person which indures as well when there is no Parliament as when there is and this privilege is during life and not like to a privilege granted by reason of employment For a Countess Dowager hath no more reason to be privileged in relation to military employment than a Countess by Creation and by the late Act no employment is taken away And for the Clergy they were privileged from Arrests not because of employment but by reason of the eminency of their persons There may be an Earl or a Baron by writ or by prescription and there it ought to be certified by writ but here the honour being by Creation the Patent may be pleaded to certifie it as well as if it were certified by writ and to plead it thus is the more proper way A Baron ought not to be stiled Dominus in a writ but by his Christian name and addition of Knight if he be one if he have no special name of Barony in his Creation Roll chief Iustice demanded if one be made a Baron and be not called to the Parliament by writ or comes thither by virtue of some clause in his Patent shall he be exempted from Arrest quasi diceret non And if one heretofore had had twenty Knights fees Privilege could he have come to the Parliament by reason of them And held that the privilege is not allowable for she never had reference to the Parliament or to do any other publique service Ierman Nicholas and Ask Justices agreed with Roll in all Roll said If the King grant a Town to be a Burrough the grant gives it not privilege to send a Burgess to the Parliament except there be special words in the Patent to warrant it but if he make a County it is otherwise by Statute Adjourned Hayward against VVilliams Hill 1650. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 824. THe Case was this Whether a Writ of Error well brought A Feme was sued as a Feme sole but by the surname of her Husband she being Covert Baron and Iudgement was given against her and the Baron brought a writ of Error The question was whether the writ of Error was well brought by the Baron It was then said That if a Feme Covert levy a fine as a Feme sole if her Baron die she shall not defeat it but the Baron may defeat it during her life 18 E. 4 40.7 Roll chief Iustice to the case at the Bar said how can the Baron bring a writ of Error here who is no party to the Record neither is chargeable by the judgement But let us see books for the case is considerable Postea Needler and Guest Hill 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot Q. A Writ of Error was brought in the Chequer Chamber to reverse a judgement given in this Court Whether Execution may be notwithstanding a Writ of Error brought in the Chequer Chamber Execution The question was whether now since the late Act that a Writ of Error shall be no supersedeas of Execution this Court may grant execution Roll chief Iustice said it may for otherwise the Act is to no purpose Latch said the Record is not now in this Court and therefore there can be no Execution granted here Roll chief Iustice answered you have confessed by your pleading namely by your Demurrer that the Record is here so far as to grant Execution Therefore let there be Execution except cause be shewed to the contrary the day the next term But afterwards the Court said they would not grant it but said the party might take execution at his peril and Alleyn Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Certiorari was directed to the County Palatine of Chester to remove a cause into this Court. They make a special retorn Whether a Return good out of the County Palatine of Chester viz. that they have jurisdiction of the cause and that therefore they are not to certifie it Serjeant Glyn argued that this retorn was not good for this Court hath jurisdiction over all the Courts in England in writs mandatory 34 Ass 7.19 H. 6.12 And an Act of Plarliament doth not take away the power of this Court if it run not in the negative but in writs remedial it is not so general as it is in this case the cause may be well enough tryed here notwithstanding it be concerning a matter which ariseth in the County Palatine as the Statute 9 Ed. 3. C. â— is 2ly It appears that the Maior and Citizens of Chester are parties and so they will try their own cause and this appears by the Record and this they ought not to do 21 H. 7. f. 33. lib. Ass 332. 37 E. 3. f. 7.6 Iac. C. Banc. and Smith and Hancocks case 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Roll chief Iustice answered If the cause were come to tryal this were good cause to remove it but it is not so here and it appears not by the retorn that the matter of the sute did arise within the jurisdiction of the City what say you to that Iurisdiction for they have not shewn any cause why they should have jurisdiction
but if it be interrupted but in part it is not so as it is in the case cited where the King hath Gavelkind lands Com. Plowd 114. and so prays judgement for the Plaintif Adjourned Latch at another day argued for the Avowant and said that the Plaintif in his rejoynder hath made no title unto Susan Tong from whom he claims It is objected that by the grant of the Manor of Chingford Comitis per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum c. that Tong cannot be intituled It is answered that the other side hath confessed that Tong hath a title for they derive from her also and the contrary doth not appear to the Court and it being agreed the Court will not make a doubt of it He made 3 Questions 1. Whether the Manor of Chingford Comitis passeth per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum de c. 2ly Whether if the grant be ill it be aided by Statute 3ly Whether it be helped by the Averment For the 1. he held that here is a good grant without any averment or aid of the Statute for if the King grants two Manors one shall pass and e converso it shall not be so in the Case of the King but it is good in the case of a Common person with an Averment The grant of the Manor of Saperton cum Rippen is an ill grant for the incertainty of it but here is no such incertainty here is no non nosmer of the thing for the word nomina requires not a proper name but it is all one as if it had been expressed by words comprehending it and the word Manors doth comprehend it If the King grant his two Acres of Land lying in a Common field although but one Acre is to be found yet the grant is good and it is not like to the grant of a Manor with the Advowson where the King hath but a moyety of the Advowson or a moyety of the Manor for the Moyety is not actual in the whole but one is actually in two and so it is well named here 2ly Whether it be good without an averment that the land was in the Lord Darcy and he held it was If the words were general in the grant all of them ought to be true otherwise nothing will passe by the grant as Dodingtons case is but here is a proper name to express it and therefore the grant is not destroyed although the latter description do not agree to it 10. Rep. Harpers Case 2 H. 4. f. 2. If the King grant all the lands in the Patent annexed bearing date 10 of Iune though the Patent bear date the 10 of Iuly yet is the grant good for veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis and if the grant should not be good at the Common Law yet it is ayded by the Statute of 3. 4 Phil. Mar. and here is a full and a strong averment in the pleading for it is Manerium praedictum and not Manerium generally and here is not only a possibility but also a facility for it to pass and it may be called Manor or Manors and in a feofment a thing may pass per nomen because that the livery passeth it where one pleads per nomen he is to make the Plea agree with the Record or specialty otherwise per nomen shall not be pleaded and Newtons opinion against this is but a single opinion 33 H. 8. Br. Averment 42. The word praedict makes an averment in the name of the Feoffor â—4 H. 4.30.22 H. 6.40 Barton and Escott here is also a full averment of the thing granted this is in grants 7 E. 4.24.33 H. 6. f. 22 26 Ass 2.24 Ass 6. so in Letters Patents Dyer 86. the Serjeants case and if this be authority it is in the very point Dyer 207. praedict per nomina is a good averment Pasch 7. Iac. Rot. 430. B. reg Stonehouse and Reeds case where there was not so much as a per nomina but only decimas praedict and yet adjudged to be a good intitling by the word praedict because it was held a good averment although it was not led on by a per nomina and there admitted to be clear if it had been with a per nomina as the Case here is so Tong is well intitled 2ly The Plaintifs title is well avoided and we have well destroyed his Copy without doubt if a Common person had granted the Copyhold for life the Copy-hold had been thereby extinguished and our case is not a prerogative case for the King is bound by the Custom of the Manor and the Custom is here destroyed and the prerogative cannot create the Custom anew and it is against the Kings Prerogative to have things drawn out of the King without matter of Record and it is prejudice to the King to have the Custom revived for the lands are now made free and shall never return again to the Vassalage The Kings Prerogative exalts him above a Common person but this custom makes him equal to a common person 2ly The Custom here cannot be supported but here is an absolute extinguishment of the Copyhold so that it cannot be regranted The law will confirm things necessary to the grant of the King in some cases where it is prejudicial to the King 16 H. 7. f. 8. Nicholas case Plowd 489. The king seised of a donative makes it presentative if he do but once present unto it so if he turn an Annuity into a rent charge by taking a distress And the nature of this Custom here ought not to be examined with other Customs for it is more strict than in other cases for if it be once destroyed it is always destroyed and cannot be suspended and it is not for the Kings dis-advantage to have the Copyhold destroyed but it is for his advantage and conveniency and so he prays judgement for the Avowant Roll chief Iustice All will come and rest upon the last point for all the other things are admitted The grant is good by the per nomen and it is only nominal and doth not imply that there are two Manors and it may stand well enough with reason that it may be known per nomen But the last point is considerable he enclined to Latch Nicholas Iustice to the same effect and that the praedict is a good averment The last point is considerable but prima facie here the custom is not destroyed Ask Iustice to the same effect and that it appears that the King intended to grant but one Manor Roll We will take time till the next term to speak to the last point which is only doubtfull and to deliver our opinions Ierman Iustice the pleading of the party per nomen helps not the Patent if it be not good in it self The next Term Roll chief Iustice for himself and the rest of the Iudges who he said concurr'd in opinion with him delivered the opinion of the Court to this effect 1. That they were agreed that
determined and Hanbury and Cookrells case is not adjudged but if it be it is on my side and Mich. 37 38. C. B. rot 1149. It was adjudged upon solemn argument at the Bar and on the Bench contrary to the Iudgement in Pell and Browns case if lands be devised to one and his Heirs and if he dye without issue that the land shall be to another and his Heirs this is no Estate tail for it cannot stand with the rules of Law to devise â—uth an Estate for it is but a possibility and if it should be more it must be a Fee upon a Fee and so a perpetuity and it cannot be known within what bounds it shall end either in case of years or life or other contingencies and the comparison of Lampets case is not like to this case for that was or a Term but this is of a freehold and a contingent devise of a freehold is not good since the Statute of 32 H. 8. and Brook tit devise 2 Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 3â— is not an opinion against this And though there could be such a devise of other lands yet Copyhold lands cannot be so devised as the case is here for there cannot be so much as a possibility of reverter for there is no custom to warrant it Hill 5. Car. King and Leyden in this Court and Dyer 264. and though there might be a reverter yet he cannot devise it by will and if he could yet here the conbeyance is made up by surrender admittance and devise and the party is here in by the surrender and not by the devise and so is a Copyholder in by Act executed and not upon the contingency and the will is but to direct and though all this be otherwise yet the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement for it appears not that the surrender is presented at any Court at all and here is nothing but a recitall found Ierman Iustice said by the Common Law there ought to be a presentment at the next Court Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas Iustice There is no certain time for the presentment but it is according to the Custom of the Manor so that it be within the life of the Tenant Roll chief Iustice said it is an inconvenience to devise such a contingent Estate Nicholas doubted for he said it would shake many wills if it might not be and so said Hales The Court would advise Hales confessed the verdict was imperfect but prayed it might be amended But Latch answered it is good enough for us the Defendants for we have primer possession The Court answered it would be good to have it amended and not to have a venire de novo Venire for that will be chargeable but if the verdict be imperfect to bring the matter in Law into question we can grant a new venire although it hath been heretofore doubted Therefore be advised so that it may be argued Antea Heal against Green Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 370. THe case between Heal and Green upon a special verdict formerly argued by Latch was again spoken to and argued by Twisden Argument upon a special verdict upon construction of words of a Will and he held that the Feme had power by the Will to make the lease notwithstanding that she hath but an Estate for life and cited 11 Car. B. R. Hill rot 810. Iob and Whites case and 21 Iac. Danyel and Vgnel and he said that the remainder limited to the daughter doth not hurt for it may very well stand with the will and the intent of the Testator appears upon the whole to be to give such a power to his wife to make this lease and cited 8 Car. Perd and Bensams case And there is a clause in the will that shews that the Testator did intend to advance his wife by this devise And the Feme shall be in by the power which shall make the estate of the lease good and it is not necessary to recite the power as it is held in Rogers case Maynard on the other side said he would not dispute the power but here is no such power given to the wife as it appears by the expresse words of the Will which doth only describe that she shall only make Estates but for her life otherwise she might make Estates in Tail or in Fee and if this should be the last part of the Will which doth limit the remainder would be destroyed and generals in a Will shall not revoke an express devise but they ought so to be construed that all the Will may stand together as Bonhams case is 8. rep Roll chief Iustice It is a difficult thing to shew the meaning of the Testator here but the general must not destroy the particular devise to which Nicholas Iustice assented and Roll enclyned that the Feme had power by the Will to make this Estate otherwise the words of the Will must be idle and void and it may be the Baron intended to give his wife such a power that she might destroy the remainders and otherwise there cannot be any construction made of the Will Ask Iustice differed in opinion and said it was unreasonable the remainder should be destroyed which is expresly limited by the Will and a Will doth differ from a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said that the words shall be expounded to shew his bounty to his wife but not to give her power to destroy the remainder Ierman Iustice There are expresse words for the Feme and the daughter and the Feme hath a power but not to destroy the Estate of the daughter Curia advisare vult Antea Booth against Lambert Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 201. VPon a speciall verdict upon these words Argument and judgement upon special verdict the question whether dower well assiâ—gâ—ed or not viz. I do endow you of a third part of all the lands my Cosen I. S. your husband dyed seised of The question was whether the feme were well endowed by these words because he doth not say that he endows her by metes and bounds Chase held she was not well endowed and cited 8 Ed. 2.15 and said that here is incertainty which begets dissention which ought not to be and the thing is not here entire but may be devided And this is an assignment of dower which differs from a demand of dower for a demand may be general as in the cases of Thyn and Thyn in this Court and of Fairefax and Fairefax and so the book of 8 E. 2. entry congeable S 5. which seems to prove the contrary that is not to our case for it differs from it Merifield of Councell on the other side held the feme was well endowed and agreed the cases put by Chase That of Common right a feme ought to be endowed by metes and bounds yet sometimes it is otherwise as 3 Eliz. Dyer 27. a feme endowed in Common And the feme that is to be endowed and the
declared Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit that whereas there was a speech concerning mariage between her the Plaintif and Smith the Defendant in consideration that she the Plaintif would marry the Defendant the Defendant did assume and promise to her the Plaintif that he would marry her and that afterwards the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would discharge the Defendant of this promise the Defendant did assume and promise that he would pay unto her the Plaintif a thousand pound and that she did discharge the Defendant of his promise of mariage and yet the Defendant had not paid the 1000 l. according to his promise Vpon non assumpsit pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that there is mention of two promises in the Declaration and that it is incertain to which promise the Declaration relates 2ly That there is no temporal consideration alleged but only a promise to dissolve a Contract of Mariage which is a thing illegal and so no consideration Roll chief Iustice answered that here is a mutual promise made by both parties Promise Case and there have been divers actions of late times brought for this cause and they have been adjudged good and the engagement to marry is not meerly a a spiritual matter and this Action is not to compell the mariage upon the Contract but to recover damages for not doing it and it is like to a wager and here is a temporal loss and therefore a temporal Action doth lie But it was adjourned till next Term to be argued again and then judgement was given for the Plaintif for the Court held that the dis-engagement shall be intended to the party himself and here is no need to expresse notice given of it Postea Kenedy against Fisher Mich. 1651. Banc. sup KEnedy declared in an Action upon the case against Fisher for speaking these words of him he lost his Feet by the Pox Whether a Plea of privilege was to be allowed innuendo the French Pox The Defendant demurred to the Declaration and after imparled and then pleaded a plea of privilege Hales desired the opinion of the Court whether this plea were now allowable because the Books differed about it Roll chief Iustice answered that the plea is not allowable because there is but a privilege claimed by it and the Plea goes not to the jurisdiction of the Court Therefore let the Defendant plead in chief Starkey against Mill. Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Entred Trin. 1651. rot 170. STarkey brought an Action upon the Case against Mill upon two several Assumpsits Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon an Assumpsit and obtains a Verdict upon both and entire damages are given It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that one of the promises was not good because there was no consideration to ground it upon and so the damages being intire upon both the Assumpsits one failing judgment cannot be given The case was this The Father gave goods to his Son in consideration that the Son should pay the Plaintif in this action 20 l. It was urged that this can be no consideration for the Plaintif to bring his action because here is no debt due to him but only an appointment for the Son to pay money to him in consideration of the goods given him by his Father But Hales on the other side said that if there may be a debt by any intendment due to the Plaintif Coâ—sideration then the Assumpsit is good and here is a debt due to him therefore the Assumpsit is good Roll chief Iustice held that it is good as it is for there is a plain Contract because the goods were given for the benefit of the Plaintif though the Contract be not between him and the Defendant Case and he may well have an Action upon the Case for here is a promise in Law made to the Plaintif though there be not a promise in fact there is a debt here and the Assumpsit is good Ierman and Aâ—k Iustices agreed but Nicholas doubted But Iudgement was given for the Plaintif Cressit against Burgis Mich. 1651. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for tithes Arrest of Iudgement in Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for tithes Vpon nil debet pleaded and a verdict and damages given for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the damages given are for tithes growing upon 71 Acres of land whereas the Plaintif in his Declaration declares but for tithes growing upon 70 Acres of Land so that the damages are given for more than is declared for and contrary to the demand To this it was answered that this is but the mis-counting of the Iury and is not material Damages because by the whole Declaration it appears there was but 70 Acres and this is but a description by the Iury how the several parcels of land were sown viz. with what Corn. Roll chief Iustice said The Declaration is that the Defendant was seised of 70 Acres of Arable land and that so many Acres were sowed with Wheat so many with Oats so many with Messing so many with Beans and as to the 5 Aeres residue sowed with Barley which all amounts to 71 Acres and it ought to have been as to 4 Acres residue so that this is but a mis-counting of the Iury for the Iury cannot be deceived for the land is called but 70 Acres in the Declaration and no damage ariseth to any by this mistake To which the rest of the Iudges agreed and judgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Mich. 1651 Banc. sup THe Court was moved to reverse an Outlawry for want of Proclamation Motion to reverse an Outlawry Apparence the question was whether it may be done by Attorney the party himself by reason of infirmity of body being not able to come in person Vpon view of the Statute Roll chief Iustice said he must come in person otherwise it cannot be done yet the Court would advise Afterwards it was over-ruled that it could not be reversed except he come in person Drinkwater against Pack Mich. 1651 Banc. sup DRinkwater brought an action upon an Escape against Pack one of the Sherifs of London and obtains a Verdict against him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for an escape It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintif declares that the party was in the custody of both the Sherifs and yet the Action is brought against but one of them the prisoner that escaped being in Ludgate in the custody of the Defendant Pack Latch answered that the Exception is not good because in Law the prisoner that escaped is in the custody of both the Sherifs Hales on the other side said that it doth not appear upon the Record that he was in the Custostody of both the Sherifs and it shall not be
transitory matter Where one justifies a thing done it ought to be confessed that he did it so if he traverse that he hath not done a thing here it implyes it is done some where else Latch for the Defendant made this question whether upon the matter as it is here pleaded the jurisdiction of this Court be taken away and he held it is It is the honour of this court to imaintain the jurisdiction of all other Courts and therefore I hope it is not misbeseeming me to put it in mind of this honour that belongs to it I believe that according to the antient Law of the land actions ought not to be laid else-where then where the matter that caused them did arise although that now by custom it is grown otherwise Although the Plaintiff may fix a transitory Action where he pleaseth in ordinary matters yet he cannot do it where the matter ariseth within a speciall jurisdiction as the case here is It is not a good allegation that binds up the jurisdiction of this Court except where it appears that the allegation is true the allegation here may well stand with law it being in the Case of a County Palatine which hath such a jurisdiction incident to it this Court Ex Officio ought to take notice of the Iurisdiction of the County Palatine and that they have authority to hold pleas 45 Ed. 3. f. 10. 50 E. 3. pl. 1â— 10 H. 6.16 The averment is that the party remains within the jurisdiction of Chester that there may not be intended to be a failer of justice by the parties going out of the Iurisdiction where the offence was done 44 45 Eliz. Crisp and Deâ—â—â— Neither is the plea by the traverse become so vitious as to retain the Iurisdiction of this Court thereby For the County Palatine cannot give up their jurisdiction to this Court as antient Demesn Courts and other Courts may by the mispleading of the parties for their pleading is coram non judice 10 H. 6.13 b. 9 H. 7.12 45 E. 3. f. 7. 22 E. 4.23 31 H. 6.11 Nor doth the traverse here waive all the precedent matter but stands with it although it be made narrower by it but nothing is here waived Dyer 165 Here is an issue in substance which is good although not in the letter and the straightning of it shall not hurt and the Court is neither inveigled nor the party wronged by it Dyer 369 Hob. 119. This traverse binds not the other party to joyn issue upon it but there may be a traverse upon a traverse and he may plead another plea Hob. 18. New mans case Roll chief Iustice In your prescription you have averred that he was an inhabitant but you have not averred that they ought to hold plea of transitory matters if the party inhabit out of the jurisdiction and here the party ought to be summoned and if he dwell out of the jurisdiction what remedy can be had against him then for how can he be summoned And we cannot judge of the jurisdiction but by your pleading Tryall and by your traverse you have tripped up your own heels The reason why transitory actions may be laid in any County is because that otherwise justice might fail for the party may do a fact in one County and then remove to another so here the party may do wrong within the County Palatine and then go out of it to avoid justice At another day Wild argued for the Plaintiff and Shafto for the Defenddant Wild held that the plea was ill 1. In the inducement 2ly It is ill in the substance of it 3ly The traverse is not good The inducement is ill because it doth not confess a conversion but here is a general issue only pleaded 9 E. 4.5 12 E. 4.12 It is ill in the substance because the usage pleaded is against Law and will cause a failer of justice which ought not to be for the Law leaves no person wronged without a remedy 19 E. 3.29 Fitz. Iurisdict 50 E. 3. pl. 1â— 44. 45 Eliz. Crisp and Verols case 2 R. 3.4 Harid and Paytons case 24 Car. 48.2 instit 4. Cook jurisdict 213. 14 E. 4.25 Next the traverse hath waived all the matter pleaded before and because the plea was good before there was no necessity to take it 20 E. 4.2 and the traverse is also too straight for it hath tyed up the matter to Wellington and so he prayed a respondes ouster Shafto on the other side held the plea good and argued much to shew in the jurisdiction of the County Palatine and cited Cook jurisdict f. 219. 22 E. 4.34 per collow Dyer 156. Hill 8 H. 7. rot 228. and he said the plea is good though it be not confined to the inhabitants within Chester for there was no necessity to plead thus and it had been enough to have pleaded generally because this Court takes notice of the jurisdiction of Chester 11 Rich. 2. Fitz. breif and the pleading hath alwayes been in this maner as may appear by the Book of entryes 1 E. 4. f. 11. and this custom by construction of law is necessarily to extend to the inhabitants within the jurisdiction 21 H. 7.40 Dyer 46. Rastall 128 129. the privilege of Chester follows the persons of the inhabitants and so there can be no failer of justice as is objected And for the traverse though it be ill it shall do no hurt in this case to take away the custom for upon the entire record it doth appear that the Action lyes within the jurisdiction and if Iudgement be given here it is coram non judice and so the traverse is nor material 9 H. 7.12 37 H. 6. f. 26. Cooks Mag. Char. cap. 247 Mag. Char. f. 241. Westm I. C. 35. Bract. 260. Hill 7 Iac. Dymocks case in this Court Notice Nicholas Iustice answered the Iustices of this Court are not bound to take notice of the custom of Chester otherwise than as it is alleged Roll chief Iustice The matter is whether we can take notice of your case otherwise than you have pleaded it and your plea is naught and the party may demurr upon it for it appears not whether the custom extends to Wellington where the trover was because it appears not whether Wellington lie within the County Palatine of Chester or no Plea and the Plea cannot be good in part and ill in other part as is supposed Ierman Iustice The Declaration here is good and if the plea be not good to answer it then it is ill Nicholas Iustice The Plea is contrary to law and reason and Common sence and there ought not to be a failer of Iustice Ask of the same mind Confession Roll chief Iustice We must take all the matter as it is pleaded and if the Plea be ill the other party shall not be said to confess any thing And here you have pleaded a plea in Bar viz. Not guilty and you have also Pleaded to
to be within the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. If the Statute give liberty to Iustices of peace and Oyer and Terminer or Iustices of assise to enquire of this offence then an information cannot be preferred in a County where the offence was not done and the meaning of the Statute 21 Iac. is not to put the party without remedy and if he cannot sue by the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. in the County where the offence was committed then this Statute of 21 Iac. bars him not to prefer an information in another County Latch of Councel against the enformer said that by the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. an information lyes before Iustices of Peace or Assise or Gaol delivery Roll chief Iustice I deny that by the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. the information could not have béen brought in any other place but in the Courts at Westminster and therefore that it is not necessary to bring it in the County where the fact is done notwithstanding the Statute of 21 Iac. ◠it is reason it should be so because that no jurisdiction is given by the Stat. of 21. Iac to Iustices where they had no power before And the Court of Record expressed in the Stat. of 7 Ed. 6. shall be intended one of the Courts at Westminster and not a Court of Record else-where Therefore shew cause why the Iudgement shall not be affirmed Tench and Hubrison Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN the Case of Tench and Hubrison upon a motion for a prohibition to the Court of Admiralty The Court of the Admiralty cannot proceed criminally It was held by the Court that the Court of Admiralty cannot proceed criminally against one that is in contempt to the Court. Yet the Court said they would here the Civilians if they would speak in it Saturday following Cydall and Spencer and others Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN the Tryal between Cydall and Spencer and others Where one may have Election in an Ejectione firmae it was said by the Court. That if one do disseise me of part of a house and I am in possession of the rest of it It is at my election whether I will admit my self out of possession of the house or not Long and Hebb and others Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN a Tryal between Long and Hebb and others To what time Letters of administration shall relate Relation Trespass Trover it was said by Roll chief Iustice that Letters of Administration do relate to the time of the death of the Intestate and not to the time of granting of them and therefore an Administrator may bring an Action of Trespass or a Trover and Conversion for goods of the Intestate taken by one before the Letters granted unto him otherwise there would be no remedy for this wrong done Mich. 1652 Banc. sup THe Court was moved to change the Venue in an Action brought for an escape But Roll chief Iustice said it ought not to to be changed Where the Venue may not be changed for an escape is not local but transitory for an escape in one place is an escape in all places Sidenham Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN the Case of one Sidenham Roll chief Iustice said Where one may vary from his plea. It had been a question Whether if one plead payment at a day he shall be admitted afterwards to plead another plea. Watts and Lowth Mich. 1652. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Case was brought upon divers Assumpsits Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon an Assumpsit and a Verdict given for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of judgement that the Iury had given more damages than were laid in the Declaration whereas it was but a mis-casting in the quae in toto attingunt Roll chief Iustice said That the mis-casting is nothing if the damages given by the Iury be not more than the Plaintif hath laid in his Declaration Verdict And therefore let him have his judgement Gough and Cann Mich. 1652. Banc. sp IN an Action brought for a Rescous Arrest of judgement in an Action for a Rescous and a Verdict found for the Plaintif these Exception were offered in Arrest of Iudgement 1. whereas he speaks of the next Court he doth not shew where that next Court was held 2. The time of the Arrest is not shewed upon which the Rescous is supposed to be made 3. It is not shewed that the party rescowed was in custody of the Serjeant from whom he was rescowed 4. It is not shewed before whom the Plaint was upon which the Arrest was made 5. The venire is ill awarded for it is to the Coroners where it ought to be to the other Sherif if one be a kin to the party and Latch offered this Exception that the Declaration sounds in Trespass which Action doth not here lie for the party Election Trespass Case But to that Roll chief Iustice answered that it is in the election of the party to have an action upon the Case or an Action of Trespass for an Action of the Case or an Action of Trespass lies at the election of the party against one for taking away his Wife And he demanded whether the two Sherifs of Bristow where the Rescous was brought were not one Sherif and whether the venire was not helped by the Statute And it does also appear that the party was in custody by vertue of the Process and it is now after a Verdict And he said that if one rescue the party who is arrested at my sute because that after the party is arrested I have an interest in the body of the party Rescous this Rescous is a Trespass to me for which I may well maintain an Action of Trespass And Ierman Iustice said Pledge that the body of the party arrested for debt is a pledge for the debt it self Iudgement was given for the Plaintif Liniston and Maurice Mich. 1652. Banc. sup THe Case was this Arrest of Iudgement in an Action of Trespass for not carrying away tithes An Action of Trespass was brought against a Parson for not carrying away his Tithes in due time The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff gave him no notice to fetch away his Tithes the Plaintif replies that he did give him notice but doth not shew where he gave him notice and upon this Exception judgement was stayed Afterwards Baldwin of the Inner Temple moved for judgement and alleged that the not alleging the place was no Error Nicholas Iustice what say you to Durdens Case Roll chief Iustice There are many cases where the place is not material yet it must be alleged for the Venue Place If Debt be brought against an Executor and he plead fully administred if the Plaintiff reply that he hath assets he ought to allege the place where he hath assets And I conceive that there ought to be a place alleged here Repleader that a Iury who are nearest the place and so may have the best
It is considerable in regard it is an office of trust whether it may be leased out although he may make a Deputy Therefore argue it again the next Term. Baker and Andrews Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1469. BAker brought an Action of Trespass quare vi armis clausum fregit Demurrer to a replication in Trespasse vi et armis and for taking his Cattel the Defendant as to the force and arms pleads non cul and as to the rest he justifies that the Cattel went in through the defect of the Plaintiffs inclosures the Plaintiff replyes that the Cattel came in through another mans fence into his ground to this replication the Defendant demurs 〈◊〉 shews for cause that the Plaintif doth not assign where the place of the other Close lyes through which the Cattel came through Yard said it is not necessary to shew where it lyes for they went not in where the Defendant hath alleged so the traverse is well taken Wadham VVindham on the other side answered here is a new assignment and he answers not the Trespass for which the Action is brought and because it is a new assignment we must give a new answer and therefore you must shew the place where your new assignment lyes Roll chief Iustice He pleads no more but that the Cattel came in at another place than is pleaded and he needs not shew the place But here the Defendants plea is not good Plea for he pleads a prescription where it ought to be a custom that the occupyers of the land ought to make the sences and he ought not so prescribe in the person Iudgement for the Plaintiff nisi Mich. 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who may take advantage of a fault in a Plea Advantage If there be a fault in a plea in matter of form and after there is a fault also in the replication and the Defendant demurs to it but shews no cause of demurrer he shall take no advantage of this fault in the replication but he who joyns in the demurrer shall take advantage of the ill plea and so was it adjudged Pasc 1. Car. in this Court in Prat and Thimblethorps â—ase and he said that all faults in pleading are incurable at the Common Law and therefore those that are not helped by Statutes are left as they were at the Common Law Mich. 1652. Banc. sup ONe was made Constable by order of a quarter Sessions but the party refused to serve Motion to quash aâ— order of Sessions and removed the order hither by Certiorari moved to quash the order but the Court would not do it although ther were material exceptions taken against it but ordered him to plead because they perceived the party was stubborn and they would not give encouragement to such persons Heath and Vdall Mich. 1652. Banc. sup HEath a Caryer brought an Action of the Case against Vdall Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case and declares among other things for plundering of him of viginti fardellas Anglice packs and in arrest of Iudgement it was moved that the words vinginti fardellas Anglice packs is uncertain But Maynard argued that it might be good because the Caryer could not declare otherwayes for he could not know what was in the packs and he cited one Bedingfields case Trin. 10. Car. Declaration where an Action was brought for a library of books and for apparell and adjudged good But Roll chief Iustice said it could not be good for the apparel Wadham Windham on the other side held the words uncertain as they are and said he ought to have shewed that they were packs with goods or have shewen what was in them for a pack is but a measure of a thing Roll chief Iustice answered if it be but a measure of a thing then no damages are given for them and then the Action is good for the rest But we will advise Afterwards in the same Term Maynard moved for the opinion of the Court and thereupon the Court held that the words are incertain as they are for he ought to have expressed what was in the packs and ruled a nil capiat per billam to be entred Levingston and Crompton Mich. 1652. Banc. sup LEvingston brought an Action in this Court against Crompton Exceptions to a plea of privilege The Defendant pleads that he is a Clark of the Chancery and that all Clarks of the Chancery ought to be sued in the Chancery only and not elsewhere and demands judgement if he ought to make any other answer in this Court Two Exceptions were taken to the plea 1. He saith That all Clarks of the Chancery have used to be sued in the Chancery and not elsewhere and doth not say nor any of them have been used to be sued elsewhere and though all of them have not been used to be sued elsewhere yet that hinders not but that some of them have been sued elsewhere 2ly He pleads that he is a Clark of the Chancery and ought to be impleaded in the Chancery held at Westminster before the Keepers of the liberty of England c. time out of mind which is not true Hales answered That this Court ought to take notice of the privilege of Chancery Notice Privilege although it be not well pleaded But Roll chief Iustice denied that they ought to do it and said That it is the Custom for the Clarks of the Exchequer when they plead their privilege to bring the red book wherein their privileges are written into the Court and upon sight of their privilege there written it is used to be allowed but it is not so of the privileges of the other Courts but they must be pleaded and so here And because it is not well pleaded here therefore shew cause why you should not plead in chief Pitton and Rey. Mich. 1652. Banc. sup PItton appeared to an Action brought against him at the sute of Rey Motion for the Plaintif to declare speedily but no declaration was put in against him Vpon an Affidavit that the Defendant was a Merchant speedily to go to Sea It was moved for him that the Plaintif might forthwith declare against him that thereby he might direct his Attorney what to plead and might have his liberty to be gone Roll chief Iustice By the course of the Court he hath thrée terms liberty to declare but this is an extraordinary Case Therefore let him declare Thursday next otherwise he shall not declare till he come back Nota. Mich. 1652. BY Roll chief Iustice A private Sessions of the Peace is not said to be held for the County Staples Case Mich. 1652. Banc. sup A Rule was read on the Capital side for Staples a Iustice of Peace of Sussex Cause why no Attachment against a Iustice of Peace to shew cause why an Attachment should not be granted against him for procéeding upon an Endictment of forcible entry and
assigned in the Declaration was not well assigned for it recited another promise than upon which the Plaintif had declared for he declares of a promise made to give 300 l. in mariage to the Plaintif with his Sister E. and he assigns the breach in not paying the 300 l. unto the Plaintif so that the breach doth not answer the promise for if the money be paid to the wife which for ought appears may be the promise is not broken though she be maryed But Hale 〈◊〉 other side said that it is all one as it is alleged and that it is equâ—â—â—â— and reciprocal and here is a refusal to pay the money assigned for a breach and this is a good breach Roll chief Iustice I suppose it is all one as if he had expressed the very words of the promise for the Husband is to give the acquittance for the money Acquittance and the moneys are to be paid unto the Husband and the Verdict finds that they are not paid And if moneys be due to a Feme upon a Contract dum sola suit and after and before the payment thereof she marry the moneys are to be paid to the Husband and not the wife Payment and the moneys here are intended to be paid for a mariage portion which doth properly belong to the husband and they were not to be paid unto her before the mariage and it is all one in this Case as if the Plaintif had said that the Defendant had not paid the moneys to the Husband with his Wife in mariage Curia ad idem The Rule thereupon was that the Plaintif should take his judgement nisi Hicks and Joyce Mich. 1653. Banc. sup AN Action of the Case was brought for these words Arrest of judgement in an Action for words She meaning the Defendant is a whore and I will prove it and her plying place is in Cheapside and she gets 40 s. a night by playing the whore It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are but words of choler and very general words and may receive divers constructions and at the first moving the judgement was stayed but the matter being moved again at another day Roll chief Iustice said that these words import more than the bare calling of a woman whore by reason of other particular circumstances set forth to aggravate the matter and therefore let the Plaintif take her Iudgement Townesend and Barker Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 743. AN Action upon the Case was brought by a Churchwarden of a Parish Arrest of judgement in an action for words for these words spoken of him Thou dost make Lowns i. e. taxes or assessments thy self and makest 5 quarters in the year and dost cheat and cozen the Parish It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are spoken of a Churchwarden which the Common Law takes not notice of And 2ly In that it doth not appear they were spoken of him in relation to his being a Churchwarden But it was answered That a Churchwarden is an Officer of Trust and taken notice of by the Common Law and so was it adiudged in Stroade and Homes his Case in this Court and the words must be intended to be spoken of him in the relation to his Office for that is implyed by his making of Lowns and his couzening the Parish The rule was for the Plaintif to have his judgement Mich. 1653. Banc. sup AN Endictment of one endicted for refusing to serve in the Office of a Headborough was quashed Endictment quashed Addition because it did not shew that he was chosen to the 〈◊〉 and because the party endicted wanted an addition Mich. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to discharge one Cullins that was arrested as he was attending the Court to give testimony as a Witness in a Cause To discharge one arrested attending th' Court as a Witness Supersedeas Attachment and for an attachment against the parties that did arrest him German Iustice absente Roll chief Iustice Take a Supersedeas and let the parties shew cause why an Attachment shall not be granted against them that arrested him Hanslop and Johnson Mich. 1953. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to change the venue in an Ejectione firmae laid in London because the Lands in Question did concern the Poor of London To change the Veâ—ue in an Ejectione firmae and therefore it was supposed there could not be an indifferent Tryal in London for by consequence in that it concerns the Poor it concerns the whole City But Roll chief Iustice answered the Action is local Action local Venue and it cannot be removed except you can draw it from thence by your Plea Boyle and Scarborough Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Hill 1652. rot 226. AN Action of Debt was brought by Boyle against Scarborough Error in reverse a judgement in Debt upon a Promise wherein the Plaintiff did declare that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear to sue forth a ne exeat regnum against the Defendants Son who did owe unto the Plaintiff five hundred pound did assume and promise unto the Plaintiff a certain sum of mony expressed in the Declaration upon non assumpsit pleaded and a verdict and a judgement given for the Plaintiff the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was assigned for Error That there appears no consideration to ground the promise upon so no ground of Action for he doth not shew that he had done any thing in prosecuting the Writ of ne exeat regnum and Rolyer and Langdales Case 1650. in this Court was cited and Hob. 216. Bedwell and Cottons case and there is no such Writ in the Register as a ne exeat regnum and therefore there could be no forbearance to sue out such a Writ but there is a Writ to give security not to go out of the Realm to the publique prejudice of the King and his people and here is no such matter expressed but only that his Son owed him 500 l. Nat. Brev. 85. was agreed and it was farther objected by Wild who argued against the Iudgement that though the consideration should be good yet the replication is not good and sufficient to tye the second Writ to the first for it is not said that the second Writ is pro una eadem causa and so it is incertain Br. Trespass 85. 9 H. 6 and there may be several promises made in one day and if the replication is good yet the rejoynder is not good 19 H. 8.43 for he only admits that he being a Knight is the same person which was sued by the name of Esquire Hob. 171. Stukelyes Case And here is a judgement by a Nihil dicit and no warrant of Attorny for it is Latin and so it is nul it being since the late Act made for the proceedings in Law to be in English Latch
assigned for it is that he paid not the mony for which the Plaintiff was bound with him at such a day according to his promise Twisden on the other side said that the consideration is to pay the usury for the mony for which the Plaintif was bound with the Defendant which is not a good consideration for it is against the Common-law to let mony for usury and so it was adjudged 2 Car. and the Statutes do but tollerate the taking of usury for monies 2ly Here is no time of the consideration set forth Latch The usury here is no more than the Statute allows and so it is a good consideration Alleyn The promise declared upon is double 1. to pay mony 2ly To save harmless and the breach is assigned generally Case and not particularly as it ought to be Roll chief Iustice If two breaches be assigned and the one well assigned and the other not yet the Action lies well enough but here is but one breach assigned viz. the non-payment of the mony at the day And for the other matter I hold it a good consideration to assume to save one harmless from paying of Vsury Consideration and the usury here expressed is lawfull by the Statute and so it hath been resolved since 2 Car. and therefore let judgement be for he Plaintiff nisi Turner and Trapes Hill 1653. Banc. sup TUner brought an Action of Debt upon a recognisance in the Pettibagg The Defendant prayed oyer of the Condition there Motion to alter a Plea in the Pettibagg-Office and had it afterwards he shews this matter to this Court and prays in regard he had mistaken his plea that he may replead Roll chief Iustice This cannot be granted upon motion here for if the issue be joyned in the Pettibagg you must try it we can make no rule but by consent Hill 1653. Banc. sup VVAdham Windham moved for his Clyent To plead specially that he might have liberty to plead secially in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment and not generally not guilty Roll chief Iustice For what cause VVindham Because there hath been matter given in evidence at a former Tryal which ought not to have been Roll chief Iustice proceed according to the course of the Court if the other will not consent you shall not plead specially yet let him shew cause why you may not plead specially Barker and Elmer Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Case was this Whether a Mis-tryal or no. one of the Iustices of Assize falling sick and dying at Chelmesford in Essex the Assises were adjourned to Brentwood in the same County afterwards and before the sitting at Brentwood the other Iudge fell sick and dyed at London and a new Commission issued forth to authorise another Iudge to sit at Brentford according to the adjournment and there a Tryal was had upon the old Iurata retorned before the other Iudges The question was whether this were not a mistryal in regard there was not a new Iury retorned The Case was divers times moved and the Court took time to advise but at length Roll chief Iustice delivered the opinion of the Court Mis-tryal that this was not a mis-tryal because the death of the Iustices was not material to make it void for the Iustices are not named in the Iurata but the Cause is expressed generally to be tryed by the Iustices And he said that he held it for a rule that if a Clark mis-enter a thing usual in matter of form Mis-entry Amendment it is to be amended but the error of the Iudge may not be amended and he cited these Presidents Mich. 13 Car. Sawyer and Hortons Case in this Court and Hill 15 Car. Belch and Fates case in this Court Hill 1654. Banc. sup AN Action of Assault and Battery was brought against two Motion to strike one Defendant out of the Declaration one of them pleads his privilege of Parliament and the other non cul The Plaintif moved the Court the he might strike him out of the Declaration who had pleaded the privilege and might proceed against the other only But the Court would make no rule but bid the Plaintif proceed as he pleased at his own peril Hill 1653. Banc. sup ONe Cock was committed by the Court for delivering a Bill of Midlesex to arrest one as he was coming to the Court about his occasions Commitment for contempt to the Court. but was presently released paying the fees and discharging the party arrested and the Bailif was reproved but not committed because he said he knew not that the party had any business in Court and that he arrested him out of the Hall Nota. Hacker and Newborn Hill 1653. Banc. sup IT was shewed to the Court that the Plaintif had heretofore had a tryal at the Bar for the same thing for which he now brings his action To stay proceedings till costs paid in a former Action and that it went then against him but he hath not yet payed the Defendant his costs and now brings a new Action It was therefore prayed that he may pay the Costs taxed in the former Action before he be suffered to proceed in this Action Roll chief Iustice Let it be so ruled Higgs and Harrison Hill 1653. Banc. sup Mich. 1653. rot 429. HIggs brings an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit against Harrison an Attorney of the Common Pleas. Demurrer to a plea of privilege by an Attorney The Defendant pleads his privilege by an Attorney and to this plea the Plaintif demurred the question was whether he may plead this plea by Attorney or ought to plead it in proper person Latch argued That he ought not to plead it by Attorney for this plea is not a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court but it is only a prayer to the Court and he might have done it ore tenus and pleading it by Attorney his plea cannot be entred for then the plea of privilege would be destroyed in making him to attend Every one by the Common Law ought to appear in person and there is no Statute Law nor usage that authoriseth an Attorney to make an Attorney to demand his privilege 2ly It is against the dignity of this Court that he should be admitted to do it 3ly By making of an Attorney he destroys the very reason why he claims his privilege which is to be spared of his attendance which he needs not if he make an Attorney and his making of an Attorney here is a general warrant to defend other causes as well as this and the Case of an Essoign objected makes for me which is but to pray an excuse and after an Attorney made one cannot cast an essoign except it be where the Attorney cannot answer 4 Ed. 3.34 And there is no authority can be shewed that he may make an Attorney But on the contrary part there are many presidents where Attorneys have prayed their privilege in person and these me
seems should make the Law in this Case Dyer 33 H. 8. is the express case Attorney 20 H. 6.32 The Court advised At another day Roll chief Iustice said That the opinion of the Court was that an Attorney may plead his privilege by an Attorney and there is no inconvenience follows by doing it but it is true the Presidents are both ways and it is not contrary to any thing he hath done and it may be he is sick or hath business in another Court where he is necessarily attend Therefore let his plea be allowed nisi Leake and Reynolds Hill 1653. Banc. sup LEake brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Reynolds Special verdict in debt upon a bond The Defendant pleads non est factum the Iury upon issue joyned find a special verdict to this effect That the Plaintifs Declaration is upon an Obligation dated the 24 day of the month and they find that the Obligation was sealed and delivered the 27 day of the month but bears date the 24 day and whether this shall be accompted the same Obligation upon which the Plaintif declares or not is left to the Court to determine Green for the Plaintif said that this case is the same with Goddards case and there it was adjudged a good deed 12 H. 6. f. 1. Dyer 247. and in the end of Goddards case the case in point is adjudged Roll chief Iustice This is a plea in Bar Plea and not in abatement therefore take your judgement Hill 1653. Upper Bench. BY Roll chief Iustice What is not slanderiâ—g a title If one hath colour of title to land an Action of the Case will not lie against him for saying I have better title to the land than you though his title be not so good as the others title is Nota. VVingfield and Valence Hill 1653. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1409. LAtch moved to have restitution of monies out of the hands of a Sherif For resti ution of monies in the Sherif-hands which he had levied upon an execution taken out of this Court because it issued forth erroniously for before the Execution taken forth the Defendant brought his writ of Error in the Chequer Chamber to reverse the judgement and the Record was removed thither and although the late Statute say that a writ of Error shall be no supersedeas to stay execution yet the Record being removed into the Exchequer Chamber no execution can be granted out here for here is no Record to warrant it Roll chief Iust The case being moved again at another day till when the Court would advise said The Record is removed by a writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber and is not now before us nor was at the time when the Execution issued forth and this being after a verdict and a judgement the writ of Error is no supersedeas and so it is mischievous both ways Mischief Supersedeas but how can we help it yet take a supersedeas quia erronice to supersede the execution for it was ill awarded and take the moneys out of the Sherifs hands Nota. The Protector and Captain Streeter Hill 1653. Banc. sup CAptain Streeter was brought in Court by habeas Corpus For delivery of a Prisoner appearing upon a Habeas Corpus and upon the return read and filed it appears that he was committed by an Order of Parliament for publishing scandalous and sedilious books Twisden moved that the prisoner might be bailed because that the Parliament is now dissolved and by consequence the Order by which he was committed is of no sorce Mr. Attorney General on the other side urged that the Parliament was not dissolved but only the meeting of those persons in Parliament was dissolved for the Parliament by the antient Law is to be every year so that this is but in effect an adjournment and not a dissolution and besides this matter for which the prisoner stands committed cannot be here inquired of and so the cause of his commitment shall be intended to be good and the Parliament may commit without shewing the cause of the commitment and this commitment may be in order to his Tryal and the Prisoner is not without remedy for he may apply himself to the supreme Authority to whom the Parliament have resigned their power Twisden for the prisoner confessed that this Court cannot be Iudge of the Parliament but this Order by which he is committed differs from an Act of Parliament for this is temporary and determineth and although the authority of Parliament ceaseth not yet a particular Parliament may be dissolved as this was Wad Windham When a Parliament is dissolved the procéedings there are determined Flowrdews case 1 H. 7. the Latine case and the Parliament is now dissolved and not adjourned and a Parliament dissolved is not like the Courts of Iustice here in the Vacation time Wild This case is not like to the case where this Court remaunded a prisoner committed by the Parliament sitting the Parliament for the prisoner here is coram Protectore who may deliver him Captain Streeter Mr. Attorney labours to afperse me but shews no cause or crime for my commitment and I am here before the Protector in his own Court Attorney General Only the persons and their convention is dissolved but not the Court no more than this Court is by the demise of the King or in the Vacation time and I must refer it to the Court how far you will intermeddle in this case and this Order by which he stands committed may be his judgement there and then he cannot be delivered and I know no difference betwéen an Order and an Ordinance of Parliament and the stamp and authority of Parliament is upon this order and if the prisoners Counsel say true then he may have an Action of false imprisonment against his Gaoler Twisden Here is no Order of the Parliament returned but it expresseth that he was committed by the Speaker by vertue of an Order of the Parliament Roll chief Iustice We examine not the Orders of Parliament but the question is whether the Order doth now continue Order of Parliament Dissolution and I conceive it is determined by the dissolution of the Parliament and so would it have done by prorogation of the parliament because there is another Session and we can judge no otherwise of Orders of Parliament but by the words of them Ask Iustice If one that is committed by Order of Parliament cannot be delivered until another Parliament the peoples liverty will be lost for there may not be a Parliament in many years Roll chief Iustice A new Parliament hath not reference to the old but it is a new Court created upon new Summons and why may not the Prisoner be bailed without these disputes although he may apply himself elsewhere But the Court would advise because they perceived the prisoner stubborn At another day Mr. Attorney upon the prisoners appearance again upon his Habeas
KIrk brought an Action of Accompt against Lucas What shall be a good plea in an accompt before Auditors the Defendant Lucas pleads ne unques receptor and upon this Issue there was a verdict for the Plaintif that the Defendant shall accompt whereupon Auditors being assigned he pleads before them in discharge of the Accompt that he received the money of the Plaintif to deliver over and accordingly he had delivered it over The question was whether this plea pleaded before the Auditors was a good plea in discharge of the Accompt Twisden said It was not a good plea in discharge of the Accompt before the Auditors but it had been a good plea in bar of the Action and here it is not shewed that there was any direction given to pay the money over Roll chief Iustice If he plead that it was paid by his consent it is a good plea before the Auditors and this is a good plea in bar if the money be paid accordingly Therefore take your judgement Iudgement nisi The Protector against Richardson Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought by Richardson to reverse a judgement given against him Error upon a Iudgement upon an Information for Extortion being by profession a Tayler upon an information of extortion exhibited against him at Oxford at the Assizes there for taking more money of one that bound himself Apprentice with him than by Law he ought and the Error assigned was that the Iustices of Assize have no power to determine offences of this nature and Metcalfs case 11 Rep. was urged and the Statute of 22 H. 8. C. 5. and 28 H. 8. C. 5. But Crook Seignior answered That as they are Iustices of Oyer and Terminer they have power by their Commission to determine offences of this nature and it shall be intended they proceeded here by virtue of that Commission and in 7 Eliz. in Dyer it is a quaere whether the Statute be meant of the Courts at Westminster Certainty is required or no and it would be inconvenient if the Iustices should not enquire of such offences at the Assizes and he cited Gregories case and Cooks Iurisdictions of Courts to prove they have authority Roll chief Iustice But it appears not here by vertue of which of their Commissions you have tryed the offence but you have jumbled the Commissions together in the Record and they have not authority by all their Commissions and besides there is another fault in the judgement for it is not said it is considered by the Court but only it is considered By the Statute of 22 H. 8. the Iustices of Assize by vertue of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer have power to try divers offences if they be not restrained to certain Courts but for the reasons aforesaid Shew cause why the Iudgement should not be reversed Protector and Cartwright Hill 1654. Banc. sup IT was moved on the behalf of Cartwright that he might have allowance of his Plea confessed by Mr. Attorney general pleaded to a quo Warranto brought for the Protector against him for certain liberties which he claimed within the Manor of Offingham in Nottinghamshire For allowance of a plea confessed by the Attorney general the Exception to the plea was that he claimed the Assize of Wine to which it was answered that it is intended only of the measures for Wine and that the Plea had been read and examined by Iustice Ask Roll chief Iustice Let Iustice Ask examine it again Tost and Daye Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 547. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action upon the Case brought against a Sherif for restoring of goods taken in Excution to the party from whom they were taken Error to reverse a judgement in an action upon the Case and for endorsing of nulla bona upon the writ of Execution and delivering over the writ so endorsed to the new Sherif his Successor The Errors assigned ware these 1. It is not said in the Record that he returned nulla bona but only that he endorsed nulla bona upon the writ 2ly It is said that he delivered the writ thus endorsed to the new Sherif but doth not shew that the writ was delivered over by Indenture betwixt the new Sherif and the old to be returned by him 3ly It appears not whether there were any return at all made of the writ by the new Sherif or the old And 4ly The Action is not laid in the County where it ought to be for it is neither brought in the County where the writ was indorsed nor where it was delivered over Latch answered that the Action was brought for re-delivering the goods taken in execution back again to the party Iudgement reversed and not for the endorsing of the writ and delivering it over to the new Sherif But the Iudgement was reversed nisi c. Postea Porter and Swetnam Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 393. IN this Case upon a writ of Error brought upon a judgement given upon an Action of Covenant for not paying of rent reserved upon a Lease for years by Indenture Error in Covenant Express Covenant Writ of Error quashed and judgement affirmed After the opinion of the Court was delivered that the words yielding and paying in the Indenture made an express Covenant and were not a bare Covenant in Law and that an Action of Covenant did well lie upon them the writ of Error was quashed for a defect in it and a new writ of Error brought and thereupon the judgement was again prayed to be affirmed which was done nisi c. Nota. Antea Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a Habeas Corpus to remove a Prisoner in Northampton Gaol Habeas Corpus that was convicted of felony and had been burnt in the hand Endictment Action upon the Case upon an Affidavit that the Gaoler used him hardly But Roll chief Iustice answered that it could not be but they might either endict the Gaoler or bring an Action against him Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved upon an Affidavit for a new tryal For a new Tryal because the Iury were not kept together till they had given their verdict as they ought to be But Roll chief Iustice answered this is a misdemeanor yet the verdict is a good verdict notwithstanding The Iuries misdemeanor spoils noâ— the Verdict yet we will hear the Councel on both sides before we conclude any thing The same Term Iudgement was given upon another motion made for a new Tryal The Protector and Lowr Hill 1654. Banc. sup BArton moved to quash an Endictment preferred against Lowr at the Assizes at Cornwall To quash an Endictment for speaking of scandalous words against the Parliament The Exception taken was that it did not appear in the Endictment that the Parliament was sitting at the time when the words were spoken But Roll chief
secrets of his Clyents cause Not to disclose a Clyents cause and thereupon he was forborn to be examined Pilkinton and Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a tryal to be had at the Bar between Pilkington and Bagshaw Tryal at the Bar. the Plaintif would not put in his writ that the tryal might goe on Whereupon Roll chief Iustice bid the Cryer to call the Attorney of the Plaintif to appear and to bring in the writ upon pain of 20 l. and said Pain of 20 l. Attorney put out of the Roll. Non-sute upon the Record that if he brought it not in he should be put out of the Roll. Serjeant Maynard moved that if he brought not in the writ that the Plaintif might be called non-sute upon the Record which Roll chief Iustice answered might well be because the parties have day in Court by the Record or Roll afterwards the Sollicitor who had the writ brought it in yet Roll chief Iustice said There shall notwithstanding the writ be brought in be 20 l. fine set upon him for his trifling with the Court. The Protector and Sumner Pasch 165â— Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved that Sumner that appeared in Court upon his habeas corpus directed to the Kéeper of Northampton Gaol might be bailed To bail a prisoner denied for that having killed two men upon the Highway the Iury had found it Man-slaughter se defendendo Roll chief Iustice answered The Iuries conclusion is contrary to their premises Therefore let the prisoner be sent to Northampton Gaol whence he came yet that may not be for the fact was done in Peterborough Tryal Writ ad reâ—piendum and therefore he cannot be tryed at Northampton therefore let him be sent to Peterborough Gaol with a writ ad recipiendum to the Gaoler there to take charge of him Pilkington versus Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment betwixt Pilkington and Bagshaw Trespass and Ejectment the question being whether Copyhold lands may be entailed by the custom of the Manor It was said that if Tenant in tail and the issue in tail of Copyhold lands in tail joyn in a surrender in a Court Baron of the Copyhold lands Estopel Copyhold lands in tail Customary entail Fine State enjoyed Seisure of Cepyhold lands that this is not an estopel for it ought to be by fine or deed indented And Roll chief Iustice said that Copyhold lands in tail are not within the Statute of Westm 2. but it is a Customary entail like in its nature to another entail and such an estate must be docked by fine or by some other customary way It was also said by him that if Copies of Court Rolls be shewed to prove a Customary estate the enjoynment of such estates must also be proved otherwise the proof is not good It was also said upon the evidence That a seisure by the Lord made of Copyhold entailed lands within the Manor of Wakefield in Yorkshire is in the nature of a recovery to deck the entail and that the manner of doing it is either for the Copyholder to let his Copyhold for more years than he ought or to refuse to do his service and then the Lord seifes the lands for a forfeiture and grants it to another by the consent of the Copyholder that made the forfeiture It was then also said by Roll chief Iustice Custom that a Custom cannot be urged for a thing that had its beginning since Rich. the 1. if a Record can be shewed to the contrary Common recovery Recompense in value Custom Copyhold destroyed It was also said by him that a common recovery suproseth a recompence in value to all persons who lost the estate by the recovery He said also that he conceived that there could be no such Custom to cut off entails of Copyhold lands by the forfeiture and seisure of the Lord for his seisure upon the forfeiture destroys the Copy-hold estate by the Common Law for it is in the Lords election after the seisure whether he will grant the estate again or no and you do not prove that the Custom binds him to it Nota. Harris and Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in the Case of one Harris To amend an old judgement Denied that the entry of a judgement twelve years past might be amended upon the Roll. But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be after so long time past Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a writ of Error brought to reverse a fine levied by an Infant being a Feme Covert Day to inspect an Infant The Court was moved for a day to bring in the party that levied the fine to be inspected by the Court which was granted and at the day she was brought into the Court and viewed and two witnesses deposed that she was within age at the time of the fine levied Entry upon the Roll. which was entred upon the Roll upon which the Issue was tryed Pasch 1655 Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice Election That if there be two Kinsmen in equal degree of kindred to the Intestate it is in the election of the Ordinary to which of them he will grant Letters of Administration Pasch 1655. Banc. sup AN Outlawry was reversed Outlawry reversed because the place where the County Court was held is not shewed in the secundo exactus Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was moved that there was a judgement given in the Common Pleas To affirm a judgement a writ of Error depending and thereupon the Defendant brought his writ of Error to reverse the judgement in this Court and since pending the writ of Error the partses were agréed and therefore they desired the judgement might be affirmed because that otherwise satisfaction of the judgement cannot be acknowledged upon the Roll because the Court of Common Pleas were forclosed to do any thing further upon the judgement given there by reason of the writ of Error But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Denied for you shew no cause why we should affirm the judgement and therefore we will make no rule in it but enter satisfaction upon the Roll if you will at your own peril Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice that an Action upon the case will lie against one that brings vexatious actions against another Action upon the Case for vexation or for entring of Actions of a great value to force his adversary to put in great bail where he hath but small cause of Action Nota. Trevanian and Penhollow Trin. 1655. TRevanian brought an Action upon the case against Penhollow for speaking of these words of him Plea to an Action on the Case Thou hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes and art false forsworn The Defendant pleads that the Plaintif had agréed to accept of 3 Iuggs of Beer from him in satisfaction The Plaintif
on the same side said that the rule in Wagoners case comes home to this Glyn chief Iustice There is an Action upon the case brought by Yates for this matter and if it be found for him we will restore him be the return as it will Custom is the main hinge upon which all disfranchisements do move and if that be not well alleged it will be hard for the disfranchisement Try your cause this Term otherwise we will deliver our opinions upon the return At another bay the Court was moved for their opinion upon the return by Yates his Councel whether it was good or not Wherupon Glyn chief Iust answered It were good you would agree as the Court hath advised But since you will not we will give our judgement for the cause hath depended long And first I conceive that here is good cause to disfranchise the parties for entring of orders made by a pretended Court Cause of disfranchisement which in truth was no Court for their entry of such orders is very prejudicial to the corporation and is to the ill example of others to disturb the government But Custom is the main cause of disfranchising any person for by the disfranchisement the party loses his freehold which is no small loss and therefore not to be put in practice but upon very good warrant yet in some cases for the advancement of government one may be put out of his freehold without a legal procéeding against the party as Sir Iames Bags case is But there must be a Custom or a Statute to warrant it But here appears no such Custom upon the return for the return is that for such offences the parties have used to be removable and dischargeable which is meerly imaginary and a thing in fieri Thing in fieri not in facto and not in facto or in usage and so it is as a dead thing in the womb which never had birth for you have not shewed that it was at any time put in practice or have made any direct affirmance of the Custom as all Customs use to be pleaded All Customs imply two things Possibility and use to wit a thing possible to be done and that the thing hath sometimes been done and so are all our pleadings and the return ought to have in it certainty enough to inform the Court of the master returned although it is not required they should be so precise as pleadings ought to be Return should be certain for both the Court and the party must abide by the return and it is to be acknowledged as true In Wagoners case cited It was touched whether the Custom there was well alleged and concerning the Customs of London also which do differ from other customs they being confirmed by Statute and there they allege a special act of Common Councel by Custom and a Statute also to enable them to do as they did I have considered well of the return and I hold the return to be naught Ill return and therefore let him be restored Ask Iustice concurred in opinion The Court was moved to restore the rest who were 4 in number because all their cases were alike Glyn chief Iustice Let them be restored also nisi c. Restored London and Craven Trin. 1655. rot 44. LOndon and Craven entred into Articles by Indenture betwixt them Arrest of Judgement in an Action of Covenant for breach of Articles wherein London did article to pay 110 l. at a certain day to come unto Craven Craven did article that upon the receipt of the 110 l. unto him from London that he would give unto London an acquittance for the 110 l. and would also enter into an Obligation of 400 l. unto London to save him harmless from all claims which should be made unto certain lands in the possession of the said London in pursuance of these Articles London doth tender the 110 l. unto Craven at the day limited in the Articles but Craven refuseth to receive the 110 l. of London and to give him an acquittance and also to enter into the bond of 400 l. Whereupon London brings an Action of Covenant against Craven for breach of the Articles and assigns the breach to be that he did not give him an acquittance for the 110 l. nor enter into the bond of 400 l. according to the Articles and upon issue joyned a verdict was found for the Plaintif It was moved by the Defendant in Arrest of Iudgement That here is no breach of Covenant shewed by the Plaintif for the Declaration is that the Defendant upon the payment of the 110 l. was to give the acquittance and enter into the bond of 400 l. and here is no payment but only a tender and a refusal of the 110 l. mentioned and it was in the Defendants election either to refuse the 110 l. and to give no acquittance nor enter into the bond of 400 l. or else to receive it and give the acquittance and enter into the bond and so his refusal is no breach of Covenant On the other side it was urged that it was not in the Defendants Election to receive the 110 l. or to refuse it but he was bound by the Articles to receive the 110 l. and to give the acquittance and enter into the bond of 400 l. Glyn chief Iustice Here is a Covenant grounded upon Articles indented and it is the mutual Covenant of both the parties so that he is bound by the Articles to receive the 110 l. at the day limited it is not in his power either to receive it or to refuse it as hath been objected the Defendant had remedy by the Articles to recover the 110 l. Mutual Covenant if it had not been payed at the day and therefore he is bound to receive it and to give an acquittance for it and to enter into the bond of 400 l. and we must make a reasonable construction of the words of the parties But we will advise At another day the case was again put and the opinion of the Court desired And Glyn chief Iustice thereupon said here is no breach of Covenant alleged to ground the Action upon for the Articles express that upon the receipt of the 110 l. the Defendant would give the acquittance and enter into bond and the breach alleged is that the Plaintif tendred the 110 l. at the day and the Defendant refused to receive it and hath not sealed the acquittance nor given the bond of 400 l. and it may be it was the intent of the parties that it should be in the election of the Defendant either to receive the 110 l. or not to receive it and the Plaintif is not prejudiced by the Defendants not receiving of it for if he should sue for the 110 l. the Plaintif may plead this tender and refusal against him and that will be judged a payment and when he sues you for the 110 l. you may sue him
altogether a drone for so many years together in so famous a Society amidst so many learned men to the dishonour thereof and to my one reproach I did at last resolve notwithstanding the unavoidable censures which I was confident I should meet withal what ever I have or could say to avoid them to give way to this publication of them even in this age wherein most of the Cases and matters herein reported are yet fresh I suppose in the memories of many who may easily trace me where ever I step awry But I hope to find them not only just in vindicating of me in that which I have truely and faithfully reported but also favourable in censuring and passing by those slips and misprisions they may herein meet withall caused either by the Printers negligence or my own misapprehension of the sense of the matters and things delivered and spoken unto and the rather in regard that I have endeavoured as neer as I could to render things in the same expressions they were first uttered that so I might as much as might be avoid the danger of injuring of any herein concerned by putting another sense upon them than what they intended and this as it was the old way so I conceive what ever may be objected to the contrary that it is the best and cleerest way of reporting For those that make it their businesse to censure and not to read or understand books I shall say nothing to them but leave them to abound in their one sense if they have any and to please themselves with their own phansies I have made these Reports speak English not that I believe they will be thereby generally more usefull for I have been always and yet am of opinion that that part of the Common Law which is in English hath only occasioned the making of unquiet spirits contentiously knowing and more apt to offend others than to defend themselves but I have done it in obedinece to authority and to stop the mouths of such of this English age who though they be as confusedly different in their Minds and Iudgements as the builders of Babel were in their languages yet do think it vain if not impious to speak or understand more than their own mother-tongue Some may peradventure Notwithstanding the reasons I have formerly offered for this my publication be ready to object that it was vain glory and a too confident boldnesse and high conceipt of mine own abilities that makes me thus appear in publique but those that know me I believe are of another opinion and dare clear me of this aspersion and well they may for the truth is I have alwayes been and yet am so naturally distrustful of my own parts that I fall far short of that necessary boldnesse which is requisite for every man to be armed withall in the excercising of publique employments and what losse I have suffered by the want of this I my self do best know and is not unknown to many some of whom have out of their well-wishes to me and others to my disparagement as they thought been pleased to take notice of it If any of the Cases and matters herein conteined seem common unto any and are to insipid to please their curious Palates let them passe them over It may be they may prove usefull to others and I doubt not but the most curious may find many things that may give them delight and satisfaction And in the farther vindication of these Reports I shall desire all to take notice that first these were most of them taken in unsetled times wherein the Law was almost at a stand and therefore it cannot be reasonably expected they should be so quick and full of matter as those that have been gathered when the Laws flowed in a more open and uninterrupted Chanell when the Courts of Iustice were full fraught with businesse and were in a more splendent and flourishing condition than in these latter times and next that this work is not a collection only of some choice Cases taken by several hands in all the Courts of Westminster but is only a continued narrative of the Cases and proceedings of the new upper Bench Court for 10 years together and taken by one only hand without the help or assistance of any other during which time I have omitted but little saving when by reason of sicknesse I was for a Term or two constrained to be absent And the more to encourage all to the perusall of them I dare affirm that there is much various matter contained in them different from what is to be found in other Reports taken in former years occasioned by the many alteration of the face of things and the changes of government happing at this time and also by reason of my constant observing inserting and interweaving of all the remarkable passages transacted on the Criminal side with those hapning on the Pleas side which in other Reports hath very sparingly at any time if at all been performed I have also for the Readers greater ease and benefit added hereunto three Alphabetical Tables the first containing the names of the several Cases a second containing the several general Heads or Titles under which the several matters dispersed through the whole book are properly digested and the third and last being a large Table particularly directing to the Page and Case wherein you may find the subject matter methodically ranged under those Heads or Titles And for your further and fuller satisfaction and making the Cases the cleerer proof and more authentical authority to be cited and given credit unto you have the number Rolles prefâ—ixed to most of those that are remarkable amongst them I might and would if I had thought it necessary have much enlarged these Reports and made the volume swell to a far greater bulk But my aim and endeavours have generally been to take the chief points only and substance of the matters arising and spoken unto and the rational parts of the arguments and authorities used and urged to inforce and prove what was surmised to be Law on either side and the grounds and authorities upon which the opinions and resolutions of the Court are framed and given and to passe by all the luxuriant flourishes of wit and the multiplying of Similary Cases to the Cases in question as serving more for the most part to prove the curious phansy much reading of the Arguer than the proof of the points of the cases in question or the satisfaction or information of the Auditors or Readers Iudgment and I have ever yet with submission to better Iudgements conceived this concise way of taking Reports to be farr more beneficial and delightful not only to the Reporter but also to those that shall read them then that long and tedious way wherein the truth is so overshadowed with multiplicity of words that it is very difficult through those Clowds to discover and behold her perfect beauty so well as when she appears bare-faced in
264 Sale and Wray Pag. 373 Seaman and Edwards Pag. 63 Segar and Dyer Pag. 31 Siocnhams case Pag. 341 Scoble and Tolye Pag. 102 103 Shertliff and Timberly Pag. 219 Shurley and Semaign Pag. 255 Shann and Shann Pag. 256 257 280 Shayler and Bigg Pag. 171 Shann and Bilby Pag. 280 Sherecroft and Weeks Pag. 379 Shepheard and Gray Pag. 445 Sherlocks case Pag. 456 457 Skerlock and La pere Pag. 265 Skete and Clay Pag. 125 Slades case Pag. 138 Smith and Hobson Pag. 112 113 Smith and Stone Pag. 65 Smith and Hancock Pag. 137 138 Smithson and Wells Pag. 141 Smith and Hale Pag. 139 Smith and Dunch Pag. 139 146 Smith and Andrews Pag. 183 184 Smith and the Earl of Dorset Pag. 277 Smith and Ward Pag. 351 Smith and Holyman Pag. 361 Snelgrave and Bosvile Pag. 327 Somes and Sir John Lenthall Pag. 465 Sowthcott and Sowthcott Pag. 103 108 Spitlehouse and Farmery Pag. 290 Spry and Mill Pag. 182 183 203 204 Stoughton and Day Pag. 18 Stents case Pag. 127 Sir John Stowels case Pag. 104 Stradling and Boreman Pag. 129 130 Stubs and Manklin Pag. 165 Staples case Pag. 359 360 Sir Humphry Style and Tullye Pag. 286 287 Starky and Mill Pag. 296 Stroad and Homes Pag. 338 Staples case Pag. 248 Stevenson and Steward Pag. 404 Stavely and Ulithorp Pag. 411 422 Stephens and Ask Pag. 424 425 Wolverly Strachyes case Pag. 118 Captain Streeters case Pag. 415 Strowd and Beckwith Pag. 454 455 Swan and Fenham Pag. 409 410 Simons and Leir Pag. 72 Syms and Wilson Pag. 214 215 T TAnner and Lawrence Pag. 53 Tayler and Webb Pag. 301 302 307 308 309 319 383 Terry and Baxter Pag. 39 Tench and Cletheroe Pag. 59 Tench and Hubrison Pag. 340 Theoballs and Newton Pag. 307 Thomas's case Pag. 461 Thyn and Thyn Pag. 67 68 69 77 78 91 92 98 99 101 143 Thurle and Madison Pag. 462 Theoball and Conquest Pag. 343 Tisons case Pag. 153 Timbrell and Bullock Pag. 15 Tories case Pag. 15 Toby and Angell Pag. 110 Tompkins and Jourden Pag. 131 Toplady and Staly Pag. 165 166 Townsend and Barker Pag. 388 389 394 Tompkins and Clark Pag. 422 Tost and Day Pag. 431 474 Torret and Frampton Pag. 434 435 Tracy and Poole Pag. 143 144 Treton and Squire Pag. 230 Sir Humphry Tracy and Bloom Pag. 356 Trundall and Trowell Pag. 273 Trorman and Standart Pag. 284 285 Doctor Trig and the College of Physicians Pag. 329 330 Trevilian and Welman Pag. 400 401 Trevanian and Penhollow Pag. 452 Turner and his Wises case Pag. 47 Tucker and Cosh Pag. 288 289 Turner and Trapes Pag. 412 Twig and Roberts Pag. 145 Tyler and Johnson Pag. 41 Tyndall and Harington Pag. 162 F VAndicoots case Pag. 52 Vaux and Vaux versus Steward and Draper Pag. 157 203 Vincent and Fursey Pag. 43 44 Vincent and Wallis Pag. 197 Viccary and Barns Pag. 213 Vidian and Fletcher Pag. 472 W VVAtson and Norbury Pag. 3 201 202 Ward and Coggin Pag. 6 Wagstaff and Tempest Pag. 464 Watson and Watson Pag. 28 56 Waineright and Whitley Pag. 115 Walker and Alder Pag. 117 Waldron and Ward Pag. 449 Watson and Scotson Pag. 121 Ware and Chappel Pag. 186 187 Watts and Dix Pag. 188 189 204 205 Watts and Lord Pag. 230 Warry and Bond Pag. 256 Wallis and Bucknall Pag. 291 292 311 312 VVatts and Lowth Pag. 341 Wall and Bye Pag. 352 Walkenden and Heycock Pag. 425 Weeks and Weeks Pag. 90 Weston and Plowden Pag. 173 178 188 Wentworth and Wentworth Pag. 242 Webb and Wilmer Pag. 260 Weld and Rumney Pag. 418 Webb and Washborn Pag. 352 353 360 361 Weeks his case Pag. 371 Welden and Strudder Pag. 379 Webberly and Sir John Lenthall Pag. 454 Whitchurch and Paget Pag. 208 Whitwell and Short Pag. 5 6 Whitley and Fawset Pag. 12 13 Whites case Pag. 17 White and Thomas Pag. 38 39 White and Harwood Pag. 138 Whiteacre and Hillwell Pag. 27 White and Holford Pag. 170 White and Pinder Pag. 22 Whitwely and Pinsent Pag. 300 Whitehead and Buckland Pag. 373 379 380 401 402 403 Wingfield and Sherwood Pag. 5 Williamson and Henly Pag. 11 Willison and Crow Pag. 75 Pawl Williams and the Custodes c. Pag. 244 Williams and Tyrer Pag. 80 Willis and Bond Pag. 260 261 Winn and Stebbins Pag. 405 Williamson and Coleman Pag. 47 Wiatt and Harby Pag. 200 Williamson and Mead Pag. 207 208 Winter and Bernard Pag. 221 Withring and Bishopsgate Parish Pag. 260 VVillis and Bond. Williamson and Norwitch Pag. 337 338 VVingfield and Valence Pag. 414 415 Wise and Jeoffryes Pag. 429 Williams and Poole Pag. 460 Wood and Salter Pag. 53 Worsely and Worsely Pag. 123 Wood and Clemence Pag. 133 126 152 VVood and Holland Wood and Topham Pag. 216 227 234 235 303 Wood and Mountney Pag. 360 Wood and Markeham Pag. 408 Wood and Gunston Pag. 461 464 466 Wroath and Elsy Pag. 16 Wright and Pinder Pag. 34 Wright and Martyn Pag. 107 Wrights case Pag. 139 140 Wrights case Y YAte and Batisford Pag. 195 Yates and Lynden Pag. 47 Yongue and Petit Pag. 356 Yokehurst and Skot Pag. 439 440 HILARY TERM 21 Car. Banc. Reg. A Prohibition was prayed to the Admiralty Prohibition to stop procéedings there upon a Contract betwéen the parties suggested to be made upon the land within the body of a County and not upon the high Sea And the surmise was penned thus If there was any Contract made betwéen the parties as the libel supposeth it was made upon the land within the body of a County and not upon the high Sea The Court held this suggestion ill Suggestion for the uncertainty of it and ordered that it should be amended and made absolute viz. That the Contract was made upon the land c. And that the words if there was any Contract made should be put out because they made it uncertain whether there was any Contract or no and so by consequence did destroy the very ground of the surmise Barnaby against Goodale 21 Car. Banc. reg Trin. 21 Car. rot 201. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action upon the Case in the Court at Owse bridge in York Error upon a Judgement in an action upon the Caie and the first Error assigned was in the Process because it was by summons whereas the action being an action upon the Case which is in the nature of a Trespass the Process should be by Attachment and Distress infinite and not by summons But to this it was answered by Roll Iustice that since 10 Iacobi this manner of procéeding is no Error Error Capias and that that Court hath no power to award a Capias in an action upon the case by the Statute of 1◠H. 7. two other light exceptions were taken to the venire but not insisted upon But the main exception was to Iudgement which was entred thus Ideo consideratum est per curiam dicti Domini
too generally expressed and cannot be levyed equally by such a tax 5ly The Plea sets not forth that there was any notice given to Whitley of the tax made before the distresse taken as there ought to have been and for these reasons he concluded that the Plea was not good Bacon Iustice held first Waiver that the Party had waived his benefit of the Plea given him by the Statute by pleading specially and he ought to make good his plea as he hath pleaded it at his own perill He held likewise that there ought to be notice given of the tax and a demand of it before any distresse might be taken and that the Plea was defective in this 3ly Notice That he cannot sell a strangers goods for the tax as Whitley is for ought that appears in the Plea 4ly Demand By the Plea it appears that he hath distrayned one Acre of Land for all the tax which ought not to be and upon these exceptions the rule was for the Defendant to shew cause before the end of the Term why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement Sr Maurice Abbot Pasc 23 Car. Banc. reg SIr Maurice Abbot had a Iudgement against one and dies Motion to Vacate a Iudgement and three years after Execution is taken out in his name upon the Iudgement the Court was moved to vacate this Iudgement but would not for they said that there was no help in this case but by bringing a writ of Error ☞ Error except there can be any fraud proved in the proceeddings and then the Court will take order to help the Party grieved Fraud And thereupon ruled to examine the Attorney and the Partyes whether there was due proceedings or no. Vill de Charleton in Kent Pasc 23 Car. Banc. reg A Man was killed at Charleton in Kent Motion to quash a presentment and take off Amercements upon which the Coroner takes an inquest and returns it into the Crown Office upon this a presentment was drawn up in the Crown Office against the Vill. of Charleton and found and thereupon issues went out against the Vill It was moved for the Vill to have them discharged by reason that the presentment was not good for it was grounded upon the Statute of 3 H. 7. chap. and sets forth that such a person was killed at Charleton and that the murderer fled away in the night by which it appears that the Vill. is not lyable to be amerced within the Statute for the murtherer ought to escape in the day by the Statute Amercements and not in the night and for this it was quashed and the Amercements discharged 23 Car. Banc. reg THe Court was moved to quash an order of sessions For quashing an order of the Sessions of Peace for keeping a Bastaâ—d made for the keeping of a Bastard Child and these exceptions were taken to the order First the order was that the Party should pay a weekly sum for the keeping of the Child whereas no such order could be made without the Parties consent for by the Statute he is only compellable to secure the Parish where the Child was born that it should not be any charge to the Parish Another exception was that it appears not that the Iustices had any power to make any order at all in the case for it appears not where the Child was born and so it may be it was born in an other County where these Iustices have no authority to Act any thing concerning it Vpon these exceptions it was quashed THe Court was moved for a certiorari to the Court of Sandwitch For a certicratio to remove Endictments out of one of the Ciâ—que-ports to remove four Endictments there for shooting in a Gun and pulling up of a post because the facts for which the Party was Endicted were not done within the Iurisdiction of the Court But because Sandwitch was one of the Cinque-ports and it had been a question heretofore whether this Court could send such a writ thither The rule was only for cause to be shewn why a certiorari should not be granted Tory. Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. TOry brings an Action of Trespass and false imprisonment against I. S. simul cum aliis c. The Defendant pleads not guilty Arrest of Iudgement in an Action of Trespasse and a Verdict is given against him for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the declaration was not good because it declares against I. S. by name solely and it ought to have been joyntly against him with the others naming them also because the trespass was joynt and not against I. S. alone but the Court held that the declaration was good because it was with a simul cum although the Persons were not named Declaration and said that this was the constant course of the Common Pleas And that an ejectione firmae against one simul cum had been ruled to be good Ejectio ne â—â—mae and so used in the Common Pleas although heretofore it hath been adjudged to the contrary yet the Iudgement was stayed till the other should move Jones against Young Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 1857. IOnes brings an Action of Assault and Battery against Young Young justifies as servant to I. S. because Error to reverse a Iudgment against the Plaintiff in Trespasse that Jones came to fish in the several Piscary of his Master Iudgement was given for the Defendant A writ of Error was brought and two exceptions taken 1. That whereas Young had in his Plâ—a of Iustification entitled his Master to the several Piscary by the Kings Letters Patents he had not shewn that the King was seised of this several Piscary jure Coronae and so it might be the King had no power to grant it 2ly He doth not shew his Letters Patents which he ought to do because he derives a title by them Title The rule was to shew cause Saturday next why the Iudgement should not be reversed The Earl of Lecester against Mrs. Samford Pasc 23. Banc. Reg. IN a Trover and Conversion brought by the Earl of Lecester against Mrs. Samford for certain Iewels the Trover being laid to be in Kent but the Offring the goods to sell being the Conversion of them being in London It was doubted where the tryal should be and the Court sayed that generally a transitory Action is to be laid where the fact was done Venire yet the Party is not tyed to lay it there but may lay it in another County and in this case it was held by the Court that the Plaintiff may bring his Action where the Iewels were sold and that was in London as well as in Kent where the Trover was laid Trover for part of the ground of the Action to wit the Conversion was in London though part of it namely the Trover was laid to be in Kent Basely and Baseley Pasc 23
Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in Norwitch and the Error Assigned was Error to reverse a Iudgment in Norwitch that there did but five of the Iury empanelled appear at the tryal and yet a Verdict was given and Iudgement thereupon The Court said that a Corporation cannot grant a tales neither if they could doth it here appear that there was a tales granted and therefore reversed the Iudgement Sir VVilliam Bronker Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. SIr William Bronker was brought before a Iustice of Peace upon an information made Habeas corpus for one committed by a Iustice of peace for refusing to find sureties for the good behaviour that he had choated one at play with false dice the Iustice requires him to find sureties for his good behaviour and upon his refusal commits him to Prison Sir William Bronker brings his habeas corpus in this Court and upon the retorn this matter appear'd the Prisoner prayes by his councell to be delivered because there appeared no matter sufficient upon the retorn why he should be committed but because the Gâ—oler desired time to amend the retorn the Court granted it and would not deliver the Prisoner but took vail for his appearance viz. the Earl of Dover Good behaviour and Earl of Chesterfield And the Court then said that a Iustice of Peace cannot bind one to the good behaviour upon a general information or commit him to Prison for refusing to find suretyes for his good behaviour upon such information Imprisonment VVroath and Elseye Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 1224. AN Action of Debt was brought against Elseye an under Sheriff by Wroath the high Sheriff upon a bond given him to save him harmlesse Demurer to a plea in Debt upon an obligation c. the Defendant pleads that he hath saved him harmlesse to this the Plaintiff demurs and held a good demurrer for he ought to have pleaded non damnificatus and not generally that he hath saved him harmlesse for that he may do in many things and yet the Plaintiff may be damnifyed in some other things where in he was also bound to save him harmlesse The rule was to shew cause why Iudgment should not be given for the Plaintiff VVhite Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Iudgement was given in an Action on the Case brought by an Atturney for these words spoken of him Error to revâ—rse a Iudgment in an Action on the Case for words Thomas White is a perjured Knave and a suborned Knave A Writ of Error was brought and divers exceptions taken but the principal were two 1. That the words aâ—â— not well laid for they are adjective words and so not positive enough to ground an Action 2. The words are not Actionable because it is not declared that the party of whom they were spoken was of any Trade or had any office But Bacon Iustice over-ruled all the exceptions and ordered cause to be shewn next day why the Iudgement should not be affirmed The Case of one Nicholas and Webb was afterward cited Case where Iudgement was given in the Common pleas for calling an Atturney Knave which Iudgement was said to be afterwards affirmed in the Kings bench 12 Car. Trin. rot 102. Saunderson and Martin Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 22 Car. rot 867. A Iudgement was given in an Action of Debt upon an obligation Error to reverse a Iudgment in Debt to perform such a promise made by the Obligor to the Obligee and a Writ of Error was brought to reverse this Iudgement The Error assigned was that the breach of the promise was not well assigned for it did not appear when this breach of promise was Bacon Iustice The breach of promise is the sole cause of the Action and it appears not to the Court when that was and for this he reversed the Iudgement Paine and Skeltrom Hill 23 Car. rot 740. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an obligation Demurrer a Plea in Debt upon an Obligation the condition was that Skeltrom the Defendant with his Wife should appear at the Marshals Court and for not appearing according to the condition was the Action brought Skeltrom appears and pleads that at the time of the obligation he was solus et innuptus To this Plea the Plaintiff demurrs Rolle Iustice said this Plea was not the same with ne unques loyalment accouple for one extended to a feme de facto and the other to a feme de jure The Court then advised of the Plea but Trin 23 Car. ruled to shew cause tomorrow why Iudgement should not be given for the Plaintiff Stoughton and Day Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. SToughton an undersheriff brings an Action of Debt against Day one of his Bailiffs Demurrer upon a Declaration in Debt upon an Obligation upon an obligation with a condition to save the under-sheriff harmlesse in executing of processes and other things contained in the condition and Assignes the breach of the condition to be that the Bailiff had not Executed such his warrant sent to him upon a processe to him directed out of the Exchequer to levy issues upon certain lands To this declaration the Defendant demurs and shews for cause 1. That the warrant to him directed by the undersheriff was made out of the County where he was undersheriff and so could not be said his warrant as under-sheriff of that County 2. It is not alleged that the mannour of Addinson where he was by the warrant to levy the issues is within the Hundred where the Bailiff hath Iurisdiction Warrant And this the Court held to be a good exception and said that the breach Assigned is not shewed to be within the Condition of the Obligation because the Baily cannot execute a precept out of the Hundred where he is Bailiff and Thereupon the rule was that the Plaintiff Nil capiat per billam if cause were not shewn Tuesday following Cook and Fincham Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Iudgement was given for Cook For vacating a Writ of Execution upon an information upon a Statute exhibited by him on the behalf of the King and himself where the King was to have ten pounds of the penalty recovered Cook takes out an Execution upon this Iudgement to levy the whole sum of money recovered to himself as appeared to the Secondary upon examination of the matter referred to him Upon this the Court held the writ of Execution to be ill Execution because it was entire for the whole sum recovered to the party whereas 10 l. was due to the King and ordered a new Writ of Execution and to stay the money in Court till further advice of the matter taken Clark and Pew Pasc 23 Car. Banc Reg. AN Action of Trover and Conversion was brought by Clark Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case against Pew and his wife and the Declaration was that
the goods were found by the Baron and Feme and were converted ad usum suum whereas it ought to be in the plural number to wit ad usum eorum or ad usum of Pew and his wife for as it was it supposed the Conversion to be made only by the Husband which is contrary to the Action it self which is brought against both Upon this Iudgement was stayed till the other should move Long and Bennet 23 Car. Banc. Reg. LOng brings an Action upon the Case against Bennet and declares that he would not suffer him to take unum Acrum ligni which he had sold to him in such a place Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Declaration ought to have been unum Acrum bosci and not ligni for that was uncertain The Court said they would Advise of the exception Declaration because it was in an Action of the Case The same Term Iudgement was given because Damages only were to be recovered and the words used were but inducements to describe the thing for which Damages only were demanded yet it might have been more properly expressed Barker and Martyn Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brings an Action of Trespasse Arrest of Iudgement in an Actâ—on of Trespass and declares against the Defendant for breaking his house and taking away quinque Instrumenta ferrea Anglice Fetters and a verdict was for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the word Instrumentum is not a word that signifies Fetters but that it is so general a word that it may expresse any other thing as well and that the Anglice joyned with it to interpret what it means cannot help it because there is a proper Latin word which might and ought to have been used to expresse Fetters by Rolle Iustice said that by the Statute all pleadings ought to be in Latine Pleadings and every particular thing therein ought to be expressed by a Latin word if there be a proper Latin word for it as here there is and therefore the proper Latin word being not used but another which cannot signifie the thing the Anglice doth no good but part of the Declaration shall be judged to be in English and so it cannot be good And judgement thereupon was stayed till the other sould move Curtice and Columbine Pasc 23. Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 22 Car. rot 433. CUrtice brings an Action upon the Case against Columbine upon an Assumpsit by paroll to find meat drink lodging Error to reverse a Iudgement in an Action upon an Assumpsiâ—â— c. for the Plaintiff and to teach him the trade of a mercer This agreemet was afterwards by consent of both partyes put into writing Vpon the tryal the Plaintiff obteins a Verdict upon the paroll agreement and hath Iudgement thereupon The Defendant brings his Writ of Error in this Court and Assignes for Error that there was no Assumpsit declared upon or proved sufficient to warrant the Verdict and Iudgement because that by reducing the Agreement to writing the paroll agreement became ipso facto void and so no Action could be brought upon it but it ought to have been brought upon the Agreement expressed in the deed and the issue ought to have been joyned upon that and not upon the verball Agreement which is void The rule of Court was to shew cause why Iudgement should not be reversed Barker and Martin Pasc 23 Car. B. R. BArker brings an Action of Trespass for an Assault and Battery against Martin simul cum Arrest of Iudgement in Trespasse c. and hath a Verdict against him It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Action ought to have been brought particularly against the other Trespassors together with the Defendant and not against the Defendant in particular with a general simul cum against the rest which is uncertain and signifies nothing against the rest and the rather because the Action is commenced by bill and not by original although it could not be good though it were by original but it was said by Rolle Iustice that it may be the Plaintiff could not Arrest the other Trespassors Trespasse and that he will do it when he can and that he may well proceed against them at divers times as he can take them but that whensoever he shall have had satisfaction for the Trespass done him from any one of them he cannot proceed against any of the rest and it was ruled that Iudgement should be entred Cook and Allen. Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Iudgement given in an inferior Court was reversed in this Court Iudgement reversed because the Venire was ill inferior Court Common pleas because the Venire was Venire facias c. and did not shew from what place the Venire should bee which by Rolle Iustice ought to have been expressed at large it being in an inferior Court and not with an c. although the use of the Common pleas be to make the Venire short with an c. The King and Holland Entred 16 Car. Argued Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe case was in effect this An argument upon a special Veâ—dict A Copyhold was surrendred to I. S. in trust that Holland an Alien should take the profits thereof to his own use and benefit upon this an inquisition was taken for the King and this matter found whereupon the lands were seised into the Kings hands and upon a tryall concerning these lands a special Verdict was found comprising the aforesaid matter The case was argued against the Kings Title by Mountague of the Middle Temple and for the Kings title by Hales of Lincolnes Inn. The substance of Mountagues Argument was 1. To consider the nature of the trust 2. The nature of the land out of which the trust was raised and for the first he held because it was a trust for an Alien to take the profits of the land and in that the Alien had no estate in the land therefore the King could not have it as he might have had the land if the Alien had had any Estate in it and he said that this trust was a thing only in Action and lies in privity and not to be seised upon by another and said a Villein was a parallel Person in law to an Alien in respect of purchasing of lands and had a Copihold been surrendred thus in trust for a Villein the Lord should not have seised it and this is but a trust not Executed which is in the nature of a use at the Common law and not as it is now by the Statute besides this trust is raised out of Copyhold lands and therefore the King cannot seise the lands which the Alien hath not for if he should the Lord of whom the land is held would be preiudiced and he cited Beverlyes case 4. rep 126 and a case in 23 Eliz
here for the first words Iudgement and not for the second the Damages being severall but if the Damages had been intire there if Iudgement could not be given for both the words it cannot be given at all Bacon Iustice much to the same purpose as Rolle and said that the first words shall be meant that he added words of his own invention without any instruction of the party for oftentimes dubious words shall be taken in the worse sense upon consideration of the Circumstances that accompany them and he was also of opinion that the second words were actionable and are as scandalous as the former Iudgement was given for the former words and for the latter the Court would advise Barrett 23 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Trespasse was brought for digging in his land Arrest of Iudgement in Trespass and carrying away a certain number of loads of earth and a Verdict was for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the declaration was incertain for the Trespasse is laid to be done in land lying in divers Towns 2ly It is not shewed what kind of soil the earth was that was caryed away but both the exceptions were over-ruled and Iudgement ruled to be entred nisi causa c. Conisby and Fairfax Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Iudgement was given in an Action of Trespass in the Court of Owse-bridge in York Error to reverse a Iudgement in Trespasse a writ of Error was brought in this court to reverse the Iudgement many exceptions not material at all were taken and many others that were helped by the Verdict but the three chief Exceptions were 1. The Damages were declared to be ad valentiam quingint librar instead of quingent for there is no such word as quingint to express any number for if it be meant to express Fifty it ought to be quinquagint but quingent signifies 500. 2ly The Venire was directed Balivis de Wapentagio whereas there is no such word for the word to express a Wapentake is Wapentachium so that it ought to be de Wapentachio and not Wapentagio 3ly The Venire is Venire Venire facias de baliva and sayes not what Baliwick which is uncertain and it cannot be known whither it extends and upon these Exceptions the Iudgement was ruled to be reversed except better matter shewn Saturday following Pasc 23 Car. Banc Reg. VPon a motion for quashing an Endictmet against a Baker For quashing an Endictment for using the Trade of a Baker these Exceptions were taken 1. He is indicted for using facultatem pistoris and doth not say panis humani 2ly It is for baking panis tritici Anglice Houshold bread whereas it signifies only bread made of Wheat and not Houshold bread for that may be made of other corn 3ly For baking panis Assis without a dash for panis Assisae Vpon these Exceptions it was quashed Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a motion for quashing an Endictment against one for apprehending I S. unprisoning him For quashing an Endictment for aresting and imprisoning one these Exceptions were taken to it 1. It sayes that he apprehended imprisoned the party without a Warrant whereas it ought to have been absque aliqua rationabili causa for in some Cases a man may be apprehended and imprisoned without a Warrant but in no Case without a reasonable cause 2ly The Endictment is that he did not shew him the cause why he apprehended and imprisoned the party and that he is not bound to do and yet the party may be lawfully imprisoned 3ly The Endictment doth not say that he apprehended and imprisoned the party falsely as it ought to have done Vpon these Exceptions it was quashed Drake and VVhitacre 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 1318. AN Action upon the Case was brought Arest of Iudgment in an Action upon the Case for words and a Verdict found for the Plaintiff for these words Margaret Whitacre viz. meaning the Plaintiff did steal my Wood and I will send her to Bridewell It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable for doubtfull words as these are ought to be taken in mitiori sensu and Wood here may be understood standing Wood and not Wood cut down and so it could not be Theft but a Trespass on the other side it was answered that Wood shall here be understood Wood cut down and not standing and being coupled with the words Margaret VVhitacre is a Thief which are scandalous words they shall be interpreted equally scandalous Ayre Higgins his Case was cited to prove it where it was adjudged that these words He is a thief and hath stollen my Corn shall be understood of Corn cut down and not standing and therefore are actionable Roll Justice said it was a strong Case that the action will lye Case Notwithstanding Iudgement was arested till the other should move This was again moved Trin. 23 Car. and the Court held that the first words alone were actionable but whether coupled with the other they were actionable the Court was divided viz. Bacon a gain the Action and Rolls for it Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg IN an Action of Trover and Conversion and a verdict for the Plaintiff Arest of Iudgment in Trover and Conversion it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff did declare for Books for Stockings found converted and doth not shew what Books viz. whether English or Latine or what other Language nor whether Law books Divinity Physick or of any other Subject and because he doth not declare what sort of Stockings they were whether wollen wosted or silk c. But the Court over-ruled the Exceptions and said that Books were not things of divers species Species be they of what Language or subject they may be of neither the Stockings for were they silk or wollen or wosted they were but Stockings and so ruled Iudgement to be entred The King and Place Pasc 23 car B. R. PLace was endicted before the Lord Finch and Iustice Crawley for speaking words against the Queen Mother of France Error upon a Iudgement given upon an Endictment for words the words were these The Queen Mother is the Whore of Babylon she is a Whore and hath had a Bastard upon this Endictment jugement was given against the Defendant A Writ of Error was brought in this Court to reverse the iudgement The Errors assigned were 1. That the proceedings upon this Endictment were too speedy and so illegal for the whole proceedings upon it were acted in one day 2ly The Endictment lyes not for it is founded upon the Statute of Scandalum magnatum Scandalum magnatum and here can be no such great Scandal for that is for words spoken of a Peer of the Realm and the Queen Mother is not so 3ly There is no Capiatur upon the Roll as it ought to have been the Defendant being not in Prison at
the time of the iudgement given 4ly The iudgement is that the Defendant shall be imprisoned for a year without bail or mainprise whereas he ought to be delivered upon paying his Fine Adjourned to the next Term. Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. AN action of Debt was brought upon a Bill penall Arest of Judgment in Debt upon a Bill penal and a verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of iudgement That the Plaintiff hath not shewed that the Defendant did not pay the mony at the day limited in the Bill but only says non solvit c. 2ly He declares that the Defendant was bound to pay such a sum legalis monetae and doth not say Angliae but the Court over-ruled both the exceptions and ruled the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Motion was made by one Town against another neighbour bordering Town For a Writ against a vill to make them keep their Fences Scire facias Plea for a Writ to make them repair their fences And it was granted but it was said by the Court that the Writ so granted should be but in the nature of a Scire facias refornable in this Court to enable them to plead to it and not to compell them to do it without being admitted to plead Notwithstanding the opinion of Noy Attorny General and he old Record of Ed. the 2ds time produced heretofore by him to strengthen it Nota. Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Motion was made upon an Affidavit to stay Process out of this Court against the party for a Deodand To stay Pracess for a Deodand because he had payed three pound for it to the Kings use to Sub-Deputy Almoner upon a composition made with him Bacon Iustice Certificate Notice procure the General Deputy Almoner to acknowledge it and procure his Certificate to the Court for of the Sub-Deputy we can take no notice Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash a Endictment of forcible entry upon these Exceptions To quash an Endictment of forcible Entry 1. There is no addition of the County where the party dwells that made the forcible entry as there ought to be by the Statute of 1. H. 5. Addition and without this addition no Process can be awarded to out-law the party for it must be directed unto the County where he dwells 2ly There is no County expressed where the vill lies in which the force was committed Vpon these Exceptions it was quashed Trin. 23 Car. Banc Reg AN Endictment was preferred 5 years before To discharge one endicted for Recusancy against Count Arundel for recusancy It was now moved that he would plead Conformity but in regard that he must plead it by Certificate under the hand and seal of the Bishop of the Dioces and Bishops were now taken away by the Parliament Certificate Conformity he was disabled to do it but had a Certificate under the hands and seals of the Minister and Church-wardens of the Parish where he dwelt upon Oath testifying his Conformity and thereupon it was prayed he might be discharged But the Court answered that there is another remedy given by the Statute which he might have followed though the former was taken away to wit to conform at the Sessions and it was his own fault that he hath lost that advantage by removing the Endictment hither by Certiorari and therefore we will not at present deliver him but will consider of the Statute and stay the Process in the mean time Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IT was moved to the Court that there was an Execution duly issued out of this Court and returnable here this Term Against an Injunction out of the Chancery to stay execution and that since it issued forth the Defendant had obtained an Injunction out of the Chancery to stop the execution The Court answered that all the Iudges were agreed that an Injunction out of the Chancery lyes not after a Iudgement be the Bill put in before or after the Iudgment it matters not but if after a Iudgement there be a Writ of Error brought to reverse it and pending the Writ an Injunction be obtained Q. whether it lye or no by the Reporter Injunction Bruer and Sowthwell Trin. 23 Carol. BRuer brought an action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit to pay so much mony for Currance sold unto him discomputando for four Months Arest of Judgment in an action upon the Case The Defendant demurs to the Declaration for the incertainty of it because it is discomputando for four Months and expresseth not for how much he should discount and so there can be no certain dammages given and upon this it was stayed till the other party move Whiteacre and Hillwell Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 1318. VPon a Verdict had for the Plaintiff in an action upon the Case for these words Magaret Whitacre is a thief hath stollen my Wood Action on the Case for words and I will send her to Bridewell It was again by the Plaintiff moved for Iudgement because the words were actionable and shall be meant of Wood cut down not standing and it was said though the first words should in themselves be doubtfull yet are they made certain by the words that are coupled with them But Bacon Iustice denied it and said that Bridewell is a Prison for Correction and not the Sheriffs Prison for felons and that one may be sent thither although the offence be not felony and that the cutting of Wood standing is to be punished with whipping and so the party may be sent to Bridewell for that offence and said that the last words are explanatory of the former that he meant not the fact charged upon the Plaintiff to be felony but had not the later words been added to explain his meaning the former alone are clearly actionable But Roll Iustice held the words as they are laid to be actionable and cited Hyfords and Stamps Case Trin. 11 Iac. Doleman and Youngs case 5 Car. and Smith and Wards Case 21 Iac. and said that in the Case at Bar that the latter words were cumulative and not interpretative and that where there are expresse precedent words to make one a Thief there ought to be violent words subsequent to give them another interpretation and not words which may be taken by implication as they are in this Case Adjourned VVatson and VVatson Trin. 23. Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 1687. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation with condition to stand to an award Action of Debt for not performing an award The Defendant pleads no Arbitrement made The Plaintiff replyes and sets forth the award and Assigns a breach the Defendant demurs and for cause shews that the award is uncertain and not finall for it is that one of the parties shall pay so much money to the other as shall be due in conscience
and that cannot be known how much it may be and consequently there is no award but both parties are at liberty to go to law as they were before An incertain award not good and so no end is made between them by the award according to the intent thereof and these books were cited against the award 20 Ed. 4. fol. 1. et 4.9 H. 7 fol. 14.8 Ed. 4. fol. 20. It was ruled by the Court to shew cause why Iudgement should not be against the Plaintiff per nil capiat per billam The King and Place Trin 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between the King and Place adjourned Error to reverse a Judgment upon an Endictment upon the Statute Scandalum Magnatum Pasc 23 Car. was again moved which was this Place was indicted before Finch and Crawley Iustices of Oyer and Terminer for these words spoken against the Queen mother of France viz. the Queen mother is the Whore of Babylon and is a Whore and hath had a Bastard and all the Noblemen that will not ioyn with me against her are Rogues and Rascalls To this endictment the Defendant pleaded and was found guilty by the Iury and Iudgement given against him Whereupon he brings his Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement and Assigns these Errors 1. against the body of the Endictment it self and that he ought not to be Endicted for the words because they are neither spoken against the Common law nor against any Statute law 2. Against the proceedings upon the Endictment which were against law being too speedy for he was Endicted before Iustices of Oyer and Terminer and tryed in one day whereas there ought to have been 15. days betwixt the preferring of the Endictment and the tryal 3. The Venire is against law for the Court did chuse try and swore the Iury which ought not to be 4. Part of the Iudgement is that the Defendant shall be bound to his good behaviour which cannot be upon such an Endictment as was before them 5. The Endictment doth not say that the words were spoken contra pacem 6. Part of the Iudgement is that he shall be set upon the Pillory and lose his cares which no law warrants but only to be set there to the view of the people Imprisonment with a paper on his head 7. The Iudgement is that he shall be imprisoned for a year without bail which ought not to be To this last exception the Court answered the party might be so committed But they said that the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer cannot try an Endictment the same day nor Iustices of peace at the same Sessions in which it was preferred Tryall and they cited one Barnabyes Case 13 Car. and Pridians Case 6 Car. 22 E. 4. et Plow 44. But they said Iustices of Eyr may try an Endictment the same day Roll Iustice said the Kings Bench is a Court of Eyr in the County where it sits Eyr and therefore they may try an endictment removed here out of the same County the same day but not if it be removed hither out of another County for in that case it is only a Court of Oyer and Terminer But Bacon denied it and said so was my Lord Cooks opinion and it was also said that Iustices of Oyer and Terminer cannot proceed upon an Endictment which is not taken before themselves but Iustcices of Gaol delivery may and the Court also held that the juratores electi tryati et jurati by the Court as it must necessarily be here understood Iury. was illegal for the Iury ought to be electi by the Sheriff out of the County and lastly the Court held that legally there ought to have been 15 dayes between the Endictment and the tryal and for these reasons ordered to give notice to the Kings Sollicitour or Serjeant to shew cause why the Iudgement should not be reversed Hill and Farmer Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 17 Car. rot 674. AN Action of Debt was brought in the Common pleas upon an obligation Error in Debt upon an obligation and a Iudgement upon a demurrer was given for the Plaintiff the Plaintiff brings a Writ of error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement and Assignes for Error that the Obligation upon which the Action was brought and Iudgement was given is a void obligation by the Statute of quinto and sexto of Ed. 6. made against buying of Offices But Roll Iustice answered that the Iudgement in the Common pleas was given upon a mispleader there and therefore you should make that good first before you move new matter And there is another Error also in the pleading which was not touched upon in the Common pleas which is this first the plea is of the Office of the delivery within the Office of the Armory Declaration and after he referrs the plea to the Office of the Armory which is another Office and so she Declaration is double Another exception was that the word Armentarius was used for Armamentarius Monday following was given to shew cause why Iudgement should not be reversed The King and Marshall Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. MArshall brings a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him upon an Endictment of barratry Error upon an Endictment and takes these exceptions 1. That it doth not appear in the Endictment before what Commissioners the Endictment was taken upon which the Iudgement was given and so the Endictment is not good for the incertainty of it and consequently the Iudgement is erroneous that is given upon it for it ought to appear by the Endictment that it was taken before the Iustices of Assise or Iustices of Peace or of the Gaol-delivery 2. The Iudgement is quod solvat tantam denariorum summam and shall find sureties for the good behaviour and this is rather an award than a Iudgement To this exception Roll Iustice answered Iudgement if it be a good order it is a good Iudgement and the order is part of the Iudgement yet let the Kings Councell have notice and the Prosecutor shew cause why the Iudgement should not be reversed Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a verdict given in an ejectione firmae it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement Arrest of Iudgement in an ejectione firmae and the exception was that the Plaintiff was ejected de uno Crofto which was said to be of an uncertain signification and because the Plaintiff conceived the Court doubted whether an ejectione firmae lay of a Croft he durst not defend it but moves for a special Iudgement for the rest of the land contained in the Declaration and prayed that he might release the damages as to the Croft Rolle Iustice doubted whether an ejectione firmae lyes de uno Crofto Ejectione firmae Formedon Assise and said that a Formedon lyes not of a Croft but that an Assise doth because it is put in view to the recognitors but a
ought not to be restored which in brief was for carrying himself in a tumultuous way at an election of Common-Councell-men and disturbing the election this Retorn was read and filed and the Councel thereupon prayed he might be restored because there was not sufficient matter shewed in the Retorn why he should not be restored and these exceptions were taken to the Retorn 1. That it was too general and shews not what manner of disturbance Estwick made at the Court where the election was 2ly Part of his misdemenour is set forth to be clamando veciferando which are words very uncertain and not proper to set forth a disturbance 3ly It was said he was bidden to withdraw and refused and it is not shewn why he should withdraw 4ly The custom set forth for the Lord Maior and Court of Aldermen to imprison ad placitum is not good but they should have shewn that such imprisonment belonged to them per consuetudinem or by the Common-law 5ly They say that they had used to imprison for such causes and do not shew where the custom is used 6ly They say quaedam quaestio orta est touching the election of one to be a Common-Councel-man and shew not his ability for the place 7ly By the incertainty of the Retorn the Plaintiff cannot plead to it 8ly It is said that when he was commanded to go forth he said he would not but it is not said that he did not go forth 9ly It is said that the Court of Common-Councel tendred the Covenant whereas they have no power by Ordinance of Parliament to do it The Recorder of Councell with the City desired time to amend the Retorn in matter of form only And said that the Plaintiff was removed from his place by a Court of Record and therefore hoped he should not be this way restored and that he had no loss by being removed and therefore the Case was the less considerable and whereas it was objected against his amending of the Reton that it was filed so too late to move for it He said that it was not filed by order of Court but only ordered that Copies might be taken of it for Council to peruse and if so then it is not too late to pray it may be amended but though it were filed he conceived that in a case of this importance it might be amended in matter of form as some Reforms had been formerly in this Court Roll Iustice answered the Recorder to this effect You ought to shew some cause upon which the party may have remedy by a Writ of Error or otherwise Return if Iudgement be wrongfully given against him which you have not done and as to the filing of the Retorn Filing a Retorn may be filed either upon motion of the party or by the rules of the Court and it were good you consider how this was filed and as touching the suspension of the party from his place Suspension it ought not to be perpetual but for a time only and said that after filing of a Retorn be it upon motion or by the rules of the Court it cannot be amended Tuesday next following was given by the Court to hear Councel on both parts Amendment Chadly and Stinch Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 22 Car. rot 556. STinch brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit in the Common Pleas against Chadly and hath a Verdict and a Iudgement Error to reverse a Iudgment in an Action upon an Assumpsit Stinch brings a Writ of Error here to reverse this Iudgement and assigns for Error 1. That there were 18 returned upon the Iury and but two of them tryed the issue 2ly Part of Declaration to ground the Assumpsit was in another County and not within the Iurisdiction of the Court where the issue was tryed and for these Errors the Iudgement was reversed except cause should be shewn to the contrary Thursday next Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IT was moved to quash an Endictment for erecting of a Cottage contrary to the Statute To quash an Endictment for erecting a Cottage the exception taken to it was that he erected a Cottage for habitation but did not say it was used or inhabited as a Cottage But Bacon Justice answered that the very erection of it is an offence against the Statute and therefore the Endictment did very well pursue the words of the Statute and therefore would not quash it VVright and Pynder Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 22 Car. rot 440 antea 22 THe Case of Wright and Pynder was moved again to have the Iudgement of the Court. Opinion of the Court on a Demurrer upon an evidence Roll Iustice said that matter of fact ought to be agreed in a Demurrer to an Evidence otherwise the Court cannot proceed upon the Demurrer for the Iudges cannot try the matter in fact for that were for the Iudges to give the verdict which belongs to the Iury to do and to waive the matter in Law Pleading which they should determine and he said that if a Deed be pleaded the party must shew it in Court but if it be given in evidence it is not necessary to shew it if it can otherwaies be proved to the Iury Evidence and so is it of a Record given in evidence and cited one Worsseys Case 17 Iac. Rolls Iustice took also two other Exceptions to the pleading 1. That the Goods mentioned in the Schedule appear not to be the same contained in the Declaration 2ly No Title is made to the Indenture by him who brings the Action and concluded upon the whole matter that the Demurrer was not good and that there ought to be a Venire facias de novo to try the matter again Venire de novo Iudgement Bacon Iustice much to the same effect but differ'd in this that there ought not to be a Venire facias de novo but said that Iudgement ought to be given against one party to wit the Defendant for ill joyning in Demurrer to the intent the party that is not in fault may be dismissed and the parties here have waived the Tryal per pays by joyning in Demurrer But Roll answered that no Iudgement at all could be given for both parties be in fault one by tendring the Demurrer the other by joyning in it and the Defendant might have chosen whether he would have joyned or no but might have prayed the Iudgement of the Court whether he ought to joyn The Court advised to search presidents for a Venire facias de novo after a Demurrer upon an evidence and if there be any they held that the same Iury ought to come again and not another Roll said Iury. if a special verdict be found insufficient a new Venire facias ought to issue and he saw no difference between that and this Case King and Summerland Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IN the Case of King and Summerland again moved the
Court held that the pleading of a bargain and sale to be debito modo irrotulatum secundum formam statuti is good enough Opinion of the Court touching pleading of an Enrollment though it be not pleaded to be inrolled within six months yet ruled it should be moved again The same term Iudgement was given that the Plaintiff nil capiat per billam because the Deed was not said to be enrolled neither secundum formam statuti nor within six months but only debito modo which may be an Enrollment at the Common law and not according to the Statute The City of London and Estwick Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was again moved in the Case between the City of London and Estwick Argument concerning the Writ of Restitution to a common-Councel-mans place Amendment that the return of the City might be amended although it were filed because there are Presidents where it hath been done Roll Iustice answered there was never any amended after the filing before H. 7ths time It was replyed by the Councel that the return being of this Term it might be amended for it rested in the breast of the Iudges But Roll Iustice answered to this that Acts of the Court remain in the breast of the Court the same Term but not acts of others and therfore this being so was not amendable and said that inferiour Courts cannot amend a presentment in matter of fact for that were to alter the custom of the courts and it was then said that Endictments had been amended after the filing of them And Alderman Langhams Case was also urged where a retorn of the City was amended after it was filed yet this was ruled not amendable Twisden of Councel with the City argued that Estwick ought not to be restored to his place of a Common-Councel-man for these reasons 1. Because it was not a place of profit and so it was no damage to him to be removed and therefore his sute was to no purpose 2ly It is not a place of Government and so no dignity in it but it was a place meerly of service and trouble But Roll Iustice answered that a writ of restitution had been adjudged good to restore a Constable to his place Restitution which was more a place of service and trouble than this 3ly There is a judgement against Estwick in a Court of Record and it must be avoided either by error or attaint as the Statute directs and the partie cannot be restored by a Writ of Restitution and for the objection that the Return is too general he answered that Faith is to be given that there was a disturbance made by him as is suggested though it be not so plainly expressed as it might have been 2ly Here appears a contempt to the Court and for this he may be suspended 3ly The Custome is well pursued upon the whole matter taken together 4ly The Custome is well laid for the commitment ad placitum for it refers to the words suspendere vel amovere that is either one or the other 5ly The word require amounts to a command being spoken in a Court of Record and the disobeying it was a contempt Hales of Council on the same side argued much as Twisden had done and added to it as followeh 1. That there appears a reasoanble cause precedent why he should be suspended and then it follows they may suspend him ad libitum 2ly The alleging of the disturbance is not material for that is not the ground of his a motion from his place but only the inducement to it 3ly Requisitus shall be understood requisitus per curiam it being alleged to be in Court 4ly Recusavit is more than denegavit and implies he did not the thing enjoyned him and so might well be committed 5ly There may be cause to grant a Writ of restitution though no cause for the restitution For a common-Councel-man of Coventry had a Writ of restitution out of this Court and yet upon his sute was not restored The Recorder moved for a longer day to be heard for the City because it was a weighty cause and said that no restitution could be made for the Writ was not well directed and so is not well executed The Plaintiffs Councel desired expedition in the Cause Whereupon Roll said here hath been no delay in the business but the rule is against you and he took these exceptions to the Retorn 1. It appears not by the retorn that the Plaintiff is removed from his place but only that he is suspended and then he may well be restored and it is not said for how long time he is suspended 2ly It is not said that he is suspended for a reasonable cause 3ly It is not said what the disturbance was that he made for which he is suspended And further said that the Court of the Common-Councel is not a Court of Record Error Restitution for no Writ of Error lies there but is a Court only of Advise Bacon Iustice as Roll and said that Estwick had only remedy to be restored by a Writ of Restitution and not by a Writ of Error or an Attaint Adjourned till Saturday to hear Councel for the City Rawson and Bargue Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 17 Car. rot 904. RAwson brought an Action of Debt against Bargue for 15 l. upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for setting forth of Tithes Argument upon a special Verdict for Tithes in an action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. And upon the Tryal a special verdict was found wherein the Question was whether the Church by reason whereof the Tithes were claimed were a free Chappel and given to Ed. the 6th by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. and so discharged of Tithes or not VValker of Councel with the Plaintiff argued that it was not a free Chappel because there was a cure of Souls and so could not be free but presentative and said that the word free was a word of distinction to distinguish things of different nature one from another as liber homo is to distinguish a free maa from a villein Francksold Francktenement and the like and cited Bracton lib. 4. C. 3. 241. He likewise distinguished Chappels into three sorts 1. Donative 2ly Presentative 3ly Without cure of Souls and said that Chappels presentative were not given to the King by the Statute of â— Ed. 6. and cited Nat. brev 48. and 13 E. 4. f. â— and 6 H. 7. c. 14. and 5 H. 7. f. 37. and said that it is not within the meaning of the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. to give Chappels presentative because it is not within the mischief which the Statute was made to prevent and so intends not to give Chappels with cure of Souls and the word free is but nominal and doth not make it free if it be not so otherwise Hales for the Defendant argued that it was a free Chappell within the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. For first it is called
the mony is not paid a Iudgement is obtained against White for the mony White makes his will and makes his Heir at law his Executor and dyes leaving lands to descend White as Heir brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement It was argued by the Councell of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that the Writ did lye because although the Action in the former Iudgement was but a personal Action yet in this Case the Land of the Heir may be charged by the Iudgement Heir Elegit for an elegit may be thereupon taken out to charge â—is Lands and therefore the Iudgement concerns him as Heir as well as Executor and therefore it is reason he should bring a Writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement because he may be prejudiced by it Executor And a Case in Trin. 29 Eliz. rot 631. Banc. Reg. was cited that the Heir is pridy to the Iudgement and therefore shall have a Writ of Error Error and he is not meerly terr-Tenant 13 E. 4.2 Roll Iustice the terr-Tenant sole shall not have a Writ of Error upon an extent Error And in the Case at the barr the Heir is not privy to the Iudgement and the extent is only upon him as terr-Tenant and he is not made privy to the Iudgement by the extent but after Execution he may have a Writ of Error and he said Bail the Bail cannot bring a Writ of Error upon the Iudgement given against the Principal and the same reason is here and it will be very hard to maintain this Writ of Error Adjourned to the next term Terry and Baxter Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 394. TErry brings an Action of Debt upon an Assumpsit against Baxter Demurrer upon an Dclaration in Assumpsit to stand to an award to stand to an Award The Defendant pleads nul arbitrement the Plaintiff sets forth the award and assigns a breach The Defendant demurs and for cause shews that part of the award was to pay 5 l. to the poor of the Parish of D. which was not within the submission and so the award was not good Rolle Iustice answered if the award be void to the 5 l. Award good in part i a good award awarded to be paid to the poor yet it is good to the rest for it is perfect as to the ending of all differences between them which are submitted and therefore shew cause on Monday next why judgement should not be given for the Plaintiff Morefield and VVebb Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 50. VVEbb brings an Action upon the Case against Morefield in the palace Court at Westminster Error to reverse a Iudgement in an Action upon the Case and hath a Iudgement Morefield brings a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement and Assigns these Errors 1. It is not shewed in the Declaration that the cause of Action was infra jurisdictionem palatii But Rolle Iustice answered Iurisdiction that it was shewed to be infra jurisdictionem Curiae and that was good enough for the Court is alleged to be held by Letters patents Retorn A 2d Exception was that there was not fifteen dayes for the retorn of the Venire facias as there ought to be But to this Rolle Iustice also answered that the Court is held by Letters patents and therefore it may be retornable within fifteen dayes though by the usual course of the Common law it cannot And therefore ordered the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error to shew better matter otherwise Iudgement should be affirmed against him The King and Holland Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between the King and Holland was moved again For quashing an inquisition for the King Inquisition and the Councell against the King moved that the inquisition found for the King to entitle him to the use of the Copyhold might be quashed because the King cannot be intitled to such a use because it is a thing in privity only and cited the Statute of 27 H. 8. of uses Vse and Cooks 1. rep 123 and said that the King cannot be intitled ot Copyhold lands of an Alien much lesse to the use of Copyhold lands Copyhold King VVrong Protection Trust if he should 1. The Lord would be wronged which the King ought not to do but to protect his subjects for the protection of the subject is not only matter of honour to the King but also of trust in the Crown 2ly A stranger is wronged by it 3ly The Copyholder of the Manor cannot have remedy for the injury done him Sute for he ought to sue in the Lords Court and not else where and here he cannot do it and the rule in law is de minimis non curat lex and it is much lesse for the honnour of the King to have a Copyhold estate Honour which is a base tenure But it may be objected that if the King shall not have this use he shall be in a worse condition than a subject To this it is answered that he shall be so in cases which touch his royalty and may be a disparagement to him Copyhold which indeed doth not make him in a worse condition though it may seem so but it is more for his honor and a Copyhold is an estate at the will of the Lord and ought to be protected by the Lord and the King cannot be Tenant at will to any Alien Trust and therefore cannot have a Copyhold estate and an Alien is not capable of a trust because it is a thing in Action which an Alien cannot have and therefore he cannot derive it from him Twisden for the King in his Argument considered 1. Whether the King can have a use at the Common law which is for an Alien 2. Whether a trust differs from a use for the first he said that an Alien may purchase lands Alien Praerogative and a use at the Common law but he cannot retain them therefore the King shall have them by his Praerogative and a use is not a thing in privity but is an Antient inheritance at the Common law 2ly There is no confidence annexed to cestui que use or to the Feoffor but may be disposed of 3ly Things privity in Action may be given to the King Privity and a use is an inheritance in the nature of a Chattell 4ly A use is grantable over Privity and therefore may be given to the King and the meaning of the word lost in the Statute is to be intended that it may be lost for the difficulty of finding such subtile conveyances and not that the right was really lost Trust And for a trust it is but a new name given to a use and invented to Defraud the Statute of uses and a trust of a Copyhold is all one with another trust for it is the taking of the profits of the land and not the Estate in
there is in it a false recital of the suspension Recital for he was not removed by the Citizens and so the Writ is directed to parties who did not the wrong and so it is ill directed and it differs from the direction of the Writ in Sir James Bags case and it ought to have been directed to the Sheriffs or Ministers who have authority to restore him as they did remove him for the party that hath done no wrong ought not to be punished or molested and for the ill direction of the Writ could not Warren the common-Councel-man of Coventry he restored and the Corporation of London is responsable for all particular Misdemeanours done within any Courts of Iustice within the City or other general Misdemeanours there committed Misdemeannours Maynard on the other side argued that the case was mistaken as it is stated in the Retorn for it supposeth that the party is removed at pleasure and yet supposeth also that there is a cause to remove him to wit his refusing to go out and expresseth not that he did not go out nor that he was commanded to go out but that he was requested And whereas it is more than to advise for he hath a privilege for his own good and the good of the City 3ly The Writ is well directed and cannot be otherwise for the party to have remedy and all the Presidents are as this is Presidents and Alderman Harris his case is the same in point with this where it was by three Iudges resolved that he should be restored to his Aldermans place because it was a place of Honour as well as of Burthen Roll Justice said 1. That the Writ was well directed 2ly That the custom was ill recited 3ly If it were well recited yet it is a void custom 4ly The Retorn is not good for the incertainties of it viz. in the causes shewed why the party was removed and therefore that he ought to be restored to his place Bacon Justice to the same intent and said that wheresoever a Commissioner or other person hath power given to do a thing at his discretion it is to be understood of sound discretion and according to Law Discretion Iurisdiction and that this Court hath power to redress things otherwise done by them The rule was that the party be restored if better matter be not shewn Tuesday following Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IN an Action of Trespass for digging in his Ground Arrest of Iudgement in Trespass and carrying away 200 load of soyl It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that it should have been of soyl inde provenient and that an intendment cannot make it good Roll Iustice said it seems a good Exception for as it is it is too generalite laid Vincent and Fursy Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 22 Car. Rot. Q. VIncent brought an Action of Trespass against Fursy for breaking open 2 Chests and taking away certain Cloaths and 3 l. in mony Arrest of Iudgement in Trespass and had a Verdict for him The Defendant moves in Arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions 1. That the Declaration is too general for it sets not forth what the cloths were which were taken away and so the value of them cannot be known as it ought to be that Damages may be rightly given 2. In this one Declaration there is an Action of Trespasse joyned with an Action upon the Case viz. the Trespasse for breaking open the Chests and the Action of the Case for taking away the cloathes and mony which ought not to be for two several Actions ought not to be laid in one Declaration Wadham Windham of Councell with the Plaintiff said it was well enough and could not be otherwise and the thing is certainly enough set forth and shall be interpreted reddendo singula singulis viz. the spoliavit in the Declaration shall have reference to the cloaths and the cepit to the mony Trover and Conversion Rolle Iustice said that an Action of Trover and Conversion for divers sorts of linnen had been adjudged good and 29 E. 3. An Action of Trespasse lyes for beating of his servant and in Cletheroes case an Action of Trespasse was held good for rescuing a prisoner from him whom he had Arrested Trespasse and the Cook of Grayes Inn brought an Action of Trespasse for taking away his wife per quod consortium amisit and it was held to be well brought but if the cloaths in the case at the bar had not been in the chest the Action would not have lain and he took another exception namely that Declaration wss for the breaking of 2 chests Incertainty and so it appears not where the cloaths were when they were taken whether in one oâ— in â—oth of them The rule was to stay Iudgement till they had seen the Reâ—ord Capell and Allen. Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 639. CApell brought an Action Debt upon an Assumpsit to stand to an award the Defendant pleaded Nal Arbitrement Demurrer upon an award the Plaintiff replyes and sets forth the Arbitrement and the breach the Defendant demurs and for cause shews that the award was not good because it was made but of one part Award for it was that one of the parties should do such things expressed and that the other party should pay for the making the Bonds of Submission which cannot be awarded and so nothing is awarded for him to do and the Arbitrators cannot award this because it is not within the submission Submission Rolle Iustice held this a good exception and said the Charge for making the writings is not within the Submission for the bonds were made before the Submission and it was held 13 Jac. that the words super praemissis in the award will not help an award made but of one part Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond Demurrer to a Declaration in Debt upon a bond to perform Covenants of an Indenture Breach Interpretations to perform the Covenants of an Indenture of a Demise for years The Plaintiff declares that he made the Lease to the Defendant the 28. day of May and that afterwards scilicet the 27 of the same Month of May the Defendant broke the Covenant To this Declaration the Defendant did demurr because it appears that the breach is set forth to be before the lease began which cold not be and so there is no cause of Action But to this Bacon Iustice said where the postea and the scilicet are repugnant in a deed as here they are the postea shall be good to signifie the time of the Covenant broken and the scilicet shall be void Therefore shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement Nota. Trin. 23 Car Banc. Reg. A Prohibition was prayed to the Corporation of Lincoln upon a suggestion made and sworn in this Court For a prohibition to the corporation of
Lincoln Admission Iurisdiction Prohibition Proceedings that the cause of Action if any were arose in the body of the County of Lincoln and not within the jurisdiction of the City of Lincoln Hales on the other side said they had admitted the jurisdiction of the Court in that they had not pleaded to it But Roll Iustice said inferiour Courts are limitted in their jurisdictions and ought to be kept in order by prohibitions if they exceed and if they proceed in matters not within their jurisdiction their proceedings are void Adjourned to the next Term. Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to an inferior Court For a prohibition to an inferior Court Admission but on the contrary part it was said that they moved too late for they had admitted the jurisdiction of the Court by pleading and cited 9 H. 7.12 and Fitz. jurisdict 19. Bacon Iustice said it is here in a Court of Common Law and not in the spiritual Court or Admiralty and therefore a Prohibition may be here granted notwithstanding the pleading there Prohibition but had it been the spiritual Court or the Admiralty it had been otherwise But Rolle Iustice said it was all one in the spiritual Court or Admiralty as it is in this case if they exceed their jurisdiction Iurisdiction Yet it is mischeivous to grant a prohibition in this case for thereby many Iudgements will be stopped Therefore the Court would advise to the next Term but stayed nothing Trin. 23 Car. Banc Reg. THe Court was moved that the undersheriff might return a Iury because the Sheriff For the undersheriff to return a Iury. Return Surm se Petigree Attorney and Coroner were of kinn to the Plaintiff the Court thereupon demanded whether they had brought in the surmise and proved the petigree to which they answered They had thereupon they were bid to name some Atturneys of the Country which was done and thereupon a rule made that they should return the Iury. Nota. Trin. 23. Car. Banc Reg. THe Court was moved for a rule to stay proceedings in the Court at Maidston in Kent To stay proceedings gâ—â—â— the Court at 〈…〉 because a supersedeas could not be granted for that nothing erroneous issued out of this Court But the Court answered that a supersedeas might well be granted and so said Hodsden the Secondary although nothing erroneous be issuing out of this Court and Bacon Iustice said that the Writs of the Court are as good and of as much force as the rules of Court Writs Rules and therefore we will make no rule to stay their proceedings but you shall have a supersedeas if you will Person and Dawson Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of the Case was brought by Person against Dawson for these words Arrest of Iudgment in an Act on for words your Son innuendo your Son William stole a horse and sold him for ten pounds The Plaintiff hath a Verdict the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because uncertain Case VVords and the innuendo cannot help them and the Iudgement was stayed till the other should move It was afterwrads moved again and the Iudgement stayed and this Term Iudgement given for the plaintiff Mich. 23. Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment upon the Statute of usury To quash an Endictment upon the Statute of usury Pursuance The exception taken was that it is not said corrupte agreavit nec accepit and so the Statute is not pursued Roll Iustice said that it is the corrupt receiving and the corrupt contract upon which Endictments are framed upon the old Statute viz. 3. Jac. c. but if the Endictment be framed upon the Statute of 21 Jac. there it ought to be upon the corrupt contract and because this Endictment is framed upon the Statute of 21 Jac. and mentions not the corrupt contract it is not good and therefore let it be quashed Yates against Lyndon Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. MAry Yates brought an Action upon the Case for speaking these words of her Mary Yates is a Sorcerer and a Witch and a white Witch Arrest of judgment in an Act on for words Case Statute Witchcraft she can witch and unwitch and hath a Verdict The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because the Plaintiff is not by the speaking of them brought within the Statute of 21. Jac. against Witch-craft But Roll Iustice doubted whether the word Sorcerer did not bring the Plaintiff within the Statute Yet Iudgement was stayed till the Plaintiff should move Hill the same year it was moved again and the Court adjudged Nil capiat per billam for they held the words not actionable Turner and his VVife Mich. 3 Car. Banc. Reg. TUrner and his Wife brought an Action upon the Case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words spoken of the Wife she is a Witch and I will take my oath of it The Plaintiffs had a Verdict The Defendant moves in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable for to say one is a Witch and to say no more is not actionable and the last words I will take my oath of it do not enlarge the former words VVords The Court arrested Iudgement till the Plaintiff should move Paradine and Jane Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 1178. PAradine brought an Action of Debt for rent due for lands Argument in debt for rent upon a lease for yeares let for years unto Iane the Defendant and declares particularly how much rent was due and for what time The Defendant pleads a special Plea to this effect as to part of the rent for which the Action is brought he confesseth the Action As to the rest he pleads that Prince Rupert an Alien and an Enemy of the King invaded the land with an Army and with divers armed men did enter upon him and did drive away his Cattell and expelled him from the lands let unto him by the Plaintiff and kept him out that he could not enjoy the lands for such a time and demands judgement if for the rent incurre during that time the Plaintiff ought to have his Action Demurrer To this Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and for cause saith that it is neither good in matter nor form The 1. question was whether a Lessee for years ousted by an Army or Aliens can plead it in Barr Plea Debt contract VVâ—st in an Action of Debt brought for rent due upon the Lease And to this it was said that this is an Action of Debt and lyes meerly upon the contract between the partyes and so this collaterall matter pleaded is nothing to the purpose but had it been an Action of wast if the wast had been done by Pr. Rupert and his Soldiers it may be it might have been pleaded to bar the Plaintiff 19.
set forth Jurisdiction that the place where the promise was made was within the Iurisdiction of the Court which ought to have been because it is the ground of the Action To this Roll Justice answered that it doth not appear that it is out of the Iurisdiction of the Court and it shall not be intended to be so if it be not alleged by the other party A second exception was Intendment Request that there is not a special Request set forth for the Defendant to carry and lay the Hay in the place alleged 3ly The pleading is out of Court for want of a continuance to the Court for the continuance is not to the Court Discontinuance Verdict but to such a day only 4ly The Verdict is informal and shews no cause why dammages are given Roll Iustice to the first exception said that the party ought to have taken advantage in pleading that the cause of Action was out of the Iurisdiction of the Court Pleading and not to move such matter in arrest of Iudgement for it is improper But the Court ruled the Plaintiff to shew cause why Iudgement should not be arrested upon the third exception Afterward the same Term judgement was given nil capiat per billam against the Plaintiff for the discontinuance in the Process Tentch and Cletheroe Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 22 Car. rot 332. TEntch brings an Action of Covenant against Cletheroe Error to reverse a Judgement in an Action of Covenant declares that the Defendant had covenanted with him to pay such a sum of mony into the Exchequer at such a time and for not performing this Covenant he brings his Action The Plaintiff hath a Verdict a Iudgment The Defendant brings his Writ of Error assigns for error that the Plaintif had not set forth in what County the Exchequer is and cites Hobs his case Pasc 8 Car. County and a case 22 Car. C. Banc. That the County is material to be alleged by reason of the Venue 1 E. 4.3 Cooks institut 210.21 H. 6. f. 4. The Court held that the County where the Exchequer was ought to be alleged Exchequer because the Exchequer is transitory and not fixt to one place Venue and so there can be no Venue because it appears not in what County it is And for this cause the Iudgment was reversed Sawyer and Russell Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. SAwyer brought an Action upon the Case for speaking these words of him Thou art a Witch and hast bewitched my Cow Arrest of Iudgment in an Action upon the Case for words VVitch-craft The Plaintiff hath a Verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement for these reasons 1. Such bewitching as is mentioned in the Declaration is not punishable by the Statute of 1 lac for it comes not within any of the branches of that Statute neither that which speaks of death by Witchcraft nor of the other branch for it is not averred that the Cow was hurt or destroyed by the bewitching and so the party is not punishable Intendment And it shall not be intended to be so for the party shall not be punished by an Endictment by an intention neither shall he be here in this Case And 2ly words ambiguous of this nature shall be taken in mitiori sensu Roll Iustice said that these words VVords Thou hast bewitched my Mothers Milk and Drink have béen adjudged actionable and here is a scandal of the party of whom the words are spoken and the words thou hast bewitched implies hurt done to the thing bewitched and this case differs from an Endictment for an Endictment must be more certain than these words need to be And a violent intendment as here is may bring one within the compass of an Action Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement if better matter be not shewn Monday next Nevill and Mott. Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. NEvill brought an Action upon the Case against Mott and declared Arest of Iudgment in an action upon the Case for words that the Defendant being in company with him with a Constable did speak thus of the Plaintiff to the Constable There he is take him for I charge him with flat felony and after spoke these words of him also Mr. Nevill hath taken my Sheep with a felonious intent The Plaintiff hath a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable and cited Poland and Masons case Hob. Rep. and alleged these reasons also 1. Because the words were spoken to a Constable in prosecution of Iustice which shall not be taken hold of by a private person as a particular injury meant to him Averment 2ly It is not said the words were spoken falso malitiose as it ought to have been But to the second Exception Roll Iustice said It is not not necessary to say they were spoken falso malitiose where they appear to be scandalous for there the Action lies well though it be not so expressed and if one charge another with suspition of Felony and speak such words of him if they appear to be maliciously spoken an Action very well lies The rule was for the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement if better cause be not shewed to the contrary King and Hide Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. HIde moved for the quashing of an Endictment taken before Commissioners of Sewers For quashing an Edictment before Commissioners of Sewers wherein he was endicted for a nusance made in the high way by reason of penning of water in the River at his Mill wherby the water over-flowing the Banks did annoy the way and he took this exception to the Endictment that it did not say it was a navigable River But to this Roll Iustice answered it was not necessary to say it was navigable for if it be a common passage for water it is sufficient and lies within the conusance of the Commissioners But Roll took another exception to the Endictment That it sets forth this overflowing of the water to be a nusance to the high way Nusance and for this the party is endicted whereas Commissioniers of Sewers have no power to meddle with such nusances in the way but only with passages by Water And for this cause the Endictment was quashed Monger and Shaterton Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 569. A Writ of Error was brought in this Court to reverse a Iudgement given in the Barrow-Court of Southwark Error to reverse a Iudgement given in the Burrow-Court of Southwark and the Error assigned was that in the Venire facias one of the Iury is called Richardon and in the Habeas Corpora he is called Richardson which are two several names and so it is incertain what the proper name is To this the Councel on the other side said that this fault is helped by the Statute it being after a Verdict But Bacon Iustice said
assignment is of the debt of this man due to the Bankrupt be it more or be it lesse and hath no reference to the accompt and reckoning between them so the Assignment is good though it agree not in the sum with what is justly due and the issue is upon the Assumpsit Issue Admittance and not upon the Assignment for the Assignment is admitted by the Defendant and so not material whether it be an Assignment of the true sum or not Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Bruer and Sowthwell Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff in this Case moved again for judgement Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit notwithstanding what had been formerly spoken to arrest it for though the word discomputando in the Declaration be insensible yet there is enough in the declaration to ground the Action and that is the breach of the Assumpsit assigned to deliver the Currants bought of the Defendant and the word discounting shall not hurt it Bacon Iustice was of the same opinion But Roll Iustice said Assumpsit Contract all the bargain is here set forth upon which the Assumpsit was made and if the bargain be ill the Assumpsit is not good Hales of Councell with the Plaintiff said if part of the bargain be insensible and part not yet a good Assumpsit may be grounded upon that part which is good But Roll said the bargain here is intire and if part of it be not good it is all naught yet he said if part of a bargain be good and part void yet an Action may be brought upon it The rule was That it should be argued again on both parts Seaman against Edwards Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 920. SEaman brings an Action against Edwards Demurrer to a plea pleaded by an Executor Plea Executor and declares against him as Executor of I. S. whereas the truth was that I. S. made 3 others Executors and not the Defendant The Defendant pleads that he is not the same person named in the Will To this plea the Plaintiff demurs and for cause shews that he may be an Executor de son tort demesne though he be not named in the Will and so may be chargeable and therefore he ought to have pleaded ne unques Administred come Executor and of this opinion was the Court and ordered the Defendant to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Dod against Eaton Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. DOd brings an Action upon the Case against Eaton for speaking these words of him thou hast the French Pox Exception to a special verdict the Defendant pleads not guilty the Iury upon this Issue find a special verdict viz. That the Defendant had said thou hast had the French Pox whereupon the Defendants Councell said that the Verdict doth not maintain the words laid in the Declaration and that the words that are found in the verdict are not actionable and so the Plaintiff can have no Iudgement and cited 15 Jac. Nutcombes Case Verdict and the words found are not issuable and so the verdict is imperfect 40 Ass 41. Kelway 6. 18 Ed. 3. fol. 19. Pasc 33 Eliz Banc. Reg. Dame Ratcliffs Case Dyer Sr Iohn Burges Case prove that the verdict is too short Roll Iustice said if the verdict be imperfect there may be a new venire facias Venire de novo and so it is against the Plaintiff for he cannot have Iudgement Panell of Councell with the Plaintiff cited Osborn and Brooks Case that the verdict was for the Plaintiff But Roll Iustice said that the Iury cannot find a thing that is not within the Declaration to maintain the Declaration for they ought to hold themselves to the issue and that they have not here done and therefore the verdict is imperfect and there must be a new venire facias to try the issue again for Iudgement cannot be given upon this verdict for they do not find that he spake not the words in the Declaration which are the most material so that the matter is not found fully enough for us to proceed to Iudgement one way or other Adjourned Poole against Coply Mich. 23. Ca. Banc. Reg. POole brings an Action of Trespasse against Coply Arrest of Iudgement in Trespasse and hath a verdict against the Defendant It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Declaration is incertain for the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant cepit et asportavit decem coria anglice hides and the word Coria is uncertain for it may be coria equorum or coria ovium or of any other Cattel To this Roll Iustice said Anglice that it is well enough for the Anglice had made the woord certain and it is the usual maner to plead it thus The Court ordered the Plaintiff should have his Iudgement if better matter were not shewn to the contrary Hull against Gurnet Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. HUll brings an Action of false imprisonment against Gurnet Demurrer upon a special plea in false imprisonment the Defendant pleads a speciall justification that he took and imprisoned the Plaintiff by virtue of a Commission granted out of the Court of the Admiralty to examine the taking away of certain goods which were wracked by the Sea Custom To this plea the Plaintiff demurred and shewed for cause That the Defendant hath not set forth the Custom of the Admirall Court that the first processe thereof is a Capias and so it appears not whether he have proceeded right or no. Admiralty 2ly It doth not appear that the matter for which the Commission was granted is Maritime and other matter they ought not to medle withall The Rule of Court was to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against the Defendant upon this plea. Smith against Stone Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. SMith brought an Action of Trespasse against Stone pedibus ambulando Special justification in trespasse pedibus ambulando Trespass the Defendant pleads this speciall plea in justification viz. That he was carryed upon the land of the Plaintiff by force and violence of others and was not there voluntarily which is the same trepasse for which the Plaintif brings his Action The Plaintiff demurs to this plea In this case Roll Iustice said that it is the Trespasse of the party that carryed the Defendant upon the land and not the Trespasse of the Defendant as he that drives my Cattel into another mans land is the Trespassor against him and not I who am owner of the Cattell Mathew against Herle Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1554. MAthew brought an Action of trespasse against Herle for breaking his Fence and entring into his Close c. Demurrer to a plea in trespass quare clausum fregit The Defendant pleads that I. S. was seised of this land wherein the Trespasse is
supposed to be done in fee and so seised did demise the same for years by deed to the Plaintiff reserving rent in which deed was a clause of reentry for non payment of the rent and afterwards made his last Will in writing and dyed by which will be gave the said land in qua c. to the Defendant and that after the rent was behind and that he for the non payment of the rent according to the Covenant in the deed by virtue of the clause of reentry did enter intot he lands which is the same breaking of the Fence and entry for which the Plaintiff brings his Action and demands Iudgement if the Plaintiff ought to have his Action To this Plea the Plaintiff demurs and shews for cause That it doth not shew that the lease made to the Plaintiff is a lease of the land in which the Trespasse is supposed to be done 2ly Licence The Defendant doth not shew that he did â—nter into the land by leave of the Executor which he ought to have done for though the land was devised to him by will yet he cannot enter into the land without leave of the Executor The Court ordered the Defendant to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him upon his plea. and Long. Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought an Action upon the Case for these words spoken of him Arest of Iudgment in an action for words Long is a murtherer and hath bewitched my Child and was the death of my Child and obteins a verdict The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions to the Declaration 1. That it is not said that the Child was bewitched to death 2ly It doth not express whether the Child bewitched was born alive or not To this the Court said Felony that the bewitching of the Child is Felony though it do not dye by it And to the second exception That the Court doth not take notice of a Child if it be dead-born and they will intend it was born alive and Roll Iustice said that these words Thou didst kill my Masters Cook Averment have been adjudged actionable although the Plaintiff did not aver that his Master had a Cook Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement if better matter be not shewn Saturday next Carver against Pierce 23 Car. Banc. Reg. CArver brings an Action upon the Case against Pierce for speaking these words of him Arrest of Iudgement in an action for VVords Thou art a Thief for thou hast stollen my Dung and hath a Verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actioanble for it is not certain whether the Dung be a Chattel or part of the Free-hold and if so it cannot be Theft to take it but a Tresspass and then the Action will not lye Chattel Bacon Iustice Dung is a Chattel and may be stollen But Roll Iustice answered Dung may be a Chattel and it may not be a Chattel for a heap of Dung is a Chattel but if it be spread upon the Land it is not and said the word Thief here is actionable alone Felony and there are no subsequent words to mitigate the former words for the stealing of Dung is Felony if it be a Chattel Bacon Iustice said It doth not appear in this Case of what value the Dung was and how shall it then be known whether it be Felony or pety Larceny To this Roll answered the words are scandalous notwithstanding and actionable though the stealing of the Dung be not Felony The rule was to move it again Tuesday next Mich. 23. Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought in this Court to reverse a Iudgement given in the Marshals Court Error to reverse a Iudgment for discontinuance in the Process Discontinuance and the exception taken was that there was a dicontinuance in the process and so there ought to have been no Iudgement and therefore the Iudgement given is erroneous and that there was a Discontinuance it thus appears The Continuance was ad proximam Curiam and it appears upon the retorn of the Venire facias that that was no Court day for it was the three and twentyeth day of the Month whereas Friday on which day the Court was held was not the 23 day and so there is Error in the continuance Roll Iustice said the former Continuance was to the 9th day and from thence to the 15th and that is but six daies and so wants of the time Iudgement Bacon Iustice Where there is a Discontinuance the Court hath no power to give Iudgement and so the Iudgement is here erroneous and therefore let it be reversed nisi causa c. Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. LEssee for years of Lands by Deed Demurrer to a Plea in an action of Covenant brings an Action of Covenant against the Lessor and declares that the Lessor had covenanted that he should peaceably and quietly enjoy the Lands let during the Term and that a Stranger entred upon him and ousted him within the Term. To this Declaration the Defedant demurs Roll Iustice said that the Covenant in this Case is broken though it be a Stranger that entered and ousted the Lessee Walker of Councel with the Defendant took this difference where a Stranger enters upon the Lessee and doth a Trespass and where he enters and outs the Lessee in the former Case he said Covenant the Covenant is not broken but in latter it is broken Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff except cause should be shewn Monday next Thynn against Thynn Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 23 Car. rot 1658. THynn brought an Action of Dower against Thynn Error to reverse a Iudgement in Dower Return Proclamation and hath a Iudgement by default and thereupon a Writ of Enquiry issued out to the Sheriff who delivered seisin of the Dower recovered and returned the Writ upon this Iudgement The Defendant brings a Writ of Error and assigns these Errors in the Record 1. The original Writ appears not to be returned according to the Statute for the year doth not appear when it was returned 2ly The Proclamation made by the Sheriff appears not to be where the Land lyes 3ly Summons The return doth not mention that the Proclamation was after the Summons as it ought to be as it is Hob. Reports in Allens Case 4ly It is not said that he did make Proclamation upon the Land 5ly It appears not that the Proclamation was in the Parish where the Summons was as the Statute directs To these exceptions Hales of Councel on the other side answered To the first Return that the retorn of the original Writ shall be intended to be in the year of the Reign and not of the Age of the King though the word Reign be omitted To the second the Lands lye in divers Parishes and Proclamation at the Church of any of the Parishes is good
enough 2ly It doth not appear that there are divers Churches in New-Sarum where the Proclamation was made To the third exception the Proclamation is said to he made prout breve postulaâ— and that shall be supposed duly done and implies all requisite circumstances and he cannot make another return and it is impossible to be otherwaies To the fourth it is not necessary to retorn the place of the Summons and it is said that it was made secundum formam Statuti which supplies the rest And to this the Court said that the words secundum formam Statuti extend far And Roll Iustice said that Proclamaiton in one place was good in all Holhead of Councel with the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error proceeded and took these exceptions in the demand of the Dower 1. The demand is generally de rectoria which is not good Demand Rector for the incertainty of it for there may be a Rector of a College of a Province of a Bishoprick as well as of a Parish-Church and therefore it ought to have been de Rectoria Ecclesiae parochialis de c. 12 H. 4. f. â—9 pl. 1. 2ly The demand decimarum is too general and not good and it ought to have been decimarum granorum soeni c. for the demand de omnimodis decimis quibuscunque is too general 11 Rep. Herberts case 1. To these exceptions Hales answered that a demand in a Writ of Dower need not to be so exact as in other original Writs for original Writs are not alterable but ought to answer the forms in the Register To the second he said that rectoria shall be intended the Rectory of a Church and the Statute extends not to this besides the place of the Rectory is described which makes it certain enough To the third it is not necessary to express the Tithes particularly and the demand being of the Rectory it compriseth all the Tithes also the demand is de omnimodis decimis which is a general demand and compriseth all and is not de decimis only for that might be incertain Holhead The demand is de rectoria de omnimodis decimis which is a demand of one thing twice and that is not convenient for by this means the party may recover dammages twice and the Court will be also inveagled by this means and it matters not though we have not pleaded to this for the Court ought to take notice of it Notice because it is in the original Writ Next there is no form in the Count for cum pertinentiis is informal for it refers to the Parish and not to the Mannour 27 E. 3. f. 86. Pl. 3. Haleâ— This is but a variance in form and is not material and also it shall be intended to refer to the Mannour and not to the Parish Holhead The demand is not warranted by the Writ for the Vill and Parish are not named in the Writ but are named in the demand 11 Rep. Arondels case Hales The demand is not de rectoria in Tymsbury but de Tymsbury and is the denomination of the thing demanded Tithes Parissi and not of the Vill where it lyes Holhead It is not said where the Tithes extend and they may extend to divers Vills as a Parish may 19 E. 3. f. 9. Hales Here is one demand and it includes all the Tithes Roll Iustice You have demanded the Rectory in Tymber and not the Rectory of Tymber and by the grant of ones Mannour in Dale no more of it passeth than what doth lye in Dale and here it shall be intended so much of the Tithes as are in Tymber Holhead Here is a demand of Dower of such things whereof Dower lyes not viz. of a quarry of Stones and it appears not that the Quarry was open in the life of her Husband and if it were yet it is improper to demand it by the name of a Quarry Hales the word Quarry is a good word well-known what it means for Quarrera is an old wel-known Latine word for it Dower and she is as well dowable of it as of a Mine of Coles and it shall be intended to be open because she demands it by that name of a Quarry Holhead The demand of the Dower is also of a Hundred of which a Woman is not dowable because it is an entire thing and cannot be divided and the demand should have been de tertia parte proficuorum hundredi To this Roll Iustice answered then by your reason she shall never keep a Court. Hales It is well enough demanded for a demand shall be of the thing it self and not of the profits of it for the profits were not in the Husband but he was seised of the Hundred and the profits are a thing incertain Holhead The execution of the Habere facias fesinam is not well executed for by it two third parts are assigned for Dower and that is more than the demand Hales That is but a repetition of the thing demanded Holhead A thing not demanded at all is assigned for Dower viz. view of Frank pledge Hales That is but an incident to another thing that is demanded viz. the Hundred and by the demand of the Hundred the view of Frank-pledge is demanded and all other incidents to the Hundred Holhead Here is an assignment also of all tenures and she cannot have Homage because she is a Woman Hales She shall have all tenures which she is capable of and so all shall be understood in this place and no other she shall have Holhead The Iudgement is also if 15 Copiholds Tenements which lately were Copiholds Roll Iustice This is good enough and what loss have you by it Holhead The Assignment is also of the 3d. part de Copicia de Structuris and other words there are which are also incertain And there is error in the assignment of dammages for the dammages are assigned ultra valorem terrae which is against the Statute Roll Iustice Dammages Iudgement the Statute is an addition of the value and dammages for the Iudgement is perfect without returning the Writ of the dammages and so hath been adjudged in the Common pleas Holhead Here is an ill suggestion of the Feme for the suggesteth that her Husband dyed seised in fee of all the Lands out of which she demands her Dower and that is not true for he dyed seised of part of them in tayl To this the Court said that is not material if he dyed so seised that she ought to have Dower Holhead Dammages are given ultra valorem which I conceive is not good Roll Iustice It is well enough for dammages are given and the value by the Statute Holhead The retorn of the Elegit is not good Hales That is another Record and appears not now in the Court Roll Iustice The Elegit hath no reference to the former Record Holhead There is one error in fact and that is confessed by your joyning in demurrer Doubleness Roll
Iustice You might have demurred for this doubleness for one cannot assign an error in fact and another error in Law in a Writ of Error for this is double Hales It is true but we have lost that advantage Adjourned to be argued again the next Term. Robinson against Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. RObinson brought an Action of Trover and Conversion against T. B. Arrest of Judgement in Trespass and hath a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and shewed for cause that the Declaration was not good for the Plaintiff amongst other things declares that the Plaintiff had found and converted to his own use unum vestigium Anglice a Footstool whereas it signifies a Footstep or a print of the foot and not a Footstool 2ly The Plaintiff declares pro decem ponderibus Aeris meaning ten pound of Brass whereas it should be aeris with a Dipthong for Aeris is of Ayr and not Brass But this exception was over-ruled by the Court because in the writing of Court-hand in which hand Declarations are written No Dipthongs in Court-hand there are no Dipthongs used and so the word Aeris might as well signifie Brass as Ayre But for the other exception judgement was stayed till the Plaintiff should move Izack against Green Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Izack brings an Action upon the Case in London against Green For a Procedendo to try an action in London for calling her Whore Green removes the cause by a Habeas corpus into this Court and hath a Supersedeas to stay the Plaintiffs procéedings in London The Plaintiffs Councel moved for a Procedendo that he might procéed in London because that in London by a special Custom there an Action doth lye for calling a woman Whore though out of London it lyes not and cited Pascal and Barbars Case 21 Iac. to prove it Bacon Iustice The custom of London is to be certifyed that we may Iudge of the reasonablenesse of it and we are not to take notice of it upon a surmise and it seems that a procedendo should not here be granted Procedendo Notice because the matter with which she is charged by the words belong to the Conisance of the Civill law to try it and not to our Law as it is 2 H. 4. Roll Iustice One may in some Cases have an Action at the Common law where he may have remedy also in the Ecclesiasticall Court for the Common law is to be preferred and by a special custom as the Case here is an Action may be maintained where it lyes not at the Common law and so was it held 8 Car. and 13 Car. And if there should not be a procedendo granted in this Case the Plaintiff would be tyed up by the habeas corpus but if it be granted the matter may be tryed and upon that if the Iudgement be erroneous a writ of Error may be brought in the Hustings in London and so all the matter may come in question to be argued Action and he said that a Charter cannot give an Action which the Common law allows not But let the matter rest as it is till we can agree Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought his Action upon the Case Arrest of Iudgement in an action upon the case for these words thou muttron-monger theef bring home my stolen hay The Defendant makes a special justification that the Plaintiff had stollen a sheep and upon this was an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement that the Declaration was not good for it only chargeth the Defendant with speaking of the words and doth not say dixit de querente and though those words be in the replication yet that makes not the Declaration good Roll Iustice The Declaration is not good for the words may be spoken of any other body as well as of the Plaintiff Bacon Iustice agrees with Roll and said that the word dixit was not in the Declaration and so it appears not whether the Defendant spoke or writ or thought the words and which is more it is not said that the words were spoken in the presence of any body and then they cannot be scandalous Roll Iustice said one cannot rejoyn upon words which are not in the Declaration nor in the plea for if the Declaration and the plea be naught Replication the replication cannot make them good The rule of Court was nil capiat per billam except cause shewn Saturday following Kinpe against Iohnson Mich 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 154. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in Hull Error upon a Judgement in Hall Continuance for these Errors assigned 1. That one of the continuances was to a certain day of the mouth where it ought to be ad proximam curiam 2. The Declaration was pro se decem bestiis Anglice Cows or Whyes which is too general for the word bestia may signifie any beast whatsoever as well as a Cow The Iudgement was reversed except cause shewn to the contrary More against Clipsam Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. MOre brings a Replevin against Clipsam Argument upon a Replevin and declares of a hundred oves Matrices et vervices distrained by Clipsam Clipsam demurs to the Replevin for the incertainty of it for it appears not how many of the hundred sheep distrayned and replevied were Matrices or ewes and how many were vervices or weathers Maynard moves for Iudgement in the Replevin for the Plaintiff and held that centum oves alone was good and certain and the addition Matrices and vervices shall not make an incertainty Incertainty and the writ of Replevin doth not shew the cattell distrained particularly but the help of the party and the view of the Sheriff must concurr to shew what Cattel are to be delivered by the writ 2ly Here is a good issue argumentative although it be not so formal 3ly Issue There is no more in the issue at the Bar than in the avowry for all the Term is but one day ther is no division of time in it it is dangerous to make fractions Term. a Statute acknowledged in the Term relates to the first day of the Term. Statute Relation Hales on the other side agreed that centum oves without saying any more had been certain enough but as they are here distinguished into Matrices vervices there is no certainty at all for the Cattel in kind are demanded and ought to be delivered as they are demanded so that if the demand be incertain there can be no certain delivery 2ly The issue is ill and is not helped by the verdict for 1. the title made is not answered 2. Traverse The traverse is only to the conclusion and so is but by way of inference and is not helped after a verdict for the plea is not answered Advantage for the words
fuit et adhuc est sesitus is not good for it is not material whether he were seised at the time of the distresse or no but whether he were seised at the time of the replevin and there is a distance between the replevin and the avowry and there is a prius and a posterius in it Roll Iustice said it is made up in the retorn and there is no distinction of time and if one plead an ill plea Plea and the issue upon it be found against him he shall not take advantage of his own ill plea and if there be a negative and an affirmative though the issue be not well joyned it is helped by the Statute of Ieofailes otherwise if there be not an affirmative and a negative for then there is no issue at all joyned to be helped Bacon Iustice Oves matrices et vervices is ill for the Sheriff knowes not what retorn to make Roll accords and said you have made that which was certain to be incertain by the specification you have made and a replevin is a demand and ought to be as certain as a precipe Iudgement was given against the Plaintiff in the case at the bar because the Declaration was ill and uncertain Gilbert agaiast Stone Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1703. GIlbert brought an Action of Trespasse quare clausum fregit Demurrer upon a plea in Trespasse and taking of a gelding against Stone The Defendant pleads that he for fear of his life and wounding of twelve armed men who threatned to kill him if he did not the fact went into the house of the Plaintiff and took the gelding The Plaintiff demurred to this plea Roll Iustice This is no plea to justifie the Defendant Trespasse for I may not do a Trespasse to one for fear of threatnings of another for by this means the party injured shall have no satisfaction for he cannot have it of the party that threatned Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement Symons and Low Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 650. SYmons brings an Action upon the Case against Low for speaking these words of hir Error upon a Iudgement for words Plaint She innuendo the Plaintiff is perjured and hath a verdict and a Iudgement the Defendant brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement and assigns for Error that the plaint was entred the same day that the words were spoken which was said ought not to be because the Action should be brought after the words spoken Fractions which shall not be intended to be if it be the same day because the Law admits of no fractions of time which will be if a day be divided into several parts as it here must be for there must be one hour supposed when the words were spoken and another hour when the plaint was entred But Roll Iustice said it was well enough and ordered the Plaintiff to take her Iudgement if cause were not shewn before the end of the Term. Cheevers against Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a rule of Court to shew cause why a scire facias to revive a Iudgment was not good To quash a scire facias This was offred for cause that it doth not shew before whom the Iudgement was given which was to be revived by the scire facias and consequently there appears no Iudgement to warrant the scire facias To this Roll Iustice answered that in the Common pleas the course is to set forth before whom the Iudgement is given but in this Court the course is not so But how comes the Record hither The Councell answered That there was a Iudgement in Canterbury and upon that a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the Iudgement affirmed upon that Writ of Error Scire facias and then a Scire facias issued out here upon the Iudgement against the bail and upon this the bail moves upon the record that there is error in the scire facias Roll Iustice The Record is well enough In a scire facias it is not requisite to say Consideratum est per curiam Therefore let the scire facias stand Carver and Pierce Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between Carver and Pierce was again moved by Hales Arrest of Iudgement for words wherin it was moved formerly in arrest of Iudgement that these words Thou art a theef and hast stolen my dung are not actionable That the words are actionable for these reasons 1. The first words are actionable and the second words are accumulative and aggravate the former words and do not mitigate them 2. It may be felony to steal dung and the violence of the words do enforce it to be so intended Bacon Iustice I hold that Iudgement is to be given for the Plaintiff and so it was for these words thou art a theef and hast stolen my Corn. Roll Iustice was of the same opinion and said that the second words are not violent enough to allay the first words and are not explanatory and by way of mitigation for the words are not for thou hast but they are and thou hast stollen my dung Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff antea Eeles and Lambert Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between Eeles and Lambert was again argued by Latch for the Plaintiff and by Twisden for the Defendant Latch argued to this effect Argument upon a plea by an Executor Legacy That the Legatee hath no right in the legacy untill it be delivered unto him by the Executor 2 E. 4 fol. 13. but if a legacy be given in this manner if I dye let my Cosen have such a thing there the Legatee may take the legacy without the delivery of the Executor and a thing which cannot be devided cannot be administred Bracton l. b. 2. C. 26. 7 H. 6. Administration Devise A devise is void if there be not sufficient goods besides to satisfie the Debts of the Testator 2. The disposition of the Testator ought to agree with the law of God the law of nature and the Law of the Land and whereas it is objected that there will be an inconvenience if the legacies shall not be paid I answer the Law regards not this inconveniencie But 2ly this inconvenience is none in respect of the inconvenience will be on the other side if the legacies be paid namely the breaking of the Law of God the Law of Nature and of the Land and the inconveniences supposed are helped by the Civill Law Caution for it takes caution in paying of legacies to repay them in such accidents as are in our Case Twisden for the Defendant argued that it was a good administration of the goods and that there is no assets in the hands of the Executors and he agrees that a devise of goods in specie and a devise of mony is all one but this is not a Debt and so is not to be paid for in
Iudgement of Law it is presumed that the Covenant shall not be broken and that it shall not be respected in regard of the incertainty whether it shall be broken or no but the Law takes notice of the Will and it is of temporal conusans 2 Rich. 3. 11 H. 7. f. 12. and it takes notice of a legacie to try the right of it and to discharge it and the Executor here is compellable to pay the legacies and cannot refuse it neither by the Common law nor by the Spiritual law Covenant but it is objected that it is inconvenient that one shall avoid his own Covenant by his own devise To this I answer he might have done it in his life by giving away all his goods and 2ly There shall not be intended to be fraud in the Will and there are more inconveniences of our part in not paying the Legacies than on their part by paying them for by this means men shall have no power to dispose of their own Goods by Will by reason of Covenants in Leases and Déeds made by them and the Spiritual Court cannot compell a Legatée to put in security for his Legacy Security as is surmised Adjourned to the next Term to give Iudgement Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to deliver their opinion in a Case formerly moved VVhether an Attornment good or not wherein the Question was whether an Attornment made by a Lessée for years the same day that the rent was due to be paid upon his Lease to him that had purchased the reversion of the Land let unto him and for which the Purchaser had brought his Action Attornment be a good Attornment Roll Iustice said that it is a good Attornment by the averment made and by the finding of the Iury and that Iudgement ought to be for the Plaintiff Bacon Iustice agrees and said the Attornment shall be intended to be before Sun set and not afterwards Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement Parmiter against Cressey Mich. 23 Car. Banc Reg. THe Defendants Councel upon a former rule of Court to shew cause Cause why Iudgement should not be given in an Action upon an Assumpsit Averment Notice Request offered for cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement 1. Because the Plaintiff had not averred that he did make any election of the Wines that the Defendant was to deliver unto him 2ly He doth not aver that he gave the Defendant any notice of his election and there being a Condition precedent to be performed on the Plaintiffs part implyed the Defendant cannot perform the Bargain without notice of that performance 2ly Here is no good request expressed either in substance or circumstance for for the circumstance there is but two daies to do it in which it cannot be well intended it could be done 2ly It is said he did not deliver vinum praedictum which is an incertain implication of a Request for the word deliberare is not a proper term to express the Request and the verdict doth not help it Bacon Iustice There ought to be an election by the Plaintiff but the Defedant ought first to shew the Wines and it was of his part to have appointed the time when he would shew them Roll Iustice The Promise and Request was at Norwitch and it was sufficient for the Plaintiff to make the Request there but the Defendant ought to shew the Plaintiff the Wines Election without which the Plaintiff can make no election and the substance of the Declaration is to this intent Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. BY the rule of the Court VVâ—â— a Prohibition should not be granted this day cause was offered to be shewn why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Ecclesiastical Court for granting Letters of Administration to a Sister of the half-blood when there was a Brother of the whole-blood who sued for them and was denyed The cause shewed was that it is in the power of the Ordinary to grant Administration either to the Brother of the whole-blood or to the Sister of the half-blood at his election because they are in equal degrée of kin to the Intestate And to this the Court agreed But Bacon Justice said that in the Case at the Bur Letters of Administration are granted to the Husband and his Wife and so to one viz. the Husband who is no kin at all to the Intestate but a Stranger and if he survive his Wife he shall have all the Goods and all the kindred will be defrauded which is not reasonable and therefore the Administration is not good And for this reason a Prohibition was granted Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement Arrest of Iudgement in Trover and Conversion that the Plaintiff had declared of the Trover Conversson of a cetrain number expressed in the Declaration of pieces panni lanii Anglice of red yellow and black Coath which is incertain and cannot be used as it is here to expresse Cloaths of divers colours for panni lanii signifies only wollen Cloaths But Bacon Iustice said all is but wollen Cloath though they be of divers colours and therefore it is good enough Hodsden the Secondary said sometimes the colours are used to be expressed and sometimes not Bacon It is better to express the Colours than not yet it is good enough without the expressing of them Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement Willison and Crow Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. VVillison brought an Action upon the Case against Crow Arrest of Iudgment in an action for words for speaking these words of him You are a bankrupt Skrub and hath a verdict it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are Adjective words and so are not positive enough to ground an Action But the Court held they were actionable for the word Banckrupt in it self was not an Adjective and the joyning of it with Skrub made it not so but it should be understood as much as to say You are a Skrub and also a Banckrupt And judgement was given accordingly The King against Holland Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court delivered their opinions in the Case betwéen the King and Holland formerly argued And first Bacon Iustice said Iudgement given in the Case between the King and Holland that there can be no Iudgement for there is a mis-tryal in it for first there is no Venire facias and secondly there is a discontinuance because the Venire should be to retorn duodecem probos legales homines quorum quilibet habet 40 s. lands by the year at the least it is every of whom having 4 l. lands by the year which is contrary to the direction of the Statute To this Roll answered that he held the Venire to be good and so the tryal good for if the Iury hath every of them 4 l. a year in
Lands he hath 40 s. a year in Lands at least and more and therefore it is a better Iury and more sufficient and by this the verdict shall not be vitiated though the Venire be not quorum quilibet habet 40 s. per annum ad minus as the Statute directs and he cited 21 Iac. Philpot and Fielders Case to be so adjudged and he said that Lands in the hands of a Trustee may be extended for the Kings debt Extent but that he did not conceive how the King can have Copyhold-lands that are in trust for an Alien Seisuie Bacon Iustice The Commissioners that found this inquisition for the King had no power by their Commission to seize the Lands into the Kings hands but only to enquire what Lands the Alien had The Court ordered that cause should be shewn Tuesday following why the party shall not be restored to his Lands which were seised into the Kings hands by vertue of the Inquisition Postea Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action upon the Case Error upon a Iudgement in an Action up-the Case Incertainty Tryal upon an Assumpsit brought by two at Maydston in Kent and the Error assigned was that the Plaintifs in their Declaration do say unde dixerunt quod deteriorati sunt c. whereas it should be unde deteriorati sunt and not dixerunt c. for that is positive and the other not for they may say they are damnified and be not and there can be no tryal upon such uncertain words Roll Iustice said the words are not well laid yet if there were other words sufficient to expresse the dammage the Plaintiff had received it would be good enough but these words here govern the whole sentence Therefore let the Defendant in the Writ of Error consider how he can make the Declaration good The King against Savage Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. ONe Savage was arraigned in this Court upon an Endictment of Felony For quashing an Endictment for Felony for killing of a Woman within the Verge The truth of the Case was he beat and wounded the Woman at Lesne Abby in Kent which is within the Verge but the Woman dyed at Sevenock in Kent which is out of the Verge The Prisoner prayed the Court he might have Walker of the Inner-Temple assigned him for Councel for matter in Law which the Court granted Walker for the Prisoner prays the Endictment may be read which was done accordingly Whereupon he took these exceptions to it 1. That the Endictment doth not shew upon what part of the body particularly the Woman was wounded but it saith only generally that it was upon the hinder parts of her Body 2ly It sayes the Woman dyed de diversis plagis but it doth not shew of what length and breadth the wounds were as it ought to do nor doth it say of which of the wounds she dyed and so it is uncertain Incertainty and cannot be known whether the Wounds were mortal or no. 3ly By the Statute de Articulis super Chartas in this Case where the party was wounded within the Verge and dyed without the Verge the Coroner of the Verge and of the County ought to joyn in taking the Iuquisition super visum Corporis Inquisition which is not here done but the Inquisition is taken by the Coroner of the Verge only Bacon Iustice said the party is said to be slain where he dies not where he was wounded The Court ordered the Prisoner to appear a wéek after and in the mean time to give notice to the Kings Councel of the Exceptions taken to the Endictment and know whether they will maintain the Endictment Bail the same Term the Endictment was adjudged not good and the party was bayled Thyn against Thyn Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 1638. DAme Katherine Thyn brings a Writ of Dower in the Common-pleas against Sir Iames Thyn and hath a Verdict and a Iudgement Error in a Writ of Error Retorn the Defendant brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement in this Court and assigns for Error 1. In the Retorn made by the Sheriff for he doth not say that the Proclamation was made at the Church of the Town where the Summons was made Summons and a Summons upon any one part of the Land as hath béen objected on the other side is not good neither by the words nor the intent of the Statute for then the words in the Statute should be surplusage and idle that particularly directs how it should be And as to the Objection Fiction of Law Statute That a Summons upon one part of the Land is good in fiction of Law for the rest of the Land I answer That this is not so where the Statute directs the Summons and the words secundum formam Statuti cannot help where the Statute is not shewed to be pursued and so saith Dyer That substantial words ought to be mentioned Hill 24 Iac. Hâ—b Pl 179. Allen and Walkers Case 2ly Demand There is Error in the Demand of the Dower for the certainty of the Tithes demanded ought to appear and it doth not so here 11 Rep. Harpers Case f. 25. And for that which is said in answer unto this That a Demand of Dower is different from other Demands I agrée it to be true 8. H. 6. 3. Yet the things demanded in Dower must be certainly demanded 11 H. 7. f. 25. as it is in an Assise for an Assise de uno tenemento is not good for the incertainty Assise 4 E. 2. Fitzh Assise 45 1. Estovers demanded ought to be shewed particularly so is it of a Corrody 11 E. 3. Fitzh Dower 85. Dyer f. 84. 7 E. 6. Pasc 5 Iac. the Countess of Oxfords Case and whereas there hath this difference been taken betwéen a Demand of Tithes in gross and of Tithes appendant and that Tithes in gross must be particularly demanded but it is not necessary to demand Tithes appendat particularly I answer This is not so for their appendancy doth not make them not to be demanded particularly no more than if they were in gross 18 E. 2. Asise 377. A Corrody must be particularly demanded and all the Presidents prove it and it was so held Pasc 8 Car. rot 271. in Bruer and Drakes case in a writ of Error in this Court upon a judgement given in Dower in the Common-pleas A 2d exception to the Demand of the Dower is this the Writ of Dower is de manerio de Imber and the Demand is of Dower in parochia de Imber and so it is larger than the Writ Parish for a Parish may comprehend many Vills Stat. 1 H. 5. C. 5. 22 E. 4. C. 2. Mich. 34 Eliz. rot 1537. Brad and Bishops Case in the Exchequer Pasc 38 Eliz. Bedel and Scarborows Case in an Ejectione firmae in this Court It is true that generally a
Executors in such cases 14 H. 4. fol. 29. Fitzh Tit. responder 7 E. 6. Dyer 81.10 rep 128. And said the verdict hath found it in the debet and detinet which shall be intended to be true 9 Ed. 4.41.17 Jac. Paul and Mordyes Case in the Common pleas and 7 Iac. Smith and Nicholas Case and prayes Iudgement for the Plaintiff Hales for the Defendant argued that the Declaration is not good 1. He said the Action is good in the detinet because the profits of the land let which are over and above the rent to be paid for it reserved upon the lease shall be only assets in the Executors hands Difference Contract 2. It cannot be good both wayes and the Term is in him as Executor not the rent and there is a difference between contracts Executory and contracts Executed but it may he said the rent to be paid may be more than the profits of the land is worth â— answer this shall not be presumed in law if it be not so shewed 43 Ass pl. 23.16 H 7. fol. â— The Action is brought for all the rent incurred therefore it shall not be presumed that the land is not worth the rent that is paid for it Verdict and as for the verdict it shall help nothing for a verdict shall not supply a necessary part of a Declaration omitted and if he owes then he detains and I conceive Hargraves Case to be good Law though denyed by the Councell on the other side and here the privity of the contract is not determined and so prayes Iudgement for the Defendant Roll Iustice It is for the advantage of the Executor to bring the Action in the detinet for then he sh ll be charged only for the goods of the Testator and not for his proper goods and it may be the land is lesse worth than the rent and that the partyes have consented the Action should be brought in this maner Bacon Iustice cited Pawls Case Mich. 17 Iac. But entred Pasc rot 346. That the Action may be brought in the debet and detinet and if the Plaintiff will bring his Action here in the detinet it is not for your disadvantage and he may at his election bring it either way Roll Iustice Here the verdict answers the point of the issue and therefore is good The Court ruled the Plaintif to take his Iudgement except better cause shewn to the contrary William against Tyrer Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 224. VVIlliam brought an Action of Trover and Conversion against Tyrer for certain goods of the Plaintiff the Plaintiff hath a verdict Arrest of Iudgement in Covenant The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and took these exceptions to the Declaration 1. The Plaintiff declares pro tribus duodenis fili Anglice dosens of thread Declaration which is incertain for it may be three dosen pound of thread or skenes of thread or ounces of thread To this it was answered that it cannot be otherwise expressed and the words dosens of thread is used amongst Merchants and well known unto them what is meant by them 2ly He declares for so many pounds Muscat in stead of Nucum Muscat ram Anglice Nutmegs But this exception was mistaken for the record was otherwise and besides it was with an Anglice which makes it certain The Court ruled Iudgement to be entred except cause shewed for the Plaintif Rawson against Bargue Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between Rawson and Bargue being an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes â— Arguments whether a free Chapel or no and the Iudges opinions wherein upon a speciall verdict the question was whether the Church were a free Chapel given to the King within the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. was again argued by Latch for the Plaintiff and by Brown for the Defendant Latches argument was to this effect 1. He said that the Law sayes it is presentative although it be not and 2ly It is sufficiently found to be a parochial Church yet it is not material whether it be found so or no. Next the words of the Statute do not extend to give donatives to the King 3ly It is not given to the Crown and although the Declatation and verdict be that it is a free Chapell yet it is not comprehended as a Chapel presentative Lit. 94. The word free makes a distinction of things and the party ought not to confound things Free Chapel and a free Chapel is alwayes interpreted for a Church donative and not presentative The right investiture of Churches was challenged from the foundation of them untill within this 400 years it was altered by the Common law Seldens History of Tithes fol. 392. and upon that alteration the name of a free Chapel came Reg. 41. It is said to be free from ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Fitz. tit Brief 6.0.3 Ed. 3. Fitz. Tit. Ayde du roy 33.14 H. 4.11.22 H. 6.25.22 H. 6.27 by Danbye 26 H. 6. Fitz. grants 12. Nat. brev 33 E. 34. f. 27 E. 3.84 Cowels interpretor Tit. free Chapel And in all Statutes the word free Chapel is meant of donatives Stat. 26 H. 8. cap. 3. Stat. 37 H. 8. cap. 4. Stat. 1 Ed. 6. cap. 14. Regist 307. But it is objected that free Chapels extend to presentatives Presentation Donative because they are with cure Lit. Com. 344. a donative may be parochial 7 E. 3. f. 4. To this I answer Churches had cure of souls when they were donatives To the 2d point by the meaning of the Statute it appears Tenure Frank-almoigne that only donatives were intended as the preamble of it doth declare And all Chapels are held in Frank almoigne as well as donatives and so all may be given to the King by the same reason Another objection is that the word Capella is superstitious and therefore being of a superstitious foundation it is given to the King and Cowels Interpretor is urged to prove the word to be so derived To this I answer that Sir Henry Spelman as learned an Author as Cowell in his glossary rejects Cowells derivation of the word Capella and saith that Capella is used promiscuously for any upper covering And though the name were superstitious yet that makes not the Chapel to be so for so the Church of St. Andrew or St. Dunstan should be superstitious and given to the King by the Statute There is a double preamble of the Statute 1. A recitall of another Statute Preamble and the taking away of other superstitious uses Preamble of the Statute 37 H. 8.22 Ed 4. cap. 7.8 rep 137. beasts of the Forest are not Cattel 3. rep The marques of Winchesters Case Com. 204. That some generals may be taken in a restrained sence 9 H. 6.36 Interpretation Words of a Statute ought not to be interpreted to destroy naturall Iustice The stile also of the Act doth not shew that donatives are only intended
This Statute of 1 Ed. 6. was made to supply something omitted in the Statute of 37 H. 8. and it is plain that it is within the words and we have no warrant to interpret it otherwise since it doth not appear that it is excepted also it is not found to be a Parish Church but that they claim it to be so and if it were it would not help 2ly It may be presentative and yet a free Chapel according to the foundation and endowment of it and a free Chapel may become a Church by presentation of the Patron but it appears not to be so to us The proviso of the Statute shews that it was not the intent of the Statute to exempt all free Chapels but those only which are named and no more And the intent of the Statute was that the King shall have it as a lay thing and he was not compelled to present and here the Patron hath taken the profits and there are no inhabitants within the Parish for the seignory compriseth all the parish and if the King presents by lapse where he ought to do it pleno jure the presentation is not good For these reasons The Iudgement was given for the Defendant if better matter be not shewn before the end of the Term. Fulham Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. FUlham had a Iudgement in this Court against 3 Defendants For Execiuion notwithstanding a writ of Error brought in parliament two of the Defendants bring a writ of Error in Parliament Fulham that had the judgment moves the Court he may have Execution upon his judgment notwithstanding the Writ of Error brought in Parliament because the Record is not well removed for the Writ of Error is not good for the Iudgement is against thrée and the Writ of Error mentions but two of them Roll Iustice I doubt you cannot have execution but the Writ of Error must be abated in Parliament Abatement Execution and then you may come here and move for execution for now it is not safe to grant it Move it in Parliament to have it abated or move here again at your own adventure The King and Holland Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IN this Case between the King and Holland For an Amoveas manum to the Chancery Amoveas manum after divers arguments at the Bar and the opinion of the Court delivered The Court was moved for an Amoveas manum to the Chancery that the party may have his Land out of the Kings hand The Court answered The Iudgement is to be given here if there be cause for the King if not against him and you ought not to go to the Chancery And all that we can say is that the King shall not have Iudgement Iudgement Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible Entry upon these Exceptions For quashing an Endictment 1. That it did not say that the forcible Entry was contra Coronam dignitatem but this the Court over-ruled A second exception was That it doth not shew that the party was felted at the time untill the Defendant entred by force upon him 3ly The Endictment concludes contra formam Statuti and it ought to be statutorum for the Statute of 8 H. 6. upon which this Endictment is framed relates to other Statutes To this the Court said if the Endictment be so it is ill 4ly The Endictment saith Endictment he entred peaceably and detained with force and such an Endictment hath relation to two Statutes To this it was answered that the Statute of 8 H. 6. is sufficient to found the Endictment without relation to other Statutes for this clause upon which this Endictment is framed is a new Law and hath no relation to precedent Statutes for it is here only for a forcible deteyner Roll Justice doubted of this for it is said that the Statute of 8 H. 6. shall be added to the new Statute Bacon Iustice differed in opinion and said the Statute of 8 H. 6. was not made to piece up the other Statute but is a new Law as to this clause The Court will advise further Chambers against VVollaston Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THis Case was again moved and argued by Ward of Councel with the Plaintiff Argument upon a special Plea The Action was an Action of Assault and Battery and false imprisonment The Defendant pleased a special Iustification by vertue of the Custom of the City To which Plea the Plaintiff demurred six points were spoken to by the Plaintiffs Councel in his Argument 1. Custome He said the procéedings against Chambers were neither agreeable to the Common law nor to Magna Charta and therefore illegal and not warrantable notwithstanding the Custome pleaded to back them 2ly The Custome it self is not well pursued Bracton 55.5 Rep. 64. The King cannot grant power to a Court to commit against the Common-law or Statute-law Magna Charta 54.42 Ass Pl. 5. and though one submit himself to be committed Submission for a thing for which he is not committable by Law this submission is void 3ly The Custom pleaded is against Magna Charra and divers other Statutes Stat. 9 H. 6. cap. 5. 8 E. 3. Cooks Magn. Chart. f. 16. Bracton 334 335.43 E. 3. f. 32. Pleadings and it appears not the pleadings were in Latin as they ought to be 36 E. 3. neither was the Confession legal nor entred upon Record 3ly Iudgement The Iudgement varies from all other Iudgements in Law for the Commitment was that he should stand committed untill he would promise that he will disturb no more And â—ly untill the Court should take further order and this is against Law 8 Rep. f. 59.2 Instit 52. 5ly The Statute of Rich. 3d. confirms not the Custom for if it was before Magna Charta it is taken away by that Statute for it is not excepted in it Magna Charta cap. 19. 29. Miror of Iustice cap. 5. Long Quint. 40 41. 6ly The Custom is not well pursued in the Return for the Oath extends to be obedient to the Bayliff Retorn c. for the time being but the Return is not so but it said that he be obedient to good Laws and this is not in the Oath And the Retorn is against their Custom and Iudgement for the Commitment and so he praid Iudgement for the Plaintiff Roll Iustice said That the Iudgement and the Retorn are contrary tor the Iudgement was that he shall be committed because he would not promise not to disturb and the Retorn is that he promise that he will not disturb Cause was to be shewn why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement The King and Apsley Hill 23 Car. Banc. Rep. APsley removed certain orders made against him by the Commissioners of Sewers for Westminster by a Certiorari into this Court. To quash orders of Commissioners of Sewers And upon the Retorn these exceptions were taken 1. That it doth
not say the Commission of Sewers was under the Great Seal as it ought to express 7 Car. Allen and Carter 5 Car. Rayl and Mannings Case and Pasc 14 Car. Hungates Case and because it is not so set forth there can no Issue be taken whether they be Commissioners or not 2ly The Commission is not well pleaded for it appears not that thrée of them were of the quorum as the Statute appoints there should be 3ly The Retorn is in English and it ought to be in Latin But to this Roll Iustice answered Retorn That the Retorn is good notwithstanding for the Commission is in English 4ly It doth not appear that Harts-horn lane touching which their orders were made is within VVestminster and so it cannot be well-known whether it was within their power by vertue of their Commission to make any orders touching that place Hales of Councel for the Commissioners moved the Retorn might be amended But the Court answered It could not be Amendment because the Retorn was made the Term before And it was ordered that cause should be shewn Tuesday following why the Retorn and Proceedings should not be quashed The King against Page and Harwood Hill 23 Car Banc. Reg. THree men were endicted at an Assises in the Country for Felony Qustion upon the Statute of Stabbing whether Principle or Accessory Principle Accessory for killing of a man the Endictment was framed upon the Statute of 1 Iac. made against Stabbing They were all found guilty He that did the fact was condemned and executed but because the Iustice of Assise doubted whether the other two wers Principles within that Statute or but Accessories they would not proceed to Iudgement against them Whereupon they were brought to this Bar to be proceeded against for the Felony and the doubt was in regard they were only present and abetting the person that did the fact and used no Action towards the death of the party whether they were Principles within the Statute or but Accessories Roll Iustice said They are not Principles Clergy but Accessories and ought to have their Clergy for the Statute of Stabbing being a penal Law it shall be taken strictly and not extended to equity and in Swinertons case Bramston Barkley and Iones thrée of the Iudges of this Court directed the Iury the Case being of the same nature with this to find the parties only accessory But the Iury in our Case have found them guilty as Principles and I doubt upon that whether the Tryal be good or no. Tryal Walker of Councel against the Prisoners said the Statute of Stabbing makes no new offence and therefore it is doubtfull End ctment wheher it be necessary for the Endictment to conclude contra formam Statuti Roll Iustice said it ought to be so But Bacon Iustice doubted The Court admitted the Prisoners to their Clergy and they were burnt in the hand in view of the Court by the Hangman of London and the Prisoners bound each for the other to their good behaviours and to appear in Court the next Term. Hales against More Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 23 Car. rot 382. A Iudgement was given in an inferiour Court in an Action of Debt Error upon a Iudgement in Debt Demand Venire and a Writ of Error brought in this Court to reverse it The Errors assigned were 1. The plaint is entred generally de placito debiti which is uncertain so that the Defendant cannot know what is demanded 2ly In the awarding of the Venire it is duodecim c. and doth not say probos legales homines Bacon Iustice Duodecim in the Venire with an c. is not good in an Inferiour Court but this is in the awarding of the Venire and therefore well enough but the first is a good Exception in my Iudgement Therefore let the judgement be reversed except cause shewn to the contrary The King and Corye A Writ of Restitution issued out of this Court for one Corye to be restored to the Recorders place of the City of Norwitch To be restored to a Recorders place which was returned and filed Hales of his Councel opened the Retorn and cited Stroods Case that one ought not to be removed from any office without shewing good cause why he is removed which is not here done but only a Custom set forth whereby they shew they had authority to elect a Recorder for a year only and at the end of the year to elect another and that by vertue of this Custom Custome they had chosen another Recorder in the parties place he having béen in a whole year which he conceived to be an ill Custom Roll Iustice said If this be a void Custom none of the two Recorders were well elected and so Cory cannot be restored And Bacon Iustice did also doubt whether any of them were well chosen It was said that the Retorn is not traversable but shall be taken to be true Bacon Iustice held Traverse Retorn That the Retorn was not good and you must have an Alias that we may have a better Answer before us for nothing can be done upon this But the Court enclined that a Recorder may be elected for one year It was said If a Custom be entire you cannot make one part of it good and another part of it ill The rule was for the party to take an Alias because this Retorn is not good and it is too late to amend it because it is filed Amendment The King and Symmons IN an Endictment of forcible Entry upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. divers Exceptions were formerly taken To quash an Endictment uâ—on the Statuâ—e of 8 H. 6. Roll Iustice answered to that that the Endictment did not say contra Coronam dignitatem it was well enough without those words Another exception was now taken that the Endictment is ad tunc ibidem which is repugnant This Roll Iustice over-ruled but he doubted whether the Endictment ought to be contra formam Satutorum or contra formam Statuti as it is because this Endictment is framed upon divers Statutes Bacon Iustice cited the 4th Rep. the Case of Appeals and said it is good as it is contra formam Statuti and said that a forcible Entry and Deteyner is punishable at the Common-law Common law The Court desired to see Presidents Antea Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. MAynard shews for cause why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Admiralty For a Prohibition notwithstanding a Consultation granted That the parties have moved this matter in the Common-pleas and did there joyn issue upon the same and a verdict passed against the Prohibition and a consultation was thereupon granted The Councel on the other side makes another suggestion viz. that the sentence in the Court of Admiralty was against a person that was dead and that one of the parties who had the sentence had released To this the Court said you
might have pleaded this in the Admiral Court Hill of Councel for the Prohibition said it is not material what the parties have done in the Common-pleas for this Court is not bound by it Roll Iustice If the matter of your surmise here be tryed already in the Common-pleas why should you move here upon the same surmise Surmise Arbitrary Conclusion But it is not arbitrary to grant a Prohibition or not to grant it if there be cause to grant it and the Tryal in the Common-pleas is no conclusion to us and if it be mischievous as is objected Prohibition to grant a Prohibition after a Consultation granted the Parliament may make a Law to prevent that mischief for as the Law now is it may be done Yet we will advise Gaudy aginst Ingham Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IVdgement was given against an Administrator in an Action of Debt brought against him Error upon a Iudgement against an administrator Iudgement in the Common pleas upon fully administred pleaded and a writ of Error was here brought to reverse the Iudgement The Error assigned was that Iudgement was given for the whole Debt whereas the verdict found that the Defendant had assets only to discharge a part of it To this the Court said if it be found he have any assets Iudgement must be given against him for the whole debt upon his false plea but if he have no assets it is otherwise Allen against Reeve Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 23 Car. rot 88. ALlen brings an Action of Covenant against Reeve Arrest of Iudgement in an Action of Covenant and his wife upon a lease expired made of certain houses by deed unto the wife dum sola suit wherein was a Covenant to keep the houses in repair during the term for breach of this Covenant is the Action brought and declares as to one of the houses that it was burnt by negligence The Defendants plead a special plea to this effect That the house which was burnt was not burnt by negligence In arrest of Iudgement nor with Common fire as the Plaintiff hath declared and as to the rest they plead the general issue that they were in good repair at the expiration of the term the Plaintiff hath a verdict Nicholes of Councel with the Plaintiff said it conteins a negative preignans for there are two matters offred in issue one that the house was not burned by common fire Negative preignans Demurrer 2ly That it was not burned by the negligence of the party Roll Iustice If it be a negative preignans as you say it is you ought to have demurred unto it as to a double plea. But let us see the book and stay in the mean time Hobson against Heywood Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. rot 791. HObson brings a writ of Error in this Court to reverse a Iuhgement given against him at Bristow in an Action of Debt for rent Error to reverse a Judgement in Bristow in an action of Debt Error and assigns for errors that the sum demanded to be due for rent was in figures and not in words as it ought to be 2ly It is said that the Iury Assideint damna for Assident damna The Court held they were both material exceptions and reversed the Iudgement except cause should be shewn to the contrary Saturday following Chambers against Floyd Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a rule on the Crown side to shew cause why an Attatchment should not issue out against two Iustices of peace for not allowing a certiorari directed to them out of this Court to remove an endictment of forceible entry taken at a private Sessions before them Cause against issuing of an attatchment The Councel for the Iustices urged that they had not contemned the Processe of this Court as is surmised for the certiorari ought to have been delivered in open Sessions of the peace and there allowed Allowance but this was delivered at a privat Sessions and so they were not to allow it 2ly The party who procures the certiorari ought according to the Statute to put in security Certiorari at the delivery thereof to prosecute or else it is not to be allowed but that was not done here and therefore they were not bound to allow it And the certiorari is to remove an Endictment of forcible entry but the retorn is that it was a peaceable entry and a forcible deteyner Retorn so that there being no such Endictment before them as the certiorari mentions they could not make a retorn according to the writ and therefore it is no contempt in the Iustices not to make a return The Court answered Contempt that it is the usual course of the Court to make certioraries in this form and therefore this is no excuse The Councel against the Iustices urged that this case is within the Statute though it were at a privat Sessions of the peace and therefore the Iustices are in contempt Roll Iustice said I conceive that this is casus omissus not provided for by the Statute and if so then are they not in contempt Casus omissus and if some Iustices take an Endictment of forcible entry other Iustices cannot give restitution upon this Endictment Bacon Iustice Restitution The Statute is a remedial Law and made for the ease of the subject and ought not to be construed strictly And said Construction that a privat Sessions is a Sessions but security ought to be put in at the quarter Sessions for it shall be intended that all the Iustices of the County are there Roll Iustice said Security that a privat Sessions ought to take security and the Endictment ought to be retorned there but the certiorari is not good for it mentions not the title of the Act yet the generall practice of the Court seems to warrant it as it is The Court ordered the party to have restitution and the contempt to be spared by consent of partyes if cause not shewn to the contrary before the end of the Term. Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved upon an Assidavit for a prohibition to the Court at Doncaster For a prohibition to the court at Doncaster Prohibition Attatchment and for an attatchment against the Maior for refusing to allow of a forein plea tendred by the Defendant in an Action of Debt brought against him for rent for lands that lye out of the jurisdiction of the Court and for proceeding against him notwithstanding the tender of the plea. The prohibition and attatchment were granted if cause not shewn to the contrary before the end of the Term. David against Lyster Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved by the Plaintiff that the Defendant might be ordered to plead an issuable plea For the Defendant to plead an issuable plea. which he had not done for the Action is an Action of ejectione firmae in which the Plaintiff hath
declared and the Defendant hath emparled and after emparlance he pleads that the lands are antient demean Plea which is a dillatory plea. Roll Iustice It is a good plea after imparlance for it goes in bar of the Action it self and not in abatement of the Writ The King and Holland Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. ROll Iustice said Opinion of the Court for restitution in this Court not in Chancery Iudgement Restitution that in this case formerly argued restitution ought to be given to the party for the same Iudgement shall be given here which should be given in Chancery and all the Record is here before us and they in Chancery cannot do any thing in the cause for they have nothing before them And it appears to us that the Declaration was insufficient and so we cannot give Iudgement for the Plaintiff but against him notwithstanding the inquisition found for the King Therefore let the party have restitution except cause shewed the first Friday in the next Term. Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to discharge a prisoner brought to the Bar For discharge of a prisoner by a habeas Corpus committed by the Committee of plundred Ministers and these exceptions were taken to the retorn 1. There is no time expressed how long the party shall stand committed Commitment so he is committed without limitation of time which is not legall 2ly He is committed by the name of Mr. Smith and his name of baptism is omitted which ought not to be Vpon these exceptions the Court held the commitment illegal and discharged the party Weekes and VVeekes Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon the retorn of a certiorari to remove orders made by Commissioners of Sewers Against a retorn of orders of commissioners of Sewers Retorn Notice It was moved that the retorn was not good because it was not made by the partyes to whom the certiorari was directed for it was directed to the Commissioners and the retorn is made by the Clark of the Sewers But the Court said the retorn was good enough for all the retorns are so and the Clark is an officer of whom the Law takes notice of and it belongs to him to do it Pasc â—4 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an inferiour court in an Action upon the case Error to reverse a Iudgement in an inferior court in an Action upon the case Retorn Day in court and the Error assigned was that the habeas corpus was not well retorned for it is not retorned to be in omnibus servitum et executum as it ought to be and as the usual form is Maynard of Councel against the Writ of Error argued that it was well retorned notwithstanding those words were omitted because the Iury did appear full and no issues were lost and the Iury have day by the roll 3 H. 7. 14. per Hussey and 9 E. 4. 14. it is made a question but not resolved 2ly Though it be a Sisp yet it is within the Statute of 21. Iac. and is helped by it for that Statute extends to more than Writs as may appear by the Statute and the Statute of 18 Eliz. Bill Original writ recâ—ipt touching original Writs extends to faults of bills although original Writs are only named for a bill is the same in substance with a Writ so here the Writ and precept are of the same substance 3ly it is the intent of the Statute and the Statute shall be taken by equity Hill 13. Iac. in this Court in Gregory and Brookes case this question was stirred but not resolved and Hobart denyes the 5th report f. 61. to be Law and there is no proceedings properly in superiour Courts by plaint Roll Iustice The Statute extends not to point of equity in inferior Courts for their proceedings are not so regular as the proceedings in the high Courts here at Westminster but they are by short notes Bring us books and move it again Creswell against Ventryes Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. CReswell brought an Action upon the case against Ventryes for speaking these words of him Arrest of Iudgment in an action upon the Case for words Thou didst and dost receive thief stollen goods witnesse a feather bed tick in thy house and the cloath which thy mans suit was made of and thou knewest they were stollen The Plaintiff hath a verdict the Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actioanble for one may receive stollen goods and yet not be guilty of Felony Becon Iustice The receiving of stollen goods is not felony but the receiving and comforting of the Felon is Felony Felony The Iudgement was stayed till the other should move Thynn against Thynn Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THynn brings an Action against Thynn to reverse a Iudgement given in the Comon pleas in a writ of Dowr Error to reverse a Iudgement in Dowr Hales of Councel with the Defendant in the Writ of Dowr in answer to the exceptions formerly taken said that the summons was well enough retorned as it is because it was made upon some part of the land within the Vil Long quint. E. 4. 2 H. 4. 13. 39. E. 3. 7. 2ly It is not necessary to make the Proclamation Proclamation where the summons is for the Statute intends not to alter the course of the summons 2ly The words of the Statute are satisfied for the actual summons in one Vill is a summons in the other Vills 3ly The meaning of the Statute is satisfied and the mischef intended to be satisfied by the Statute Hob. 173. Allen and Walkers Case Demand For the 2d exception to the Demand he held it good enough for in a Writ of Dower a Demand needeth not to be so particular as in other Writs so is it in an Assise 11 E. 3. 18. 43 E. 3. 6. 3 Ed. 2. Dower 161. and the reason is because the Wife demands not the whole Land nor can have the Charters which concern the Land to enable her to make so precise a Demand as may be in other Writs And as to Harpers Case that is objected I answer it agrées not with our Case Regist f. 36. 16 E. 3. Fitzh Quar. Imp. 147. and it is certain enough because it is of a Rectory and not of Tithes in gross 3ly The demand of Tithes is surplusage and it is all one as to say the Rectory cum pertinentiis Then as to the Objection that one thing is twice demanded I answer it is not so â—â—aâ—ement Dammages but demanded as part of a thing demanded in the Writ and a Demand in a Writ of Dower shall not abate the Writ though one thing be twice demanded for dammages shall not be twice recovered 4 E. 3. f. 52. Mich. 9 Iac. in the Common-pleas agreed so by the whole Court In Bluers Case 8 Car. one thing was twice demanded and yet the Writ was not
abated To the 3d. exception That the Demand is more large than the Writ because a Parish may be larger than a vill and the Demand is the Parish of Imber I answer That the Vill and Parish shall be intended to be of the same extent if the contrary do not appear Cooks lit f. 125. 2ly Although the Parish may be larger than the Vill yet it may lye in the Vill and the contrary doth not here appear and the Case is so that it is impossible that the Parish should extend into another Vill 1. The office of the Writ is to restrain the Demand and the Writ ascertains the Demand 19 E. 3. Fitz. Dower 95. 9 E. 4. f. 16. by Chock 2ly There is a restriction within the body of the Demand for the Demand refers to the Writ and is bounded by it 42 Eliz. Wook and Godins Case a small implication will make a Vill and Parish to be all one Implication and so it is here 42 43 Eliz. Com. Banc. Hob. 12. Case Brook and Spencer Trin. 16 Iac. in this Court rot 504. Marks and Marks And as to the Exception taken to the execution Execution that dammages are given for more than is demanded 1. Here is no confession as it is supposed on the other side that the Hundred in demand doth lye in another Vill. 2ly It is impossible for dammages to be given for more of the Hundred than lyes within the Vills mentioned in the Writ and so are there no dammages given for that part of the Hundred which lyes in Sutton parva as is objected on the other side for no more shall be recovered than is contained in the Writ 9 E. 4. ◠16 17. The Question there was whether it were a Plea to the Writ 17 E. 3. f. 44. The Court desired to hear another Argument Castle against Dinely Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1078. CAstle brings a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him in the Court at Owse-bridge in York Error to reverse a Iudgment in an action upon the Case in an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit The Error assigned was that the day of the Month in which the promise was made is in Figures To this the Councel on the other side said that heretofore it had béen held to be Error Error but now since the Statute of Ieofailes after a verdict is no Error But I. Turner of Councel with the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error said That it is a material exception now for the Assumpsit is the ground of the Action and therefore the day must néeds be material Another exception was that the Venire was Venire facias duodecem c. de Riliva tua and the Venu was in the City of York But to this exception it was answered that the Record is de Civitate Eborum in Baliva tua and so it is well enough and of this opinion was the Court. But the Court held the first Exception to be good Whereupon the Councel for the Defendant in the Writ of Error prayed the Iudgement might be reversed for his Clyents dispatch and so it was The King against Andrews Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. ANdrews was endicted for Murther and out-lawed upon the Endictment Arraignment upon an Outlawry for Murder and taken upon the Out lawry and brought to the Bar and demanded what he could say why Iudgement should not be given against him The Prisoner said he had brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry and prayed it might be allowed which was granted and the Writ read by Broughton the Secondary on the Crown-side The Prisoner desired he might have Walker Hales and Pepes assigned him for his Councel which the Court granted The Councel prayed they might have a Copy of the Record Roll Iustice said that the Prisoner himself ought to shew matter in Law for Error which the Councel doubted Error But the Court over-ruled it yet agreed that the Record should be read unto them which was done Vpon the reading Walker took these exceptions 1. The Process is not well awarded for the Capias is not praedict Andrews and so it appears not who was out-lawed whether the Prisoner or another of the same name 2ly It is not said that the Process is awarded by the Court nor at what Sessions it was awarded Roll Iustice It is necessary for it is recorded there 3ly It appears not what party is dead whether he that was struck or another 4ly It doth not appear in what part of the body the Wound was given nor with what weapon The Court said that they will hear the Kings Councel before they would conclude any thing The Councel moved that the Prisoner might be bayled because it was fourteen years ago since he was endicted The Court answered till you are assigned of Councel upon Record we cannot bayl him at your prayer Bayl. Then the Councel desired a Copy of the Record ad quod non suit responsum but the Court said to the Councel take more time to consider of other Exceptions for if these shall be over-ruled your Clyent is gone viz. must be hanged At another day he was bayled by four persons and bound to prosecute his Writ of Error with effect Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation for 3000 l. Arrest of Iudgement in Debt upon an obligation the Defendant pleads that he had paid the mony on such a day whereas the truth of the Case was that there was two daies of payment limited in the Obligation and the Defendant had paid part of the monies upon one of the daies of payment and the rest upon the other day and not all at one day The Plaintiff replies that the Defendant did not pay the mony upon the day alleged by the Defendant in his Plea and upon this an Issue is joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintiff Verdict the Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and shews for cause That the Verdict is imperfect because it doth not find that the Defendant had two daies of payment but concludes that he did not pay the mony upon one of the daies Roll Iustice If you have two daies of payment to plead and you rely upon one day in your pleading Champerty and issue is joyned upon that and it be found against you you must be barred by it Hales urged That here was a champertous agreement for there was no consideration for the assignment of this Obligation and Indenture to the Plaintiff upon which the Action is brought by him The Iudgement was stayed till the other part should move More against Stone Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery was brought by the Plaintiff for assaulting and beating and taking his Servant for two Months Arrest of Iudgement in Trespass by Assault and Battery and taking away his Servant Retainer per quod
servitium amisit The Defendant pleads not guilty and thereupon is an Issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff The Defendant moves in an arrest of Iudgement and for cause shews that the Plaintiff hath not set forth how the party was his Servant whether as an Apprentise or by retainer as he ought to have done But the Court said that the Record imiplies that he was his Servant at the time when the Trespass was done and that is enough and this is the usual form of declaring in this Action in the Common-pleas and in this Court also and so many of the Councel at the Bar affirmed and therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement The King against Holland Pasc 24 Car Banc. Reg. HAles offered to the Court these reasons why Iudgement should not be given here in this Case betwéen the King and Holland formerly spoken to To stay Iudgment upon a Memorandum of a Record out of the Chancery Iudgement 1. That the Record is not here in this Court but only an extract of the Record out of the Record which is in Chancery and therefore judgement cannot be given here for a judgement must be given upon the Record it self 2ly It would be inconvenient if it should be otherwise for the Chancery is Iudge of the Inquisition and so there may be judgement one way in Chancery and another way here if the Record be not removed hither And there is difference where a transcript of a Record is removed out of a Court which cannot proceed upon the Record it self and where it is a transcript of a Record Transcript upon which Record the Court may proceed as it is in our Case 39 H. 6. 6. 14 E. 4. 1. 7. 3ly It appears not to this Court how the Commission and Inquisition are executed whether well or not and therefore it cannot judge of it Maynard on the other side prayes that judgement may be given here upon the memorandum of the Record sent hither out of the Chancery for these reasons 1. Every Court ought to give judgement on the one side or other therefore if the King may have judgement here the party may also have judgement 2ly The Record is here in this Court virtually by sending of the Memorandum of it hither and that is enough to give Iudgement upon 3ly The Chancery and this Court as to the giving of judgement here are as it were one Court 24 E. 3. f. 77. 4ly There is a ground for judgement to be given here and it cannot be given elsewhere for an Award in Chancery is no Iudgement Award and so there cannot be two several Iudgements one in Chancery and another here as Hales supposeth and in Lathams case the Record was removed as it is here and Iudgement given upon it in this Court. 5ly The Chancery is not to be Iudge for the Tranverse was there and the cause removed hither and we cannot go back thither again for if we should do so we should have Iudgement in no Court If it had been upon a Demurrer in Chancery then there might have been a Iudgement there but not now the Cause is removed by Traverse and a Patent shall not be corrected by the Enrolment but the Enrollment by the Patent under Seal Hales on the other side said That it is the Record of the plea that is transmitted out of the Chancery hither but not the Record of the Inquisition or Commission upon which it is found and how then can there be any Iudgement Roll Iustice said That the Amoveas manum is but a consequence of the judgement Amoveas manum and not the Iudgement it self and we may give Iudgement without the Inquisition against the King And the Record is transmitted hither to determine whether the King or the party hath right and the Chancery cannot intermeddle for by this means the Courts will clash which would be inconvenient Bacon Iustice spoke to the same effect Roll Iustice added this If an Office be found to entitle the King in the Chancery and it be transmitted hither and it appears to this Court that the office is not good shall not we give Iudgement against the King certainly we shall But the Court would advise and desired to hear the Kings Councel what they could say for the King Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Trespass was brought for taking away divers parcels of Houshold stuff and upon non Culp pleaded the Plaintiff had a verdict Arrest of Iudgement in Trespass for taking away Goods The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and shewed for cause that the Declaration was not good because divers words in it were insensible as 1. The Plaintiff declares for taking away unum Lenat Anglice a Mat whereas Lenat is no word in any Language to signifie any thing and therefore the Anglice cannot help it To this the Court answered That it is all one as if it were left out of the Declaration because it signifies nothing in it Dammages and so there is no dammages given for that thing which it should signifie 2ly He declares for taking away tria suspendia Anglice Pot-hooks or Hakes But the Court held this good enough 3ly He declares for taking away unum Adustum ferreum which are two Adjectives and signifie nothing To this the Court said if they signifie nothing then no dammages are given for it and therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon reading of the retorn of Collonel Tichborne Leiutenant of the Tower of London upon an habeas corpus directed to him For an alias habeas corpus with pain on the behalf of John Lilborn committed by order of both houses of Parliament for his contempt to them Cook of Councell with the Prisoner moved for an Alias habeas corpus with a pain because the Lieutenant had only retorned the Writ Alia but not brought the body of the Prisoner Bacon Iustice If there be sufficient matter expressed in the retorn to detein the Prisoner to what purpose should we grant an Alias Retorn therefore if the retorn be insufficient move your matter against it But Roll Iustice said the Lieutenant ought to make his retorn either against the jurisdiction of this Court or else he must bring the body of the Prisoner hither and it is in our power to set a fine upon him Fine for making an insufficient retorn Therefore the Court ordered that he should amend his retorn or else they would grant an Alias with a pain Hocker against Lamb. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 ar rot 1592. HOcker brought a Writ of Error in this Court against Lamb to reverse a Iudgement given against him Error to reverse a Iudgment for error in the venire Licu câ—nus Hundred VVard in the Court at Colchester in Essex and assigns for Error 1. That the venire is awarded larger than the Declaration To this Roll Iustice said the Ward within Colchester
mentioned in the Declaration is but a lieu conus but in London the Ward is in the nature of a Hundred and so differs from this Case a second exception was that the time of the Assumpsit upon which the Action in which the Iudgement was given was founded is expressed in figures viz. the time for the delivery of the goods promised to be delivered as also the time of the request for the delivery of them as also the costs and damages adjudged Vpon these exceptions the Court ordered the Iudgement to be reversed except very good cause should be shewen to the contrary Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg THe Court was moved to discharge two prisoners committed for suspition of murther 〈…〉 at the 〈◊〉 by habeas corpu and brought to the bar by a habeas corpus returned for the insufficienty of the retorn and upon two certificates offred to the Court That the partyes who did the murther for which these prisoners were committed were Executed for the same and had confessed that they did it Discharge But Roll Iustice answered if the retorn be touching Felony though it be insufficient we cannot discharge the partyes The Court thereupon was moved Bail that they might be bailed which was granted and they were bailed by four in 200 l. a piece that the prisoners shall appear at the next assises at Berry in Suffolk Pay against Paxted Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an inferiour Court And the Error assigned was in a continuance Error to reverse a judgement for a d f. continuance Discontinuance which was ad proximam curiam scil 16. die whereas the Court was not held that day but 26. die Roll Iustice said peradventure the scilicet may be void Yet the Iudgement was reversed antea Keniston against Jones Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 23 Car. rot 587. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an obligation with condition to stand to an award the Defendant pleads nullum arbitrium Argument upon a special verdict in debt upon on obligation to stand to an award Recital Conclusion the Plaintiff sets forth the award and assigns a breach and upon that an issue is joyned and a special verdict is found and upon the special verdict 2 questions was whether a misrecital of the date of one of the obligations of submission by the Arbitrators in their award shall avoid the award Philips of Councell with the Plaintiff argued that it should not because that now the parties are concluded by the plea and the verdict found upon it 2ly Whether the Arbitrators have exceeded the submission he held they had not for the first point he said 1. That the submission was the submission of the parties and the mistaking of the Arbitrators of the time when it was made is not material nor shall hurt it for the bond of submission is not in the custody of the Arbitrators and so they might easily mistake the date because they had it not to vlew Plow Com. 79. Crokers case 2ly Date The date of the obligation is not an essential part of the obligation for an obligation may be good though it have no date therfore the mistaking of the date is not much material 3ly There is sufficient certainty of the bond expressed in the award though the date be mistaken a void additional description of it shall not avoid a good description of it set forth in the award Doughtyes case Cook 3. rep Dyer 292. 4ly The misrecital is not in words affirmative but meerly in words relative 5ly The clause of misrecital refers to the deed recited by the prout which is certain enough and the law rejects the miscrecital as a thing impertinent 6. rep 36. Dyer 116. For the second poynt although the submission should be void yet by the issue joyned the submission is confessed and it is now contrary to the submission to plead nul award Dyer 32. 28 29 H. 8. 2. rep 4. and the parties in our case do differ only whether there be an award or not and not whether there be a submission or no. And as touching the award it self I hold that the submission is not exceeded Award for all matters in diffrence between the parties are submitted but not the bonds of the submission 2ly It stall not be taken to be alleged expresly of the matters only submitted and not of others if the contrary do not appear either by the Plaintiffs allegation or doubt of the Iury. 3ly All the award is performed before the discharge of the obligations of submission 4ly The award is at least good in part and it being not performed in this part that is good the obligation is forfeited Cook 10. rep Kel 43. 45 Hob. pag. 267. Nâ—bys case and so prayes Iudgement for the Plaintiff Latch for the Desendant 1. The verdict is not contrary to the issue nor admission in pleading nor out of the issue but within it for the issue is whether the award be good modo et forma and the submission is an essential part of the Award and ought to be alleged in the Award otherwise the Award is not good and it is here alleaged in the issue also Dyer 216. 9 H. 7. 3 and the negative here implies nothing Another question is whether the Iury have found the Award set forth in the replication or whether they have found any Award at all ad if any Award be found it is such an Award which is not in issue in the replication and so the verdict is for the Defendant And as to the Award it self I hold it void for the parties have not submitted to the Award that is made for there is no submission to the determination of matters arising between the time of the sealing of one Bond and of the other Bond and so the Arbitrators have exceeded the submission for they have awarded to make releases at the sealing of the last Bond which compriseth all the time between the sealing of one Bond and of the other Next part of the Award is not good by exceeding the submission and this makes all the Award naught for all the parts of this Award do so depend one upon another that if one be naught all is naught And the last part of the Award is naught and so the Award is made but on the one part which cannot be good for if the release be not made all Actions between the parties cannot cease according to the Award and so the Award is not final And there is no verdict here for the Plaintiff although the verdict should not be for the Defendant for it appears not whether the 15th of April be before or after Easter and so prayes Iudgement for the Defendant Roll Iustice said if there appears a material variance between the Award â—et forth Notice and the Award pleaded it is ill And it is a question whether we be bound to take
notice of the Almanack and the feast dayes there set down or no. It was adjourned to be argued again the next Term. Thynn against Thynn Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IN this Case wherein exceptions were formerly taken to the Writ of Error Opinion of the Court concerning a retorn and argued Bacon Iustice said he had read over the book and doubted whether many of the Errors formerly assigned are not out of doreâ— because the certiorari is not well retorned before us for the certiorari is directed to the Recorder and it is retorned by the Deputy Recorder in his own name Retorn Roll Iustice doubted also for he said all the old presidents were against this retorn But if the Writ be directed to a Recorder who is custosbrevium or to a Recorder and his Deputy then the retorn as it is will be good TWisden of Councel with the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error in the Wiltshire cause took these exceptions The first exception take was Error and exceptions offered to a Iudgement in Dowr that he demand of Dowr is larger than the originall Writ for that the demand is of the Parish of Timesbury and the Writ is of the Vill of Timesbury which is not so large by intendment as a parish because there may be divers Vills in one parish and he said that in some case a Writ shall restrain a demand in other cases it shall not namely where they cannot stand together and so is it here 21 E. 4. f. 24. 3 E. 3. f. 56. Demand A second exception was that the nature of the tithes demanded are not set forth although they be not in gross but appendant as they ought to be Dowr and a feme was not dowable at all of tithes before the Statute of 32 H. 8. and a feme is dowable of Common appendant but not of Common in gross A third exception was that Dowr is recovered of a thing not dowable viz. of a quarry of stones for if she should be dowable of a quarry of stones this would be to the destruction of the inheritance and indeed it is impossible for a quarry of stones cannot be divided by metes and bounds which must be if she should be endowed of it And also if the mine and quarry should be divided the Tenant of the Land would be prejudiced and that a quarry cannot be divided see Cooks Lit. 164. and so was it adjudged 2 Iac. upon a reference to the Iudges Next there is also Error in fact for the Hundred of Warminster extends into the Hundred of Sutton parva Error in fact and so if she be endowed of the Hundred of Warminster she will be endowed of the third part of two Hundreds which is more than she demands by her Writ of Dowr Maynard of Councell with the Defendant in the Writ of Error said as to the summons he held there is a good summons and cited Hob. 137 Dalt f. 86. And there may be divers parishes in one Vill as well as divers Vills in one parish And to the exception that the demand of the Dowr in the Writ is generall whereas it ought to be a special demand he answered the demand in Dowr differs from other demands and is more favoured in Law for as Dowr it self is favoured in Law so are the proceedings in Law to recover it 6 E. 3. 45. 16. E. 2. 7. 8 H. 3. 11 Ed. 3. 85. 25 E. 3. breâ— 412. Fitz. Dowr 8 E. 3. Sect. 434. Reg. 39. And as to the surplusage in the demand this shall not abate the Writ 4 E. 3. 52. Fitz. brei 14. Abatement And that the parish should extend out of the Vill is a forein intendment and shall not be so taken against an Averment and when a Vill and a parish are named by one name one of them shall not be intended larger than the other if the contrary be not shewn Long quint. Ed. 4. f. 20. And he argued that a feme is dowable of a quarry and that it may be divided by metes and bounds for it may be divided by the profits although it cannot be divided by the quantity of the thing Roll Iustice said By no manner of pleading can one abate a Writ after Iudgement and how should it be so here And 2 Cases were cited by the Councell that bis petita shall not abate a Writ Mich. 9. Iac. Bolstrod and Brooks case and Easton and Styles case in a Writ of Dowr Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Trespasse quare vi et armis for rescuing of a Prisoner out of his possession Arrest of Iudgement in an action of Trespass vi et armis for rescous and hath a verdict against the Defendant The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement for that the Plaintiff ought to have brought his Action of Trespass upon the Case and not an Action of Trespass quare vi armis But Roll Iustice answered that he might have an Action upon the Case or a Trespass vi armis at his election Election of Action and therefore the exception is null Another exception was taken that there was 4 years between the time of the Trespass done and the time of bringing the Action Roll Iustice answered you should have pleaded this matter if you would have had advantage by it but it is to no purpose to urge it Another exception was taken that the Declaration says that he took him in his possession out of his possession But the Court over-ruled this also and ordered the Defendant to shew better matter why Iudgement should not be given against him King against Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. KIng brought an Action of the Case in London against the Defendant For a Procedendo in an action upon the Case removed our of London Custome for speaking these words of her Thou art a Whore and Cantrels Whore and hast been so this forty years The Defendant removed the Cause into this Court by a Certiorari the Plaintiff moved for a Procedendo But nothing was done in it for the Court was divided for Bacon Iustice held the words not actionable But Roll Iustice held that by the Custome of London they were though not at the Common-law Aylett against Stellam Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. TWisden upon a rule of Court to shew cause why there should not be a new Tryal Cause why no new Tryal said that two things were alleged on the other side that there ought to be a new Tryal 1. That two of the Iurors were of kin to the Plaintiff And 2ly That there was notice given to the Defendant of a second Venire facias To the first of which he answered that the Iurors were not of kin and produced an Affidavit for proof Roll Iustice interrupted him and said it is not now material whether they be of kin or no for the Defendant should have taken advantage of that upon his challenge at the Tryal
Challenge Advantage And for the second it matters not whether he gave notice of the second Venire or no for the rules of the Court do not enjoyn him to give notice Maynard of Councel with the Defendant urged that two of the Iurors were of kin and produceth an Affidavit to prove it and said that the Defendant was also surprised for want of notice of the second Venire Roll Iustice said the second Venire ought to be entred here and if it were not entred how can the Defendant know whether it be altered or no Yet here is no breach of the rules of the Court and so the proceedings are fair for the Venire may be entred Entry or it may not be entred and if it be not entred the party may go to the Attorny and procure a Copy of it before the Tryal and though the Venire be not entred till after the Assises it is well enough Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement Thyn against Thyn Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. LAtch of Councel with the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error argued again Argument in Dower Demand and held 1. That the nature of the Tithes demanded in the Writ of Dower ought to have been expressed for the demand may peradventure be of such Tithes whereof the Feme is not dowable 2ly Where the thing it self is demanded of which the Sheriff is to give possession there the Demand of it ought to be certain for as it is in a Demand in an Ejectione firmae or an Assise so ought it to be in a Demand in a Writ of Dower Dyer f. 116. 258. 11 Rep. Harpers Case Dyer 83. the Sergeants Case 44 B. 3.5 Cooks Entries tit Dower plac 2d and though the Demand be of all Tithes yet they ought to be specified as it is in Harpers Case and so it is of Tithes in gross 11 Rep. Savills Case Mich. 12 Iac. Bales and Hamond in this Court. And as to the Retorn a Chapel is demanded Retorn and Iudgement given for it and yet the Retorn doth not mention it and it is not enough to comprise it in other words and it is doubtfull whether a Chapel be a Tenement or no for it is not a temporal Inheritance as an Advowson is Tenement VVrit Dyer 83. In some Case the Writ may be general and the Count special but that is where there is not a special form of Writ 2ly a Chapel is not conveyed in Fines and Recoveries or Entries by the name of a Tenement nor in any judicial proceedings but Tenementa in a Grant may contain a Chapel 3ly The particular enumeration of other things and the â—mitting of the Chapel makes it ill and so would it be in a Grant by such in enumeration Dyer 161. The Case of the Hamlets 36 Eliz. Ewer Heydon 21 22 Eliz. the Bishop of Norwitches case 8 Rep. 18. Doctor Bonhams Case 12 Ed. 1. Grants 87. Other exceptions he took to the Iudgement and execution First to the Iudgement Hundred that a Hundred cannot be delivered by metes and bounds for a Hundred is but a Iurisdiction and is entire 2ly The execution is ill for a Court of Frank pledge cannot be divided by metes and bounds Cooks Instit 32. and Dower is assignable either by metes and bounds or in common or in special manner lib. Intrat 18. He took also Exceptions to the second Iudgement Dammages that dammages of the value of the Tithes are not to be given in Dower next the Inquisition doth not find that the Husband dyed seised of the Tithes and then there can be no Iudgement given for them And the dying seised of the Rectory is no dying seised of the Tithes nor is the dying seised of the Chapel a dying seised of the Tithes appurtenant to it for the Chapel is but the Chapel-House or Dilatory 11 Rep. Harpers Case Then for the Error in fact the demand is of the Manner of Lullington and this extends out of Lullington and it is not repugnant to the Record to assign this Error in fact and it could not have been pleaded in abatement of the Writ 8 E. 3. 68. A Nuper obiit resembles a Writ of Dower Nuper oblit 7 E. 3. 28. 7 E. 3. pl. 5.12 Ass 20. 26 E. 3. 72. 29 Ass 55. 10 E. 4 11. 9 E. 4. 3. 9 E. 4. 17. And so prayed the Iudgement might be reversed It was adjourned to be argued again the next Term. Hill against Bird. Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a rule of Court to shew cause why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Prerogative Cause why no Prohibition to the Prerogative Court Latch stated the Case to be this A man dyed intestate the Daughter of the Brother of the Intestate her Father being dead procures Letters of Administration and a Son of the Sister of the Intestate sues in the Prerogative to revoke the administration or to have distribution of the Goods the Administrator prays a Prohibition and hereupon he prays that either no Prohibition at all is to be granted or else it must be special Prohibition Roll Iustice The Daugther of the Brother and the Brother of the Sister of the Intestate are in equal degree of kindred and the Ordinary may grant administration to which he pleaseth Administration Latch urged that the administration was not yet setled for it was granted upon Condition and if the Administrator will not bring in an inventory the Ordinary may alter the administration Hales on the other side prays there may be a general Prohibition cuiliber c. Roll Iustice The Prohibition must be against some certain person but if divers have appeared to sue there a Prohibition shall be against all of them and the Iurisdiction of the Court cannot be enlarged by the agreement of the parties Revocation Hob. Tucker and Boâ—es Case And an administration cannot be revoked for the not bringing in of the Inventory and Accompt by the Admnistrator The libel was afterwards read which was to have distribution of the Goods or else to reverse the Letters of admimiâ—â—â—tration and upon this the Court granted to a Prohibition if cause be not shewn upon notice to the contrary as to the Distribution but not generally Leving against Gamble Pasc 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IN arrest of Iudgement it was urged Arrest of Iudgement in Trespass that the Declaration was incertain for the Plaintiff had declared pro quinque pecias stanni anglice Pewter-dishes whereas pecias stanni did not fignifie Pewter-dishes for it might be Spoons Pots or any other sort of Pewter as well as Dishes But the Councel on the other side said Anglice void it was well enough and prayed for Iudgement Roll Iustice said the Anglice shall be void and then the Latin is good for it is five pieces of Pewter and it matters not what pieces they be For it is ad valentiam which makes the value certain
not in contempt to the Court. Roll Iustice said Then is the Execution now well executd Execution and the Sherif is in no fault Maynard of Councel with the Plaintif in the writ of Error moved that the Execution was awarded improvide and therefore the Court may restore the party to his goods taken in Execution although the Sherif be not in fault Roll Iustice The party ought to take notice of a recipitur upon the Record if it be entred and if the party take out Execution after the writ of Error is allowed he is in contempt to the Court else not and the Attorny is not bound to view the Record whether a writ of Error be brought but may take out Execution if there be not a Supersedeas Supersedeas or notice given to the party Therefore there is no help here for the proceedings have been according to the course of the Court for by the delivery of the writ of Error to the Officer of the Court the hands of the Court are closed Yet let us see the President that Wood ward hath to shew and let the Secondary examine it again Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of accompt was brought touching the fraight of a Ship For a scire facias against manucaptors and a Iudgement that the Defendant shall accompt and Auditors assigned and Manucaptors found to appear before the Auditors the Court was moved for a scire facias against the Manucaptors because that the Defendant did not appear at the day before the Auditors assigned and secondly it was moved that the Court would assigne a day peremptory Certificaâ—e Auditors for the party to appear before the Auditors But Roll Iustice said a day cannot be assigned untill a certificate be made to us from the Auditors for they are trusted and are Iudges of the cause and have power to excuse the non-appearance of the party at the day if they see cause and to give longer day or shorter for the party to appear as they think good end therefore till they certifie neither can you have a day assigned Scire facias nor a scire facias against the Manucaptors Clementson against Montford Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 23 Car. rot 1493. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement in an Action upon the Case brought by an Administrator in the Court at Esham Error to reverse a Iudgement in an action upon the case The Errors assigned were 1. The Plaintiff doth not declare that the administration was granted unto him per loci illius ordinarium 2ly The Plaintiff saith in his Declaration producit litteras Administratorias intestati whereas it should be ordinarii and not intestati 3ly The Court cannot by its privilege being an inferiour Court Capias and that but newly erected award a Capias upon entring the plaint as it is here done 4ly The Court began first to be a Court but 9 Iac. and yet it is said to be held per usum et consuetudinem curiae Twisden to the 1. exception said that it is helped by the verdict Roll Iustice asked how doth it appear that Esham is within the Diocess of the Bishop that granted the Letters of Administration for if it be not the Letters are not well granted And said that in a Declaration it is not necessary to say that Letters of Administration are granted per loci illius ordinarium aut cui pertinuit Administration Declaration Plea although they ought to be so pleaded in a plea in Bar. To the second exception Twisden answered that the words mentioned are not necessary and the Declaration would be good enough without them and therefore they shall not hurt it though they he mistaken and if it should be otherwise yet they are helped by the verdict and to the first exception he said that the words secundum usum et consuetudinem shall be intended to be meant according to the Law and not according to ancient usage as is urged by the Councell on the other side The rule was that Iudgement be affirmed except better matter should be shewn Monday next Read against Palmer Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. REad brings an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit to stand to an award against Palmer Arrest of Iudgement in an action upon the case and hath a verdict The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and shews that there was an amendment in the consideration and the promise after the issue joyned Twisden answered it is not material though it be so for the matter of the Assumpsit is implyed and the words altered are idle and cited 37 â—l Heydons Case for it is de et super praemissis Amercement which implyes all the matter Roll Iustice said that the words de et super praemissis goe not to the time but to the matter submitted and said that the words postea scilicet eodem die Contract in law special contract upon a contract in Law shall be intended the time of the contract but here is a speciall contract and collateral and it ought to be otherwise intended and desired to see a book Freeborn against Purchase Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 23 Car. rot 1575. FReeborn brought an Action upon the Case against Purchase Demurrer to a Declaration in an action upon the case and declares that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had paid unto him such a sum of money did assume and promise to joy in the surrender of certain Copyhold Lands and that for not performing this promise he brings his Action The Defendant demurs upon the Declaration Request and shews that the Plaintiff doth not allege that he made any request to the Defendant to joyn in the surrender which he ought to do for it was not a single Act to be done by the Defendant alone but he was to joyn in the Act with another Roll Iustice said the promise is that the Defendant shall joyn in the surrender Breach and he doth not say that he did request him to joyn which he should have done And besides the breach is not well assigned for you have assigned a particular way how he should surrender namely into the hands of 2 Tenants of the mannour whereas he did assume only to joyn in a surrender which may be in Court or into the hands of the Lord as well as into the hands of two Tenants so is Syms and Walkers Case 9 Car. Also the Plaintiff ought to have shewed that there is such a particular custom in the manour Notice that a Copyhold Tenant may surrender into the hands of two Tenants of the manour or else such a Custom cannot be taken notice of Therefore let a nil capiat per billam be entred against the Plaintiff Wright against Martin Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to change the venue in an Action for an escape To change a venue in an action for an
thereof the Defendant brings a writ of Error the question was whether the writ of Error were well brought in regard that the course of the Common pleas is not to make up the Iudgment untill the writ of enquiry be retorned Roll Iustice said that a writ of Error may be brought before the writ of enquiry be retorned in an ejectione firmae for in that Action the Iudgement is compleat at the Common Law before it be retorned Iudgement Error for the Iudgement is but to gain possession and so is it in a writ of Dower but in an Action of Trespasse where damages only are to be recovered there the Iudgement is not perfect till the writ of enquiry is retorned nor can be made up before as in this case it may but in regard that here is no compleat Iudgement entred for there is no capias which ought to be in all Actions quare vi et armis that the King may have his fine which else he cannot have if the party do not procéed in his Writ of Enquiry Error Execution the Writ of Error is brought too soon and you may proceed to execution in the Common-pleas for the compleat Record is not here Therefore advise what to do in the Common-pleas for it is mischievous qua cunque via Norton against Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. NOrton brought an Action of Assault and Battery against the Defendant Arrest of Iudgement in Assault and Battery Mis-sworn and had a verdict against him The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that in the Venire facias one of the Iurors was retorned by the name of Edmund and it appears by the Postea that he was sworn by the name of Edward which cannot be intended to be the same person Roll Iâ—stice said Amendment if the Clerk of the Assises in returning of the Postea have mistaken the name it may be amended here in Court by his notes by which he made the Postea and therefore let him be examined here whether it be a mistake or no. Toby against Angel Trin. 24 Car. Banc Reg. THe Court was moved for a reference in this Cause to the Secondary because the sute was commenced upon two Counter-bonds For a reference which are both cancelled Roll Iustice answered then why should it be referred for you may plead non damnificatus if the truth of the matter be so but the party may peradventure be damnified notwithstanding the Bonds be cancelled and may have good cause of Action Langly against Wybord Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. LAngly brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award against Wybord Demurrer to a Replication in Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Award The Defendant pleads nullum Arbitrium The Plaintiff replies that the Arbitrators did make an Award and sets it forth in haec verba The Defendant demurs and shews for cause that the Award is not well set forth for he doth not shew that the Award was delivered up by the Arbitrators according to the submission Roll Iustice answered it was well enough though it be not A second cause was that it is not said touching what sutes the Award was made Roll Justice answered the Award is said to be de praemissis and that is good enough 3ly The Award is that all sutes shall cease Roll Iustice This is well enough 4ly The Arbitrators have exceeded their submission The rule was to bring the Roll into Court and till then the former rule to stand Afterwards the Award was judged good and the Plaintiff had his Iudgement Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Inferiour Court Error to reverse a judgement in an Inferiour Court and the Error assigned was That the plaint was entred before such an one Maioâ— and the sute was continued before another Maior and it is not shewn that the first Maior was removed and that the other Maior was lawfully elected and sworn Roll Iustice said that the Continuances in Inferiour Courts ought to shew the manner of the Continuances Continuance and it ought not to be expressed generally And it is not said tunc majori Tryal which would have made it more incertain I doubt the Venire facias is discontinued and then there is no Tryal therefore it is good to advise Pragnell against Goff 24 Car. Banc. Reg. GOff brings an Action upon an Assumpsit against Pragnell Error upon a Iudgement in an Action upon an Assumpsit and hath a verdict and a Iudgement against him The Defendant brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement The Case was this Pragnell did assume and promise unto Goff that in consideration that Goff would mary the Daughter of Pragnell that he would be bound to give over his Shop unto him and not use his Trade in Basingstoke and would lend unto him fifty pound and for not performing this promise he had his Iudgement The Error assigned was that there is a breach â—aid of all the promise Assumpsit which consists of divers parts and one part of it is against Law namely the Promise to be bound not to use his Trade and yet dammages are given entirely for all which is not good Wild on Councel on the other side said that in 2 H. 5. urged is no Iudgement given and in our Case it is not that he shall be bound not to use his Trade generally but only in the Town of Basingstoke and he may use it any where else and therefore it is not against Law Roll Iustice If the words be general that he shall not use his Trade in such a place without any consideration this is ill but it is otherwise if there be a consideration for a man may sell his Liberty Privilege for a Consideration and it shall bind him The rule was to shew cause Saturday next why Iudgement should not be affirmed This was afterwards moved objected Dammages that part of the Assumpsit was to turn over the Defendants Trade and dammages given for that which is impossible Roll Iustice said if dammages entire be given for some things with others wherof some are impossible the dammages shall be deemed to be given for those that are possible and void to the rest The Iudgement was affirmed Peeling against Ken. Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 24 Car. rot 89. PEeling brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award against Ken. The Defendant pleads Nullum Arbitrium Demurrer to a Replication in Debt upon on obligation to stand to an award The Plaintiff replies and sets forth the Award in haee verba and assigns a breach The Defendant demurs to the Replication and the Plaintiff joyns in the Demurrer The causes assigned for the Demurer were 1. To the Award it self Award which is that whereas it appears that there was six pound and a shilling due by the Plaintiff
a Plea was peremptory or that there might be a Respondes ouster Peremptory Plea The Defendant appears in Michaelmas Term and imparâ—s to Hillary Term and before the day of Continuance pleads a Plea in abatement to which the Plaintiff demurs Yard of Councel with the Plaintiff said he conceived the Plea was peremptory to the Defendant because it comes after an imparlance a Continuance and so comes in lieu of a Peremptory for the Law admits but one delay and therefore the Defendant should have pleaded in Chief and not having done it his Plea shall be as if it were a Plea in Chief over-ruled and cited Long Quit. E. 4. f. 139. Roll Iustice You cite not the Book as it is here is but a Plea in Abatement and the Continuance makes it not peremptory 2 Ed. 4. f. 10. A second Exception was that the Plaintiff hath not demurred upon the Plea but pleaded to issue and here is a departure from the general issue Departure 34 H. 6. f. 8 9. Roll Iustice The Book is against you for upon a Demurrer a Plea dilatory is not peremptory but upon an issue joyned it is Yard The delay of the Demurrer makes it peremptory 22 H. 6. f. 55. Roll Iustice The Book cited is against you and in 50 E. 3. f. 20. Difference There is a difference taken betwéen the delay of the Court and the delay of the party and here is no delay in the party for he might have been forced by the rules of the Court to hasten the proceedings and the Book of 34 H. 6. is against you The Plea in Abatement ought not to have been received after imparlance but if it be received a Demurrer upon it it cannot be helped and if one plead a Plea after imparlance Plea which ought not to be pleaded the Plaintiff may pray the Court to over-rule it but if he demur upon it he admits that the Plea may be and one may plead a Plea in Bar by way of abatement e contra Therefore let the Defendant plead in Chief if cause be not shewed on Friday to the contrary Burges against Dynham Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 23 Car. rot 1191. BUrges brought an Action of Trespass against Dynham for taking 24 load of Tymber Demurrer upon a Plea of Iustification The Defendant justifies that he took the Tymber as a Deputy of a Purve your to the King for the reparations of the Mansion houses of the King To this Plea of Iustification the Plaintiff demurs and for cause sheweth that it doth not appear that the Defendant hath any authority by the Common-law or by Statute to take this Tymber for the Commission which gives this authority ought to be renewed every sir Months Commission and it doth not appear that it was so in this Case 2 Institut f. 545. 10 E. 4. 2 3. 2ly He hath not shewed that the Houses were in decay when he took the Tymber and he cannot take it to make a Common stock to repair them afterward when they should fall to decay Purveyours 3ly Purveyours ought to pay ready mony for the commodities they take and he doth not shew in our Case that he paid ready mony for the Tymber by the Stat. 36 Ed. 3. C. 2. 47 Ed. 3. f. 8. but by 22 Ed. 3. Tit. Bar. 259. it seems to be otherwise but the Case there differs from this Case for there it was that a Purveyour may take Horses to use for a time without paying mony but it was not to alter the property 4ly He hath not shewed that he endevoured to agree with the Plaintiff for his Timber as he ought to have done Plea Hill 2 Car. rot 509. Parker and Sturgens case 5ly The plea is hudled up and is not pleaded particularly and distinctly as it ought to be so that the Plaintiff knows not how to take an issue 10 H. 7. The rule of Court was to bear the other side Friday next Brereton and Monington Trin 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an inferiour Court and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement given in an infetiour court Plaint Amendment that the Plaint was entred against Francis and the proceedings were against Iohn Roll Iustice said that it was not good for a Plaint is in the nature of an original writ and therefore if that be erroneous it cannot be helped though it be after a verdict And therefore shew cause Saturday next why the Iudgement should not be reversed Gallop against Symson Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. CHase brings an Action of Trover and Conversion against Gallop Error to reverse a judgement in a trover and conversion and his wife and a stranger in the Common pleas and hath a verdict and a Iudgement against them The Defendant brings a writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement and assigns for Error that the Plaintiff declares that the goods for which the Action is brought venerunt ad usum ipsorum viz. of the Husband and his wife and the stranger which cannot be Declaration for they cannot be said to come to the use of a Feme covert Roll Iustice This is not good for he ought not to declare that the goods came to the use of the Feme but to the use of the Husband only And therefore reversetur judicium except cause shewn to the contrary Saturday next Wainewright and VVhitly Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VVAinewright brought an Action upon the Case against Whitly Arrest of judgement in an action upon the case for these words spoken of him Thou art a theef and hast broke my Chest The Plaintiff hath a verdict The Defendant in arrest of Iudgement moves that the words are not actionable But Roll Iustice said notwithstanding my Lord Hobarts opinion he held the words are actionable for the word and is cumulative and aggravates the former words Cumulative Explanatory are not barely explanatory and the subsequent words are violent and may very well stand with the former Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement The King and Camell Trin. 24 Car. Banc Reg. ANn Camell endicted at Southwold in Suffolk for Felony and Witch-craft was brought to the Bar by an habeas corpus An arraignment for witch-craft and was here arraigned The prisoner desired Walker for her Councel Roll Iustice asked her for what cause and matter she did desire Councell To which the prisoner making no answer Roll Iustice viewed the Endictment and upon that assigned her Walker for her Councel and gave him the next day to shew his exceptions against the Endictment at which time Walker desired that the Endictment might be read which was done and upon the reading of it he took these exceptions 1. To the caption wherein it is expressed that the Endictment was taken in pena cessione Endictment where it should be in plena cessione To this Roll answered if
the word pena be left out the Endictment is good enough without it and therefore passes ouster A second exception was that the Endictment doth not say that the Iustices before whom it was taken were justiciarii ad pacem tenendam in villa praedicta and then they might have no power to find the Endictment but this exception was also over-ruled by the Court A third exception was That the Endictment is too general for it only sayes that the prisoner practicavit diabolias artes and doth not expresse what To this Roll Justice answered that the employing of wicked spirits to any intent whatsoever is Felony within the Statute Felony and the intent why they were employed is well expressed in the Endictment and if an Endictment fail in one part it may be good in another and therefore the Endictment is good and the prisoner must plead Whereupon the prisoner pleaded not guilty Vpon this Walker moved the Court that this was an old Endictment and that the prisoner had been twice acquitted upon other Endictments of the same nature and that this was prosecuted for malice and prayed that the prisoner might be bailed which was granted And she was bailed by her Husband and by one Zachary Baggs a sufficient Citizen and Fishmonger of London and two others to appear at the next Assises to be held for the County of Suffolk Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment exhibited upon the Statute of perjury at Kingston upon Thames for these exceptions To quash an Endictment upon the Statute of perjury 1. It is not expressed in what County Kingston is and 2ly the Endictment doth not expresse how the party is perjured for it shews not in what cause it was nor that it was in giving any evidence upon oath as a witnesse in any cause Vpon these exceptions the Endictment was quashed Nota Butler against Long. Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 24 Car. rot 496. LOng brought an Action of Trespasse against Butler in the City of _____ and hath a verdict and a Iudgement Error to reverse a judgement given in an inferiour Court the Defendant brings a writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement and assigns for Error 1. That the Declaration doth not shew in what Parish within the City the Trespasse was done as he ought To this Roll Iustice answered That it shall not be intended that there are more Parishes within the City than one Intention except the contrary be shewed 2ly The Declaration est quod cum talis viz. the Defendant c. which is not an expresse averment Declaration Trespasse that the Defendant did the Trespasse but it is set forth only by way of circumstance that he did it which is not good for he ought to be charged directly with it Roll Iustice The setting forth the Trespasse by a Quod cum is not good tho gh in another Action it may be good Therefore let the Iudgement be reversed except cause shewn to the contrary Saturday next VValker and Alder Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg ALder had a Iudgement and an Execution against Walker Auditaquereld for one taken twice upon one execution and thereupon he was taken and in custody in the Kings Bench prison Alder the Plaintiff afterwards consented that the Defendant Walker should come to him out of prison to the Horshoe Tavern which was out of the Rule without a Keeper or rule of Court thinking to make some agreement with him The Defendant accordingly went thither but because no agreement could be made The Plaintiff takes the Defendant again upon the same Execution and layes him again in the Kings Bench Audita querela Discharge the Defendant thereupon brings his audita querela And adjudged by the Court to be well brought for the Execution was discharged by the Prisoners going at large and therefore he could not be again taken upon it Reader against Palmer Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. REader brought an Action upon the Case against Palmer Arrest of Iudgement in action upon the case for altering the Declaratio and hath a verdict the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff altered his Declaration in the consideration of the promise and in the promise it self after he had pleaded so that thereby the same issue which is tryed is not that which was joyned Twisden of Councell with the Plaintiff said that the issue was not altered for the words altered are not material words Wild of Councell with the Defendant said the issue was altered by alteration of the words for the Action is brought upon a special promise and not upon a promise in Law as the altering of the words have made the promise to be and therefore it is a material alteration Roll Iustice said it is a material thing that is altered and it ought not to be amended An Actual promise and a consideration continuing Amendment cannot be taken to be at another time Hodg and Vavisors case 14 Iac. Barton and Shurlyes case Mich. 15 Car. And therefore give new rules to plead and so proceed according to the course to a new tryal VVolverly Strachy against Trin 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VVOlverly Strachy brought an Action upon the Case against the Defendant Demurrer upon a plea in an action for scandalous words Plea declared that whereas she was a woman of agood fame and honest reputation c. The Defendant spake these words of her viz. she is a common Whore and I will prove her one by reason whereof she lost her credit and reputation and her mariage The Defendant pleaded that she was not of an honest reputation at the time when he spake these words of her as is alleged in the Declaration The Plaintiff demurs generally to this plea. Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff except cause should be shewed Saturday next to the contrary Antea and the Lord Moone Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. MY Lord Moone had a Sute commenced against him in this Court For a supersedeas for a Peer of the Realm Supersedeas Privilege and thereupon he moves by his Councel upon an affidavit that he was a Peer of the Realm and a Lord of the Parliament and therefore ought not to be sued and prayes for a supersedeas to stay the proceedings Roll Iustice Plead your privilege for upon an affidavit we will make no rule or else acquaint the other party that he is a Peer of the Realm and it is like he will forbear to proceed thereupon But you ought not to trouble the Court with such motions as these Cornish against Cowsye Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1434. COrnish brought an Action of Debt against Cowsye an Executor Special verdict in Debt for rent against an Executor for arrerages of rent incurred part in the life of the Testator and part in the time of the Executor The Plaintiff declares upon a lease made by him to the Testator by
said by the Councel on the other side that this matter ought not to be assigned for Error Error because it is against the Record on the other side it was inssisted upon that he may assign it for Error Roll Iustice said it may be assigned for Error but it is a Question how it shall be tryed for it is not upon a Demurrer and so the matter is not before us 11 Car. Smith and Smith And this cause ought not as it is to have been put into the Paper VVorsely against VVorsely Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 24 Car. rot 489. VVorsely brought an Action of Accompt against Worsely Demurrer upon a plea in an action of Accompt Bar. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff stands convicted upon the Statute made against Recusancy and demands Iudgement Si actio The Plaintiff demurs upon the Plea Wild of Councel with the Plaintiff said that this matter ought not to be pleaded in Bar of the Action but he ought to conclude only Iudgement if he shall be answered The Councel on the other side desired time to speak in it Roll Iustice Shew cause Monday next why Iudgement shall not be given against you Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for the quashing of an Endictment upon the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. against forcible entries For quashing an Endictment County Liberty The exception taken against it was that the Endictment doth not shew in what County the forcible Entry was upon which the Endictment was grounded Roll Iustice answered if it be within a Liberty it is not necessary Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an endictment of Perjury against Stephen Burton The Exceptions taken to the Endictmment were these For quashing an Endictment of perjury 1. The Endictment is said to be taken in plena Sessione pacis and it doth not appear to be the Quarter Sessions as by the Statute it ought 2ly It is said that the Defendant dixit c. and doth not shew where or in what Plea he gave the evidence wherein the perjury was committed 3ly It doth not say that the Defendant gave the evidence corruptive as it ought to do 4ly The prejudice is not said to be ad grave damnum of any body and so no body being prejudiced by it none ought to be endicted for it Roll Iustice said it is not enough to say the Endictment was taken in plena Cessione generally but it must appear in what Sessions it was Therefore let cause be shewn why it should not be quashed It was afterwards quashed because it did not shew that any of the Iustices before whom it was taken were of the Quorum and not for the other exceptions Howard Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Iudgement was given in an Action of Debt in this Court Error in the Exchequer-Chamber to reverse a judgement given in Debin this Court Bar. The Defendant brings a Writ of Error in the Chequer Chamber to reverse this Iudgement and removes the Record thither The Plaintiff brings an Action of Debt in this Court upon the Iudgement given here The Defendant pleads in bar of this Action Nul tiel record and upon this the Plaintiff demurs and the Court after motions and arguments on both sides was by the Plaintiffs Councel moved for Iudgement for him upon the Demurrer But Roll Iustice answered Iudgement If you will have a Curia advisare vult you shall have it if not take your course for the Record is not here before us Therfore we can give no Iudgement The King against Trigg Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash a Presentment against Trigg for not going before a Iustice of Peace to take the Oath of an Headborow For quashing an Endictment for not being sworn a Headborow to which office he was chosen at a Léet The Exceptions taken against it were 1. That it doth not appear that any notice was given to him to go before the Iustice â—ly it appears not that the Iustice had authority to administer the Oath For the first exception the Presentment was quashed Collins against Page Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Mich. 23 Car. to 269. A Plaint was entred in the Court of Plymouth against Page for threescore pounds Error to reverse a judgment in Debt upon a Custom in Plymouth and a pone taken out against his Goods and upon this a default and thereupon another pone issued out to attatch the Defendants Goods and the Defendant at three other Courts successively makes default and upon the fourth default Iudgement was given against him Whereupon the Defendant brings a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement â—and assigns for Error that here is a Iudgement given before any appearance which cannot be but in this Case the Goods attatched are only forfeited for the default made by the Defendants non-apparance Forfeiture The Councel on the other side desired time to answer the exception Roll Iustice The Custom upon which this judgement is given is not reasonable Custom Therefore if you answer not the exception Tuesday next the Iudgement shall be reversed Skete against Clay Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 24 Car. rot 180. CLay brought an Action of Trespass against Skete for taking away his goods and had a verdict and a Iudgement in the Common Pleas. Error to reverse a Iudgement in Trespass Declaration The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse this judgement and the Errors assigned were to the Declaration because it had not proper latine words to expresse the goods for 1. it is said that the Plaintiff took away decem Velamins Anglice Coifes whereas Velamina signifies coverings generally 2. Pilum is used for Pileum in English a Cap. 3. Decem Colores Anglice Neckbands 4. Cruralia Anglice Garters 5. He declares de uno instrumento Anglice a Plate for a Iack. And 6ly Pro uno operimento Anglice a Rayl But Roll Iustice said We must not be too curious to expresse all things in Latin words in all Cases for it cannot be done Description and therefore a description with an Anglice must serve and so it may here therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement Aylet against Oats Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THis Case was moved again Error to reverse a judgement entire good in part and ill to other part and upon view of the Book Roll Iustice held that the Iudgement was entire and ought to be reversed for the whole although it be good in some part of it and he cited Trin. 14 Car. Scudamore and Scudamores Case 8 Car. Gritewel Morefields Case Trin. 11 Car. Eltonhead and Deerhams Case and Trin. 7. Iac. rot 566. Bird and Ormes case and 5. Rep. Specots Case and 13 Car. Dye and Atkins Case and upon these authorities the judgement was reversed Sir Charls Coot against Plunket Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved on the
part of the Defendant To be discharged upon Common Bail that the Plaintif had declared upon an obligation with a condition but had not set it forth in the Declaration and therefore desired that he may either have Oyer of it or else that the Declaration being imperfect so that he cannot plead and he being now in prison may otherwise be set at large Roll Iustice We cannot compell the Plaintiff to set forth the condition of the Obligation but till he doth the Defendant shall not be compelled to plead Plea and let the Plaintiff shew cause upon not ice given to him why the Defendant shall not goe at large upon Common bail It was moved again Common Bail and then Roll Iustice said If you arrest one and doe not proceed in three Terms he ought to goe out upon Common Bail But move it again to morrow Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. To quash an endictment of perjury against perjury The exceptions taken against it were 1. The Endictment saith the Oath was taken before Baron Atkins and Serjeant Turner but it doth not say where viz. whether it were at the Sessions or Assizes 2ly It saith the Oath was taken Coram Iusticiariis Domini Regis but it doth not express what Iustices they were The Endictment was quashed for the first Exception The King against Bellingham Trin 24 Car. Banc. Reg. BEllingham was indicted upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. For moderation of a sine upon conviction for perjury against perjury and pleaded Not Guilty and was found Guilty The Case was this Bellingham had a Process delivered him out of the Court of Wards to serve upon one which he did accordingly and upon the return thereof he made Oath that he served the Process upon the party the 8th day of the Month whereas it was the 9th day but it appeared upon examination of the matter that the Oath was not taken malitiously but only rashly and upon this the Court was moved to set a moderate fine Fine Roll Iustice said because it was so therefore let the fine be but 10 l. Gallop against Chase Trin. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. Pasch 24. Car. rot 250. THe Case of Chase and Gallop was again moved Error to reverse a judgement in Trover and Conversion which was this Chase brought an action of Trover and Conversion in the Common Pleas against Gallop and his wife and a Stranger and declares that the Baron and Feme and the stranger converterunt ad usum suum proprium The Plaintif had a Verdict and Iudgement The Defendant brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement and assigns for Error that the Declaration is not good for it declares of a Conversion made by the Feme to her own use which cannot be she being a Feme Covert Roll Iustice said The Declaration doth intend that all the Defendants did convert the goods Declaration Feme Covert Conversion which cannot be for the Feme cannot convert them and cited Crow and Bakers case 1 Caroli 7 H. 7. f. 3. Therefore let the Iudgement be reversed Trin. 24. Car. Banc. reg THe Court was moved for a Certiorari to remove an Order of Sessions made for the electing of one to be a Constable For a Certiorari that the Order may be confirmed here and the Constable compelled to be sworn Roll Iustice answered That by granting it the execution of Iustice by the Iustices in the Country will be hindred therefore appeal to the Iustices of Assize for we will not grant a Certiorari Vpon this a writ was prayed out of this Court to compell the Constable to be sworn which was granted Mandamus Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Iudgement was given in the Common Pleas in an ejectione firmae quod recuperet writ of Enquiry taken out Whether a Writ of Error good but before it was executed and retorned the Defendant brought a writ of Error and the question was whether the writ of Error lay or no. Turner of Councel with the Defendant in the writ of Error argued that it did not lie because the Original writ was not determined when the writ of Error was brought and so the Iudgement was not perfect or compleat and consequently a writ of Error could not be brought to reverse it and that the writ is not determined nor the Iudgement prefect is proved because the Action being an ejectione firmae here is no costs and damages found nor is there any habere faciaâ— possessionem retorned which are the fruits of the judgement and and he cited 34 H. 8. f. 18. 39 H. 8. Fitz. Error 40. 36 37 Eliz. in the Common Pleas Year and Peverells Case 6 Car. Banc. Reg. But Roll Iustice said here is ideo consideratum est quod recuperet Judgement which is a perfect Iudgement but it had not been so if the Iudgement had been quod recuperare debeat and it is in your power whether you will have a writ of enquiry or not and if he judgement be affirmed here upon the writ of Error brought you may have a writ of enquiry here in this Court Brev. d'enquiry The Councel thereupon moved for a Certiorari Roll Iustice Take it but it will doe you no good for the judgement is well Stent against Trin. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. STent brought an Action upon the case for speaking these scandalous words of him Arrest of Judgement in an Action for scandalous words Thou art a pick pocket Rogue and hast picked thy masters pocket and his Money-box and I will prove it The Plaintif had a Verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of judgement that the words are not actionable for that they are too general and uncertain The Iudgement was arrested till the Plaintif should move Trin. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. A Certiorari was granted out of this Court to removed certain endictments of forcible entries For a Supersedeâ—s to a Certiorari whereas in truth there were no Endictments of forcible entry found against the party upon this a Supersedeas was prayed to supersede the Certiorari Roll Iustice This Certiorari was gotten by way of pervention for what might be done Procedendo but take a Procedendoto the Justices to proceed notwithstanding the Certiorari Trin. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. A Scire facias was taken out to revive a judgement For the Defendant to plead in chief after imparlance and to have execution The Defendant appears and imparls and after imparlance pleads in abatement of the Scire facias that the Plaintif had taken out a former Scire facias for the same cause which is yet depending It was moved for the Plaintif that the Defendant ought not to plead this plea in abatement after imparlance but that he ought to plead in chief Roll Iustice Let him plead such a plea as he will abide by within a week
must not be too hasty to overthrow such presentments which so much concern the publique good And in this case if there be a conviction in law Conviction Travers and the fine levyed we cannot help it and now you cannot traverse for it is too late Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper against St. Iohn Mich. 4 Car. Banc. Reg. SIr Anthony Ashley Cooper brought an Action of Trespasse upon the Case for false imprisonment of him against St. John Arrest of Judgement in an action on the case and hath a verdict against him the Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and takes this Exception to the Declaration that it wanted vi et armis which ought to have been because this is not a meer Action upon the Case but in its nature it is an Action of Trespasse and therefore he ought to have been declared in with vi et armis Roll Iustice answered what say you to the Case Declaration quare fregit suum mill dam which hath been adjudged good without vi et armis as well as with vi et armis and in one case it shall be said to be an Action of Trespasse viz. with the vi et armis and in the other an Action upon the Case viz. without the vi et armis and Bacon Iustice cited the 9. rep The Earl of Shrewsburyes Case Roll Iustice It is a plain Action upon the Case as it may appear by reading of the Record for it is with an et quod cum Bacon Iustice said one cannot have an Action of Trespasse for the breaking of another mans fence but if he be damnifyed by the breaking of it Tresasse Case he may have an Action upon the Case against the party that broke it Ayre against Sils Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AYre brought an Action upon the Case against Sils Arrest of Judgement in an action upon an assumpsit Case upon a promise to pay certain arrerages of rent appearing due unto him upon an accompt made between him and the Defendant The Plaintiff had a verdict The Defendant moves in Arrest of Iudgement and for cause shews that an Action upon the Case doth not ly upon a promise to pay rent appearing due upon accompt for the rent was due by a reall contract and upon that the Plaintiff had remedy without the promise To this the Court said that this Action doth not ly for rent alone due upon a real contract but for the rent with other things it doth lye yet let the Iudgement be stayed for there is here no new consideration appearing to ground this promise upon but only the old consideration of Law for the payment of the rent and upon that an Action of the Case doth not ly for it is in the realty Tomkins against Jourden Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 24 Car. rot 96. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given in an inferiour Court these Errors we are assigned Error to reverse a judgement given in an inferiour court 1. It is said in the stile of the Court that the Court was held per consuetudinem et literas patences which is not good for the Court cannot be held by both Roll Iustice This is not good 2ly Against the writ of Error it is objected by the other side that the writ of Error is directed to one and is retorned by another for the certiorari was to certyfie a Iudgement given before the Maior Aldermen and Recorder and the Iudgement certifyed is a Iudgement given before the Maior and the Aldermen and the Recorder is left out so that the Record is not removed and then the Iudgement cannot be affirmed Roll Iustice said the pleading is confused and Bacon Iustice said you have changed the stile of the corporation by your pleading If a Court be held by Custom Custom and after a patent be purchased to hold it and they hold it by the patent the Custom is gone but bring us a Copy of the certificate of the stile of the Court and in the mean time we will advise Pickering against Barkley Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 24 Car. rot 154. PIckering brought an Action of Covenant upon a deed of Covenants of Charter-party Demurrer upon a plea in an action of covenant whereby it was Covenanted that the Defendant in consideration of a certain sum of mony agreed to be paid to the Defendant for fraight of a Ship should make such a voyage and bear all losses and damage which should befall the Ship or Merchandises in her excepting only perills of the Sea and declares that the Defendant had not performed his agreement and for this he brings his Action The Defendant pleads that in the making of his voyage upon the Sea the Ship was taken per quosdam ignotos homines bellicosos whereby he was hindred in making of the voyage according to his agreement to this plea the Plaintiff demurs The question was in regard that in the Charter party perills of the Seas were excepted whether the taking of the Ship by these unknown men of War should be accompted a perill of the Sea or not according to the meaning of Merchants Twisden of Councel with the Plaintiff held it should not and so the plea was not good and that therefore the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment and said this was not a danger of the Sea but a danger upon the Sea 2ly He said the party it may be might have prevented it by vigilancy or by making resistance and so it may be it was his own fault the Ship was taken 3ly The men of Warr that took the Ship were peradventure English men and then the Defendant is not to be excused for he may have his remedy for what he is damnified against them and cited 33 H. 6. f. 1. and prayed Iudgement for the Plaintiff Hales of Councel with the Defendant held that to be taken and robbed by Pirates is a danger of the Sea even as tempestuous winds and Shelfs and Rocks are And 2ly To that it is said the pirates may be English men we are not able to say of what Nation they were and therefore our plea is good in that point also and prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll Iustice said it was not well pleaded to say per homines ignotos Bacon Iustice said The Defendant doth not shew that he and his Ship was carryed per locos incognitos as he should have shewn Plea but Roll Iustice answered that it may be the Ship is yet kept upon the Sea but I suppose that Pirates are perils of the Sea and to this purpose a certificate of Merchants was read in Court that they were so esteemed amongst Merchants Yet the Court desired to have Granly the Master of the Trinity house and other sufficient Merchants to be brought into the Court to satisfie the Court viva voce Friday next following Iudgement was given this Term nil capiat per billam because the taking by Pirates
because of a mistryal for taking away divers parcels of Ribbin from him The Defendants pleaded by way of Iustification the Custom of London against Hawkers viz. to take away wares from any that sold them up and down the Streets The Plaintiff replyed that there was no such custom and issue was taken upon it thereupon the custom was certifyed by the mouth of the Recorder a tryal upon it in London a verdict for the Defendants The Plaintiff moved in arrest of Iudgement that it was a mis-tryal because it was before them that were interesâ—ed in the cause and therefore desired there might be another tryal Roll Iustice said it is against natural equity for one to be Iudge in his own cause Tryal although the other party admit it to be so and therefore it is a mistryall though it were at the request of the Plaintiff because it is against natural reason 8 E. 3. f. 69. 5 Ed. 3.8 9 H. 7. f. 21. Hil. 38 Eliz. in the Exchequer The prayer of the Plaintiff cannot help the tryal for the consent of both partyes cannot change the Law much lesse the prayer of one of the partyes Hales of Councel with the Defendants argued that it was not a mis-tryall and said this concerns them in point of privilege of the City and not meerly in point of interest before whom the Iudgement was gievn 2ly The consent of the party hath barred him of the advantage which otherwise he might have had But Roll Iustice answered here is point of interest as well as point of privilege for part of the goods taken come to the benefit of the City and therefore they ought not to be their own Iudges for this is against natural reason and so it is a mistryal But it doth not appear here whether the Maior and Aldermen be another Corporation or not and distinct from the Corporation alleged which certified this custom by the mouth of the Recorder and this is the sole doubt in the Case The Court ordered that there should be a new tryal except cause shewn to the contrary Q. whether there shall be a Repleader or a new venire VVhite and his wife against Harwood and his wife Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. WHite and his wife brought an Action upon the Case for standerous words Whether a writ abated by death of one of the defendants Abatement against Harwood and his wife the Defendant dyes the Feme takes another Husband pending the sute It was moved that the writ was abated The Court inclined that because the Defendant had by her mariage changed her name therefore the Writ was abated but took time to advise Slade Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for Iudgement formerly stayed upon a certificate made by Baron Atkins For Iudgement stayed upon a Iudges certificat that the verdict passed against his opinon Bacon Iustice said Iudgements have been arrested in the Common pleas upon such certificates Hales of Councell with the Defendant prayed that this Iudgement might be arrested and that there might be a new tryal for that it hath been done heretofore in like cases But Roll Iustice held it ought not to be stayed Attaint 9 though it have been done in the Common pleas for it was too Arbitrary for them to do it and you may have your attaint against the Iury and there is no other remedy in Law for you but it were good to advise the party to suffer a new tryal for better satisfaction And let the Defendant take four dayes from hence to speak in arrest of Iudgement if the postea be brought in if not then four dayes from the time it shall be brought in Andrews against Baily Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a tryal at the Bar between Andrews and Baily Denisation by Letters parents do enable to purchase not to inherit lands Denization Inheritance upon an ejectment lease touching Sir Iohn Prowds title to Lands It was said that a man cannot be a subject to two several Princes And that denisation by letters patents do enable the party to purchase Lands but not to inherit the Lands of his Ancestor as Heir at Law But as a purchasor he may enjoy lands of his Ancestor Dunch against Smith and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 23 Car. rot 37. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as an Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator Demurrer to a Declaration in Debt against Smith and others the occupyers of the Land The Defendants demur to the Declaration and for cause shew that it doth not set forth what estate the Defendants have in the lands charged with the rent and so it appears not that they are to pay the rent Hales of Councell with the plaintiff answered that it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to set it forth for he is a stranger to the Estate cannot know what Estate it is Roll Iustice said It doth not appear by the Declaration whether the Defendants claim under him that granted the rent or no. But move it again Saturday next Postea Smith against Hale Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. SMith brought an Action of Debt against Hale for rent Demurrer to privilege of Parliament The Defendant pleaded that he is Tenant and Servant to the Lord Moone a Lord of the Parliament and prayes his Writ of Privilege may be allowed The Plaintiff demurs It was argued by Barton of the middle Temple that the plea was ill for the very matter of it for the privilege is against the Common Law and also against the Statute Law and for proof cited 1 E. 1. f. 26. 2 E. 3. f. 3. 2 Ed. 6. C. 8. Roll Iustice answered Privilege you ought not to argue generally against the Privilege of Parliament for you know that every Court hath its privilege as this Court also hath therefore apply your self particularly to this question Admittance whether a Writ of privilege belongs to a Parliament man so far as to protect his Lands and Estate and I conceive he is so priviledged And you have admitted his privilege by your own Demurrer But we will advise Wright Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to perform Articles Plaintiff after a verdict for him moves for a new tryal The Defendant pleaded Covenants performed The Plaintiff had a verdict and after verdict and before Iudgement he moved for a new tryal because it appeared that there was no issue joyned the Plaintiff moved it for his own expedition for he feared if he should enter Iudgement that the Defendant would bring a Writ of Error The Court answered that there was a perfect issue joyned but the pleading is not good and it was your own fault to joyn issue upon such a pleading when you might have demurred Tryall Yet let the Defendant shew cause why he should not consent to a new tryal and a Repleader Mich. 24 Car. Banc.
a verdict and upon the Defendants motion the Iudgement was former y stayed The Plaintiff moves for Iudgement notwithstanding for that the words are actionable The Court said the words are scandalous and by them he is disgraced in his Trade Hales of Councel with the Defendant said that there were other words in the Declaration which are not actionable and yet dammages are given for both Dammages which ought not to be and therefore no Iudgement could be given The words said not to be actinable were these Have a care and do not trust him for he will run away and pay you nothing But the Court held that both the words taken together are actionable and ruled the Plaintiff to have his Iudgement for both the words if better matter be not shewed Nelson against Tompson Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 24 Car. rot 343. NElson brought an Action of Debt against Tompson upon an Obligation with a Condition to save the Plaintiff harmless Demurrer to a replication in Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleaded non damnificatus The Plaintiff replyed and shewed a breach on the Defendants part whereby he was damnified The Defendant demurs to the replication and for cause shews that the breach was assigned to be at Westminster Place and doth not shew in what County Westminster is The Court held that though Westminster be a City yet it ought to be shewed in what County it lyes because it is not a County of it self Therefore advise what you will do for the Action is fit to be discontinued Discontinuance Thyn against Thyn Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. LAtch moved again in this case that the Summons doth not appear upon the retorn to be well made Whether a Summons well retorned for it is not said to be made at the Church-dore as the Statute directs To this nothing was answered But Bacon Iustice said the retorn was naught for another reason and so there is no Record before us to proceed upon in the Writ of Error the fault is this The Custos brevium ought to make the retorn here and it is mentioned to be made per unum deputatorum suorum Retorn whereas his Deputy had no authority to do it Therefore you had best to take a new Writ of Certiorari and certifie the same matter by it and this the Court may grant though it be very rare for if one will assign an Error in a Record and pray a Certificate and nothing be done upon it we cannot proceed Consider which way you can help this fault Tracye against Poole Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. TRacye brought an Action upon the Case against Poole upon a promise Arrest of Iudgement in an action on the Case upon a promise and declares that Poole the Defendant in consideration of a mariage to be had between the Plaintiffs son and the Defendants daughter of setling so much Land upon him upon the mariage He did assume and promise that within such a time after the mariage had he and his Son should be bound per scriptum suum debita juris forma fiend unto the Plaintif for the payment for 3000 l. for a mariage portion assigns the breach that the Defendant his son did not become bound per scriptum suum Obligatorium for the payment of the 3000 l. and for this he brings his Action The Plaintiff had a verdict The Defendant in arest of Iudgment moves that the breach was not well assigned Breach for the Assumpsit was that the Defendant and his Son should be bound per scriptum suum debita juris forma fiend and the breach is that they did not give security per scriptum suum Obligatorium which agrees not with the Assumpsit for the Defendant might give security by a Iudgement which is not scriptum suum yet it is debita forma juris factum upon this the Iudgement was for that time stayed though then Bacon Iustice enclined that the breach was well assigned because in common construction it shall be intended that the Defendant assumed to give his own and his sons bond for security Hales of Councel with the Plaintiff at another day moved for Iudgement and held that the breach was well assigned for that it expresseth the substance of the promise though not the very words of it and this was held good 7 Car. in Michill and Cars case 2ly If the meaning of the promise be considered it will appear that the Defendant and his Son were to be bound by Obligation 6 Car. Courtny and Gavills Case and indeed the promise cannot be satisfied by any other way than by an Obligation for a Iudgment or a Statute will not do it for by them he is not said to be bound and though all this be admitted against me yet it is now after a verdict and the Iury have found the breach Maynard for the Defendant argued that the breach was not well assigned for the breach assigned tends to a personal engagement for paying the 3000 l. which is not so expressed in the promise but only a general security to be given for the monies and a recognisance and a judgement are not properly scriptum as in 9 Car. Goldsmith and Sydners Case and the Declaration doth not set forth the death of Sir Henry Poole by whom the security was to be given and so it cannot appear whether he had a convenient time to do it as he ought to have and he held that the Plaintiff was bound to do the first act viz. to tender the Obligation to the Defendant or else he is not bound to seal and deliver any Request and also he ought to make a particular request to him to seal and deliver it Hales replyed if a man plead a Statute it is true that he ought to say per scriptum suum Pleading but pleading ought to be more nice than common parlance 2ly The living of Sir Henry Poole is expressed and there appears time convenient between the promise and the time of his death for performing of it 3ly It is not necessary for us to tender a bond but the other ought to have done it at his own perill for it is to be done at his charge and not at ours Roll Chief Iustice held that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff and said that for the laying of the promise it is not necessary to pursue the very words of the promise but the substance so that there may appear to the Court that there is cause of Action 2ly He held that there is no variance in the substance for the intent of the parties is to be considered which was to have another act done by Sir Henry Poole and his Son per aliquod scriptum and not by a verbal promise and we are to consider if the breach assigned agree to this and he held that the promise will extend to a Iudgement or a recognisance for a Iudgement Statute or Recognisance
really a Copyholder and cited Shellyes case and prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said This Case differs from surrendring into the hands of Tenants for it is into the hands of the Steward out of Court Surrend Admission which is good and the Lords acceptance of his rent is an admission But Bacon doubted and therefore the rule was for the Case to be argued again the next Term and then by reason of sicknesse I was absent But that Term held not by reason of the Kings death Dunch against Smith Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator against Dunch Arrest of Iudgement in Debt brought by an Executor an occupyer of the land out of which the rent was issuing and hath a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and for Cause shewed that the Plaintiff doth not shew any title that the Defendant hath in the Land but only sayes generally that he entred into the Lands and so it appears not that he is to pay the rent To this the Councel on the other side answered that the Plaintiff being but an Executor cannot know the title and therefore is not bound to shew it Roll chief Iustice said there can be no Iudgement for the Declaration is too generall But Bacon Iustice held the Declaration good enough Antea Brown against Poyns Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case was this a man made his last Will and made two Executors For a prohibition to repeal an administration Prohibition Appeal the Executors dye in the life of the Testator the Testator dyes having two Sisters the eldest Sister procures Administration the younger Sister moves for a Prohibition to repeal the Administration because she being in equal degree of king ought to have equall share of the Administration But the Court answered that a prohibition lies not for you may appeal if the Administration be not rightly granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Processe issued out of this Court for a Cart and Horses that were cause of a mans death as a deodand 12. Iac. To stay processe for a deodand and it was moved that there hath been a generall pardon by Parliament since that time by which deodands were pardoned and therefore it was prayed the processe might be stayed General pardon The Court asked whether there be not an exception of deodands or the Almoners interest in the pardon The Councell answered there is not The Court demanded by what words in the pardon are deodands pardoned The Councel answered by the generall words The Court ordered thereupon it should be stayed till the Almoner be heard what he can say Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a habeas Corpus for one that was taken in Execution by the Sheriff and was afterwards set at liberty For a habeas corpus for one taken upon one Execution Audita querela and after that retaken upon the same Execution The Court answered take it but you are in the wrong way for you ought to bring your audita querela The King against Bray Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry made upon a Lessee for years upon the Statute of 21 Iac. To quash an Endictment of forcible entry The exceptions taken to it were 1. It doth not appear by the Endictment that the Lessee had any title to the Land at the time of the force committed for the force is supposed to be done before the lease commenced 2ly The lease is supposed to be a lease for so many years if I. S. shall so long live and it is not averred that I. S. was alive at the time of the forcible entry made Averment Roll chief Iustice cited the Lady Morlyes case that there ought to be a direct allegation of the life Therefore let it be quashed Mich. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery of an overseer of the poor villae de A. in executing of his office The exceptions taken to it were To quash an Endictment for assaulting a Collector for the poor 1. That there is no such officer as an overseer of the poor villae but it ought to be parochiae but the Court said it was well enough as it was though it had been more proper the other way 2ly The Endictment is for the Assaulting and beating a Collector for the poor in executing his office whereas there is no such office appointed for any one particular man by the Law for the Statute is that there shall be two Collectors for the poor in every Parish and so the office is joynt and not several But the Court over-ruled this exception also 3ly It wants vi et Armis Vpon this exception the Court bid the Councel move it again Gill against Crosse Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against two as Administrators upon fully administred pleaded issue was ioyned Speciall verdict in Debt against Executors and a speciall verdict was found to this effect viz. that one of the Administrators had fully administred and that the other Administrator had assets It was urged against the Verdict that the issue that was found is impertinent and impossible Verdict Iudgement and so there can be no judgement given upon it But the Court answered that the verdict is good yet if Iudgement should be given upon it the Iudgement would be ill and Nevills and Greenwoods case Hill 7. Car. in the Exchequer rot 1189. was cited and it was said that Iudgement may be against that Executor who hath assets and nil capiat per billam against the other that hath fully administred But take Iudgement at your peril Preston against Holmes Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. or Mich. 24 Car. rot 2052. VPon a special verdict found the Case in effect was this Arguments upon a special verdict upon a Will one in see having one Son by one venter and another Son by a second venter did by his last Will devise all his Lands to his wise for life and after her death to I. his eldest Son and to his Heirs and the question was whether the Son shall take these Lands by the devise or as Heir at Law and so the devise to be of no effect to make him come to the Lands by purchase Christopher Turner held that the devise is void because it sayes no more than the Law says for if there had been no such devise Iohn his Heirs should have had the Land and he cited Paramour and Yardlves Case in the Comentaries and Hob. rep Counden and Clarks case But it is objected that in this case the Law speaks one thing and the devise another thing and so the devise says not the same thing To this I answer there is no difference concerning the alteration of the Estate
both the Plaintif and Defendant know the person of the man well enough Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement Frank against Dixon Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. FRank brought an Action of Trespass against Dixon for entring into his House and breaking open his Chest and taking away his Goods Arrest of Iudgement in an action of Trespass The Defendant pleaded a special Plea viz. that he did it by way of a distress for rent due unto him The Plaintif replyed de injuria sua propria absque tali causa upon this an Issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif It was moved at amicus Curiae that no Iudgement could be here given for Costs for the Plaintif because the Plaintif had made no title to the Goods Costs and these Cases were cited 44 Eliz. Trin. 7 Iac. Frith and Blackmans Case and 5 Car. Davis and Evans But Roll chief Iustice answered that he wondered why any body should so move for it is against the known practice of the Court and said that he must pay Costs otherwise there shall be vexation without amends Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement Tyson Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of Trespass and exception was taken to the Writ of Error Error to reverse a judgement in Trespass in that it was not brought by the same person against whom the judgement was given for the judgement was given against Evison with the addition of Gentleman and the Writ of Error is brought by Ivison Yeoman Addition Roll chief Iustice answered that Evison and Ivison sounded but as one and the same name and for the additions of Yeoman and Gentleman it is not material though they differ here but if it were the addition of Knight or Baronet there the difference would be something for that is made part of the name but the additions of Yeoman or Gentleman are additions ad placitum Cutsworth Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintif declares against two Defendants against one of them Error to reverse a judgement in assault and battery for an Assault and Battery and against the other for taking away his Goods and upon not guilty pleaded the Plaintif had a verdict and a judgement against them both joyntly for dammages and this was assigned for error to reverse the Iudgement Roll chief Iustice said the Writ cannot be helped for the two Defendants cannot be joyned in one Action Ioyn in action because the Trespasses are of several natures and against several persons and the parties cannot plead to this Declaration Therefore the Plaintif nil capiat per billam Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made To quash an order of Sessions that one should keep his reputed Child because he had kept him heretofore and it doth not shew either that he is his Bastard or his lawfully begotten Child The order was quashed because not made according to the Statute Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Court at Exeter in an Action of Debt for rent Error to reverse a judgment in Debt The errors assigned were 1. That the names of the Iurors were not retorned upon the panel To this Roll chief Iustice answered it is not necessary to retorn their names though it was the old way to do so Retorn A second exception was that the Writ of Error is not well retorned for it is directed to the Maior and Bailifs of the City of Exeter and it is retorned by the Maior and two of the Baylifs whereas it should be by all of them Adjourned to the next Term. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Retorn of an order of Iustices of peace To quash an order of Iustices of the peace for keeping a Bastard-Child removed hither by a Certiorari was read and upon the reading the Court was moved to quash the order upon these exceptions 1. It doth not appear the order was made by two Iustices of the peace wherof one was of the quorum 2ly It doth not appear that the Iustices did inhabit near the place 3ly The order doth not direct how long the party shall keep the Child as the Statute doth direct it should The order was quashed upon the last exception The King against Humphryes Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made at Derby for Parents to relieve their poor Children To quash an order of Sessions Deputation The exception taken was that the Statute appoints that the Iustices in the Sessions shall set the rate that is to be paid for their maintenance and that the Iustices here have not done but have transferred their authority over to other Iustices to do it which they cannot do and so the order made by the other Iustices is not good The Court said this is all one as if an Arbitrator should arbitrate another to make the arbitrement which is not good Therefore let the order be quashed The King against Golding Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Defendant shewed for cause why restitution should not be awarded against him upon an Endictment of forcible entry Cause why no restitution upon an Endictment of forcible entry That he will appear and plead to the Endictment Rull chief Iustice answered Then you must go to tryal the next Term and at your own charges Mich. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. VPon view of the Parliament Roll of the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. for payment of tithes Parliament Roll brought in court to examine a Declaration by Recital Parliament Roll. Iournal Book and comparing it with the Declarations in the causes betwéen Bowes and Broadhead and Burraston and Herbert it was found that the Statute was rightly recited notwithstanding what had béen objected and the Iournal Book of Parliament produced to the contrary and thereupon Iudgement was given in both cases and the Court said that they were to be ruled by the Parliament Roll and not the Iournal book And the same day in the Case between Bowyer and Tantulyar for the same reason the Court ordered the Parliament Roll to be brought in Court the next term to make it appear whether an adjournment of Parliament was well recited and would not credit the Iournal book Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. PHillips moved the Court to quash an Endictment To quash an Endictment for Assault and Battery for an Assault and Battery made upon Baron and Feme and for pulling down of the house of the Baron and he took these exceptions 1. That the Endictment did conclude ad damnum ipsorum whereas it should be ad damnum of the Baron only But the Court answered that the Endictment is good though the words ad damnum ipsorum be left out A second Exception was that the Endictment doth not shew the time and place when the Assault
was committed 3ly It is said intulit and expulsit in the singular number Endictment whereas it should be intulerunt and expulserunt in the Plural number because the Endictment is against divers and so it is false Latin 4ly False Latin The Endictment uses the word lignum for the tymber of the house whereas it should be maremium Twisden on the other side answered that the Endictment was good at least to the Assault and Battery though it fail in the other particulars The Court ordered the Defendants to plead to it and would not quash it Mich. 1649. Banc. Sup. THe Court upon the retorn of a Sheriff of a rescous made To quash a Rescous and read was moved to quash it for these exceptions taken to it 1. It is said feci warrantum meum Thomae Tayler and doth not say that Thomas Tayler was his Bayliff 2ly He doth not say for what cause he made his Warrant Warrant and so it appears not whether it was lawfull or not Vpon these exceptions it was quashed Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Vaux and Vaux against Steward VPon a verdict found for two Plaintiffs in an Action upon the Case upon an assumpsit Arrest of Judgement in an action upon an Assumpsit Ioyn in action The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and for cause shews that the Plaintiffs ought not to have joyned in the Action but ought to have brought several Actions The Case was this the several Cattel of the two Plaintifs were distreyned The Defendant upon consideration of ten pounds paid unto him by the Plaintifs did assume and promise unto them to procure the Cattel to be re-delivered unto them and because they were not re-delivered acordingly they brought their Action joyntly Promise entire Roll chief Iustice said the promise here is entire for the consideration is entire and so the Action may be joyntly brought Yet let Iudgement stay till the other move Postea Mich. 1649. Banc. sup IN a Tryal between Cave and Osby Observations upon a Tryal Presentation Licence Grendons case 11 Rep. Impropriation Vicarage for not setting forth of Tithes according to the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. These things were delivered by the Court. 1. That the King may present to a living by a Letter but it is a question whether he can do it by paroll 2ly There ought to be the Kings licence to make an appropriation of a Church and to endow a Vicar 3ly The King cannot make such a licence without matter of Record and it ought to be with a Condition to endow a Vicar and the endowment of the Vicar may be by a distinct instrument from the appropriation so that it be made at the same time when the appropriation was Mich. 1649. Banc. sup IN the Case of one Wright Robbery of the servant may be robbebery of the Master Robbery brought upon the Statute of Hue and Cry Roll chief Iustice said that if a mans Servant be robbed of his Masters Goods in the sight of his Master this shall be taken for a robbing of the Master And if one cast away his Goods to save them from a Robber and the Robber take them up and carry them away this is a robbery done to his person Coles against Sibsye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 148. COles brought an Action of Trover and Conversion against Sibsye The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitation of actions in bar of the Action A Latitat in nature of an original The Plaintif replies that he took out a Latitat out of this Court against the Defendant within the time limited by the Statute which yet continues depending Roll chief Iustice said a Latitat out of this Court is in the nature of an original in the Common pleas and so hath been alwaies held to be Original Adjourned Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash divers Endictments against the Inhabitants of the Parishes of Shoreditch and Hackney in Middlesex To quash Endictments of Parishes for not repairing the high way for not repairing the High ways The exception taken was that the Parishes are joyntly endicted whereas their offences are several and also not equal and yet both fined alike The Court quashed the Endictment and discharged the issues which were not returned but not those that were retorned Gardner against Jollye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Pasc 1649. rot 189. IOllye brought an Action upon the Case against Gardner for causing him to be endicted of Felony as accessary Error to reverse a judgement in an action on the Case for suffering a Prisoner to escape that was convicted of Felony The Plaintif had a verdict and a judgement The Defendant brought a Writ of Error to reverse this judgement and the error assigned was that the party was endicted for a matter which is but a Trespass and not a Felony and so the Declaration is mistaken and an Action upon the Case lyes not Case But the Court answered that the charge of the Endictment is for Felony although the matter the party is charged with be not Felony and a scandal lay upon him by it and therefore the Action lies Vaux and Vaux against Steward Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Case between Vaux and Vaux and Steward Arrest of judgement in an action upon an Assumpsit was again moved in arrest of Iudgement The objection made was that the promise made amounted to a double promise and therefore the parties to whom the promise was made ought to have brought several Actions and not to have joyned in the Action as they have done But to this it was answered by the Councel on the Plaintifs part that the promise is entire and is not double for the consideration of the promise is entire viz. the ten pound which moved from them joyntly and not severally Roll chief Justice held Ioynt promise that it is an entire promise and a joynt consideration though the Cattel taken were several and therefore the Action may be joynt and if one lay out mony for a thing assumed to be done for a third person if it be not done an Action shall be brought upon the Assumpsit by him who layd out the mony Rippon and â—ortons case f. 1. but because a Case was cited out of Yelvertons Reports to be against the opinion of the Court therefore the Court ordered the Councel to bring that Case and in the mean time they would advise Antea Mich. 1649. Banc. super Christopher against How CHristopher brought an Action on the Case upon an Assumpsit against How an Executor Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case and declared upon a promise made by the Testator to the Plaintif to deliver certain goods in the possession of the Testator unto the Plaintif upon request and because the Testator had not delivered them accordingly the Plaintif brings his action The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and
for cause shews 1. That the breach of this promise was in the Testators life time and therefore the Action should have béen brought against him and is not now to be brought against the Executor 2ly The Testator did not promise that his Executors should deliver the goods but that he would deliver them upon request Request and there appears no request to be made to the Testator as there ought to have been 15 Iac. Hob. rep f. 300. Bodwells Case But Roll chief Iustice answered Executor That an Executor may be charged upon a collateral promise if there were a breach of it in the Testators life time and here is a good request and goes to all Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement except better matter be shewed to the contrary and Osborne Mich. 1649. 1 Reipub. Ang. Banc. super THe Plaintif brought an Action upon the Case upon two several promises the Defendant pleaded non assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case Issue and upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of iudgement and for cause shews that there is no issue joyned as to the second promise alleged for he doth not conclude with petit quod inquitatur per patriam and yet there is a verdict found upon both the promises The Iudgement was arrested till the other should move Mich. 1649. Banc. super VPon a special Verdict the case was this A Case upon a special verdict argued Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in tayl the remainder to the right heirs of him in the remainder for life the remainder man in tayl levies a fine in the life of tenant for life And the question was whether by the levying of this fine the estate tayl were discontinued or no. To prove that the estate tayl was discontinued these Books were cited 1 H 7.22 Lit. Cap. Discents Sect. 34.14 Ed 3. Fitz. Avâ—wry 117.3 Ed 3. Fitz. grants 60.15 Ed. 4 9.2 Rep. Butlers case 5. Cooks Lit. f. 25. Pasch 13 Car. Hungates Case Banc. Reg. Dyer 339. Twisden to the contrary argued that the estate is not altered neither to the right nor by way of Estople 46 Edward 3. f. 23. Estople An Estople supposeth a thing to be done and therefore if the thing be impossible which is alleged by way of estople it can be no estople And one shall not be construed to doe wrong by an Act which may be interpreted so that by it he may doe no wrong Brooks Abridgement Grants 49. Roll chief Iustice The matter here is not how the estates shall pass and how to make them good but the Question is upon the forfeiture Forfeiture for he levies the fine as of an estate in possession and not of a reversion in fée and this is not upon the rule in Bredons case 13 Car. Sir Julius Caesars case an Acceptance of an estate or an Attornment by Tenant for life to a stranger is a forfeiture Jerman Iustice held there was no forfeiture But the Court said the Verdict was ill sound and therefore ordered it should be amended that the whole matter in Law might come in question Amendment Gray against Walye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVAlye brought an Action upon the Case against Gray Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case for speaking these words of him viz. Iack Walye was questioned for stealing of a gray Mare with a snip in her ear and hue and cry went out after him and he durst not shew his face hereabouts The Plaintif had a Verdict and the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because they were general and uncertain words and it doth not appear the party was damnified by them nor how long ago they were spoken Roll chief Iustice said that the party was defamed by speaking of them and he hath laid it that he lost his Credit thereby Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement except better matter be shewn But Nicholas Iustice doubted whether they were actionable or no. And Ask Instice nihil dixit Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN Attorney of this Court that was within age Error against at Attorney in Court for appearing propria persona being within age Error in fact appeared to an Action propria persona and pleaded to issue and had a verdict and a judgment for him and upon this a writ of Error was brought here it being an error in fact because that being within age did not appear per guardianum nor by his Attorney and it was said that it is not helped by the Statute of Ieofails though it be after verdict And thereupon the Court stayed the Execution Mercer against Rule Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved For a Supersedeas attachment for taking out execution after a writ of Error brought and allowed Supersedeas Attachment Execution That a writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement and that it was received and allowed and notwithstanding the Plaintif that had the Iudgement had taken out execution and thereupon it was prayed for a supersedeas to supersede the execution and for an Attachment against the party for his contempt to the Court. And it was urged by the Councel that moved That after a writ of Error is received and allowed the hands of the Court that gave the Iudgement are foreclosed from granting out execution and that the writ of Error is in it self a Supersedeas and cited Dyer 283. and therefore concluded that the execution is not well issued forth Twisden of Councel on the other side said that the writ of Error was not duly pursued because the roll was not marked and therefore the party might well take out execution But Roll chief Iustice answered that the writ was well pursued though the roll were not marked Yet if neither the roll be marked Notice nor notice given to the Attorney on the other side of the bringing the writ of Error if the party procéed to take out execution it is no contempt to the Court otherwise it is a contempt Contempt Supersedeas And it is the duty of the Clerk of the Errors to mark the roll and not the Attorneys and therefore take a Supersedeas quia improvide emanavit to stop execution Pym against Morgan alias Bambery and Baselye Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 1062. IN an Ejectione firmae brought for the Mannor of Caledown Argument upon a special verdict in an Ejectione firmae The Defendant pleads Not guilty and upon this the Iury find a special verdict to this effect That Sir Thomas Morgan was seised in fée amongst other lands of the lands in question and that in 13 Car. he made a settlement of these lands to himself for life the remainder to his daughter Mary for life the remainder to the heirs of the first Tenant for life with a power of revocation
and damages are assessed and said It is true that the judgement is right entred but there is no Verdict to warrant the Iudgement and therefore it cannot be good and therefore let it be reversed if cause be not shewn to the contrary But we will not pronounce it now except the party desire it for his own expedition Ayre against Pyncomb Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AYre brought an Action upon the Case against Pymcomb for surcharging of a Common and for treading the Grass Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for surcharging a Common Assize Trespass upon the case The Plaintif had a Verdict The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie in this case but an Assize 2ly That an Action of Trespass doth not lie for a Commoner for treading of the Grass 3ly The Trespass is alleged to be done in quibusdam peciis pasturae and the quantity of them is not shewed To the first Exception Roll chief Iustice answered That the Plaintif may have an Assize or an Action upon the Case at his election although here be a disturbance of the Plaintifs freehold although that the antient books say the contrary And thereupon the Court gave Iudgement for the Plaintif except cause shewn to the contrary Brook against Hogg Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 660. A Iudgement given in an Action of Debt upon an account in the Court of Knaresborough was reversed here Iudgement in an accompt reversed for Error in it because the Venire facias was Venire facias c. which in an Inferiour Court is not good Venire but it ought to say Venire facias duodecem probos et legales homines de c. so express all at large in words and not with an c. Note Many Iudgements given in Inferiour Courts have been here reversed upon the same exception But I only mention this for an authority to be cited upon occasion Ibson against Beale Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 625. IBson brought a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him for Beale in the Court at York in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation Error to reverse a Iudgement in debt and assigned for Errors 1. That the party hath not entituled himself to the Action 2ly The issue is not well joyned for the Plaintif saith ideo ponit se super patriam where he ought to say Issue petit quod inquiratur per patriam 3ly He concludes to his damage of l. 1. i. fifty pounds expressed in numerical Letters viz. l. for fifty and L. for pounds Damage instead of quinquaginti librarum The Iudgement was reversed upon the last Exception Stubs and Manklyn Mich. 1649. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Court at Owse-bridge in York Error to reverse a Iudgement in debt in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation and the Common Error only assigned But Roll chief Iustice upon Oyer of the Record took this exception That the Record was ideo praeceptum est Vicecomiti and it is not said in Curia and so it doth not appear to be the Process of the Court And for this Error the Iudgement was reversed Venire Topladye against Stalye Mich. 2649 Banc. sup Mich. 24 Car. rot 596. TOpladye brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit pedibus ambulando c. against Stalye Demtirrer and argument upon a plea in Trespass The Defendant makes a special justification That he did enter into the Plaintifs Close to search for Shéep that were stollen from him To this Plea the Plaintif demurr'd and for cause shews that the justification is not good for it is not said by the Defendant that the Plaintif had stollen the Shéep or that he had any suspition that he had stollen them or that any other had stollen them driven them upon the Plaintifs land and so had no colour to come there to search for them and the Books of 17 E. 4. f. 1. and 27 H. 8.23 6 E. 4.7 21 H. 7. f. 10. 22 H. 6. f. 36. 38 E. 3. f. 10. were cited Iustification Another exception was also taken That the Defendant doth not say that the Gate of the Close where he entred was open and though he may justifie to search for his Shéep in the Close yet he cannot justifie the breaking of his Close to doe it But Roll chief Iustice over-ruled this exception And for the matter in Law whether the Defendant had made a good justification or no. He held that he had not for all that he hath alleged by way of Iustification is but matter of private profit to himself Distress Damage feasant and not for the publique good for he went not thither to find or apprehend the Felon but to look for his Shéep And if Cattel be stollen and put into my ground I may take them damage feasant or bring an Action of Trespass against the owner and the owner cannot take them away without the license of the possessor of the ground Licence for if he might by that means the possessor of the ground would be without remedy for the damage the Cattel had done him And he said That when one hath suspition of another for felony he ought to shew the cause of his suspition Arrest otherwise the party suspected ought not to be arrested upon it and concluded that the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement Ierman Justice held that the Defendant ought to have Iudgement because a private injury as this Trespass is ought to give way to the publique good viz. the discovery of Felony and here is a publique good intended and it ought to take place of the Plaintifs inconsiderable injury And he said that one may be arrested for Felony only upon Common fame if there be a felony committed Otherwise it is if there be no Felony done Ask Justice said the Case was hard on both sides But the Court gave Iudgement for the Plaintif except cause should be shewn to the contrary Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVIld moved the Court that the retorn of a Habeas Corpus granted for certain rioters called the Diggers that were committed by Iustices of Peace upon finding the Riot upon their view might be filed To quash a Retorn of a Rescous which was granted upon which he moved that the prisoners might be discharged but the Court commanded the retorn to be read upon the reading of it Wild took this exception viz. That the prisoners were committed contrary to the Statute of H. 4. c. 7. for by that Statute the Sherif ought to be present at the finding of the Riot which was not so here Walker held that the Iustices had power by the Statute without the Sherif to enquire of the Riot and to commit the Rioters But Roll chief Iustice said that there is no enquiry made in this
case for the Riot is found upon the view View Record and so there néeds no enquiry and the Record ought to be made up by the two Iustices that had the view and by the Sherif and it is not made by them as Iustices but as Iudges joyned with the Sherif by the Statute Iustices that find a Riot may either bring in the Record in Court propriis manibus of their own accord or may send it into Court as they have done here The prisoners committed upon the first Record read for there were two here read in Court were bailed but not discharged Discharge although the retorn was not good because the Court said it was not usual to discharge prisoners at the first reading of the retorn For the other prisoners The Court advised Bendir against Oyle Mich. 1649. Banc. sup For a Prohibition to the Court of Pollicy of assurance A Prohibition was prayed to the Court of the Commissioners of pollicy for assurance upon a surmise that they proceeded there in the tryal of the Assurance of a mans life which was said to be tryable at the Common law as it was before the Statute made that erected that Court Assurance as may appear by the preamble of the Statute Roll chief Iustice said that the Assurance of the life of a man is not within the Statute of Assurance as the Assurance of a mans life upon the buying of an office but this case is different for the man whose life is here assured is going to sea upon Merchants affairs and his life may be as well assured as the safe return of the ship he goes in But let Councel be heard on both sides Wednesday next but wee will stay nothing in the interim Postea Mich. 1649. Banc. super AN Information was exhibited against the Inhabitants of the Town of Burmingham for not repairing Burmingham-bridge To amend a Record after verdict two of the Defendants plead to issue and a verdict was found for them in paiis It was moved for the Defendants that Mr. Attorney General had mistaken the Christian name of one of the Defendants in his replication and prayed that the Record might be amended before Iudgement entred Amendment that the Iudgement may not be erronious by reason of this mistake The Court answered Bring a Copy of the Record to us to advise upon Issue but they said they did not see how it could be amended for that they conceived there was no issue joyned Hobbs against Blanchard Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 20 Car. rot 220. BLanchard brought an action of Trespas in the Court at Norwitch against Hobbs and had a verdict and a judgement Error to reverse a judgement in trespass The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the judgement The error assigned was that the Iury had not found the issue joyned for the issue joyned is de injuria sua propria absque tali causa and the Iury have found not guilty generally Panel of Councel with the Defendant in the writ of Error said that the Iury have found the effect of the issue though they have not found the very words and therefore it is good enough and he cited Fabian Kingstons case 32 Eliz. and Wingrave Homes his case 3 Car. entred 2 Car. rot 632. Roll chief Iustice answered That the verdict found the issue argumentatively only and not directly and therefore it is not good Verdict Ierman Iustice was of the same opinion and the Iudgement was reversed except better cause shewn Carew against Bawd Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 24 Car. rot 1607. CArew brought an Action of trespas against Bawd for entring into his ground and taking away a certain parcel of Tynn Demurrer to a plea of privilege of Parl. in an action of trespass The Defendant pleaded that he was servant unto the Lord Moone who was a Lord of the Parliament and that he took the Tynn by his Command and claims his privilege as his servant not to be impleaded to this plea the Plaintif demurrs and for cause shews that the Defendant doth not shew that he was the Lord Moons menial servant Privilege and attending upon his person and it may be he was his Carter or Plowman and such servants are not privileged Roll chief Iustice said The privilege is not claimed here méerly as his servant but he justifies here as his servant in defence of his Masters title to the Tynn Waiver which he took by his command But let the Defendant plead in Chief and let the Plaintif waive the Demurrer Or else let the Plaintif enter his suggestion upon the roll that the House of Lords is now dissolved and so let them take issue and go to tryal Or else let the party plead what he will upon record and we will advise in the mean time Paroch de Hardingham versus Paroch de Brisley Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN order of Sessions made for the setling of a poor woman in the parish of Hardingham was returned hither by a Certiorari granted to the said parish For quashing an Order of Sessions for the setling of a Vagrant and upon the return read and opening the matter by Councel the case was this An inhabitant dwelling within the parish of Brisley did hire a maid servant for a year and Covenanted to give her Forty shillings for her wages and entertained her into his service The maid servant some time after fell sick in his service her Master thereupon turns her out of his service without giving her any thing the maid for necessity in travelling from Brisley toward Hardingham where her friends lived and where she was born was forced to beg for relief whereupon she was sent as a Vagrant to Hardingham where she was born The Vill of Hardingham send her back to Brisley where she was entertained as a Covenant servant whereupon they of Brisley procure an order of Sessions to settle her at Hardingham The Question was Whether this were a good order or not for setling her at Hardingham according to the Statute Or whether she ought to be setled at Brisley where she was entertained as a Covenant servant and turned out of service and forced to begg by that means Roll chief Iustice said That here séems to be fraudulency in the Master to make his servant a Vagrant Vagrant that so he may be rid of her but if one begg meat and drink for necessity in passing betwéen one Town and another this is not begging to make one a beggar within the Statute And therefore the Court ordered that the party should be setled at Brisley Setlement where she was entertained for a Covenant servant and not at Hardingham where she was born if cause were not shewn to the contrary Harwood against Paty Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe case betwéen Harwood and Patye was again spoken unto Argument in trespass whether Tithes be extendible by Wild of Councel
with the Plaintif wherein the Action being an Action of Trespass for taking away wheat rye and wood upon an Elegit taken out against a Parson The Question was Whether Tithes are extendible upon an Elegit by the Statute or not And he held that they are not extendible first by the Common law confirmed by Mag. Charta they are not extendible Extent Cook upon Magna Charta 37 N. Brev. 227. Tithes are méerly Spiritual things and exempt from all Lay consideration 11 Rep. 14. Pridle and Nappers case Cawdries case 5 Rep. f. 15.35 H. 6.39 where rights of Tithes are in dispute the Common Law shall take place but not where the Tithes themselves are in dispute Seldens History of Tithes cap. 14. 2ly The Statute of Westminster makes no alteration of the Common law in this point and non usage is a good argument to prove it for if they had béen extendible it would sometime or other have been put in practice and by the express words of the Statute of Westminster the 2d Tithes are excepted and the process usually before that directed to the Bishop for sequestration is not taken away by the Statute of 5 Ed. 3.53 N. Brev. 66. Though it be a freehold yet is it not within the Statute and if it be within the words of the Statute yet is it not within the meaning of it as Cook upon the Stat. of Wesim 2. doth prove 35 H. 5.50 9 E. 2. Clergy men antiently were not included in general Acts of Parliaments because the Church was accompted as an Infant alwayes within age Clergy and so favoured and protected by Law Next the late Ordinance of Parliament hath made no alteration in this case for the Ordinance intended not to punish the Parsons of Churches although it doe out Bishops of their Bishopricks and dignities And as to the Objection That if the Tithes should not be here extendible there would be a failer of justice I answer That our case is out of the Common law upon which the rule that extraordinary courses are to be taken rather than there should be a failer of Iustice is grounded Roll chief Iustice said that there are two Questions in this case 1. Whether Tithes are within the Statute 2ly Whether now that Bishops are taken away by the Parliament the Sherifs may levy the debt of the Clergy as the Bishops used to doe and I conceive they may Levari by a levari facias But the great question is Whether the Elegit lye And the Court inclined it did But you will argue it again therefore we will deliver no opinion in it Elegit And the Court clearly held with Mr. Selden That Tithes are not due jure divino and directed to search presidents Tithes if a Recognisance had ever been extended upon Tithes Cane against Golding Mich. 1649. Banc. sup CAne brought an Action upon the case against Golding for slandring his title by speaking these words viz. His right and title thereunto is naught Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the case for slandering the Plaintifs title and I have a better title than he The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable Twisden of Councel with the Plaintif argued that the words are actionable for though the words spoken of themselves may not be actionable yet here they are alleged to be spoken falso et malitiose and that will make them actionable 43 B. 3. f. 33. N. Br. 95. Hob. Rep. Water and Freemans Case and as to the Objection that is made that the Declaration is only quod fuit verisimilis vendere and that he was hindered by the words and therefore there might have béen no bargain made though the words had not been spoken The answer is That it is well enough set forth as it is for all treaties upon Contracts are but likely to procéed and are not certain till the Contracts be made but which is more it is further alleged here that by reason of the speaking of these words he could not receive his Tithes which is an express loss Hales for the Defendant argued that the words of themselves are not actionable although they be said to be spoken falso et malitiose except a special damage be alleged to come to the party for such words as these differ from words that are spoken of the person of a man And though there be damage yet they are not scandalous for the Defendant claims a title as well as the Plaintif and the saying that the words were spoken falso malitiose doth not make them to be so spoken nor makes them actionable if they be not so in themselves Roll chief Iustice said there ought to be a scandal and a particular damage set forth but it is not so here But move it again Saturday next Postea White against Holford Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 1214. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgement given in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in Debt upon an Obligation that the Arbitrement exceeded the submission for the submission was to stand to the award touching all matters in difference between the parties and the award was that the parties shall make general releases each to other of all demands and the word demands is a word of a larger signification than the word differences Award But Roll chief Iustice answered That if the release be more large in words yet it is good enough for it shall be intended only of all matters in debate between the parties and if there be other matters you ought to have shewn them in pleading otherwise the Court will not intend there are any to which the other Iudges agreed and gave judgement for the Plaintif except better matter should be shewn Brooke against Brooke Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 24 Car. rot 287. BRook brought an action of trespass quare clausum fregit for eating of his grass with Cattel Error to reverse a judgement in trespass quare clausum fregit c. against Brooke Vpon Not guilty pleaded an issue was joyned and the Plaintif had a verdict and a judgement The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement and assigned for Error that the Declaration was incertain For the Plaintif declares of breaking his Close and eating his grass cum quibusdam averiis and doth not say what Cattel and so he may recover damages in this action and bring another action for the same trespass because it cannot be known what Cattel did the former trespass Barr. Averment Hales of Councel with the Defendant said the Declaration was good enough for it is good in substance although it might have been better in form and it being after a verdict the incertainty is helped And the Defendant if the Plaintif should bring a new action for
this trespass may plead by averment that he hath satisfied the trespass don already and aver with what Cattel it was done Jerman Iustice said the beasts ought to be named particularly for averia is a large word and signifies cattel of divers kinds and it is too general a word to declare upon But Roll chief Iustice answered where the thing it self is in demand and an action is brought for it as it is in an action of trover and conversion the thing ought to be particularly named but here the action is brought for damages for breaking his Close and eating his grass And if you had demurred to the Declaration Demurrer it had not been a good Demurrer but now it is after a Verdict which makes it stronger against the Defendant Nicholas and Ask Justices concurred with Roll so the Iudgement was affirmed Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the Admiralty upon a surmise that one was arrested there for rescuing one out of the hands of a Messenger of the Admiralty For a Prohibition to the Admiralty who was taken by him by the warrant of the Court Contempt for a contempt to the Court in a sute depending there betwixt him and another Roll chief Iustice answered if the cause were maritine which was depending there the Court may examine a contempt to the Court in that cause but they cannot procéed criminally against the party that rescued him that did the contempt Therefore give them notice that they shew cause why we should not grant a Prohibition Prohibition Ireland against Michelborn Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Entred Mich. 24 Car. rot 111. MIchelborn brought an Action of Trespass against Ireland Error to reverse a judgement in Trespass vi et armis quare vi et armis clausum suum fregit and for driving and beating his Cattel The Plaintif had a Iudgement the Defendant brought his writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement The Errors assigned were 1. That it appears not by the Continuando how long the Trespass continued 2ly There is a discontinuance to part of the plea and a departure also Discontinuance Windham in answer to the first Exception said that it is diversis diebus et vicibus and it is without an usque and the continuance is but in aggravation of the Trespass and the Action it self is for the first Trespass which is the original and the diversis diebus et vicibus shall be intended before the Action brought 20 H. 6. f. 15.35 H. 6. s 4. Hob. rep 377. and the party may well enough averr in another Action brought for this Trespass that the Plaintif had recovered for it in an action formerly brought and for the new assignment he said it was but as a new Declaration But the Court bid the Defendant in the writ of Error advise concerning the second exception Roll chief Iustice said he believed the case cited out of Hobard was not well printed but something left out for it hath been ruled that after a verdict it is good enough to say one had imprisoned him for a long time but here is a Iudgement upon a nihil dicit which will alter the Case Ierman Iustice said it was considerable and fit to be advised on Holhead of Councel with the Plaintif in the writ of Error took another exception viz. that there was an issue joyned as to the beating of the Cattel and that is not tryed nor continued and yet damages are given entire for the chasing and beating of the Cattel Harris against Gibbons Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 1649. rot 303. GIbbons brought an Action upon the Case against Harris upon an Assumpsit Error to reverse a judgement in an Action on the Case and declared that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif should let unto the Defendant a Booth in Sturbridge-fair did assume promise to pay the Plaintif ten pound for the same and to pay the Plaintif for all such Wine and Hops as should be spent in the Booth during the Fair. The Plaintif had a Verdict and a Iudgement The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement and assigned this Error that it did not appear in the Declaration that the Fair was ended when the Action was brought and consequently that there was cause of Action But Twisden of Councel with the Defendant in the writ of Error said it shall be intended it was ended for the standing there during the Fair is the cause of Action Declaration Notice Roll chief Iustice took another exception That the Declaration doth not express that the Plaintif gave notice how much Wine and Hops he laid into the Booth during the Fair nor that he made any demand of the payment of any sum of money due and so the Defendant could not know how much money he should pay and therefore the Declaration is not good because it is too general Therefore advise whether you will maintain it or no and because the Councel desired not to be farther heard in it the Iudgement was reversed Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AN Action of Covenant was brought upon an Indenture for the payment of a certain sum of money at a certain time Arrest of Judgement in an action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded payment at the time and upon this an issue was joyned and a Verdict found for the Defendant The Plaintif moved in arrest of Iudgement and alleged for cause that the Issue was mis-joyned because the place of the payment was not alleged which is material and so there can be no Iudgement Maynard for the Defendant moved for Iudgement and said that the issue was well joyned and that it was not material to allege the place of payment because it is a personal Action and the place shall be intended where the Action is brought 1 E. 5. f. 3. And here he cannot allege an immaterial place and so it must necessarily be intended to be where the Action is brought Roll chief Iustice If you will argue it put it in the Paper But there is a difference between finding the money paid and the finding it not paid Denoir against Oyle Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VPon a Rule formerly made in this case to shew cause why a prohibition should not be granted to the Court of Policy for assurances For a Prohibition to the Court of policy for assurance Hales opened the case as formerly had béen done and prays that there may be a Prohibition granted because the party may have remedy here as well as in that Court and so this Court ought to be preferred and the contract here hath no relation to merchandizing and so it doth not properly belong to that Court Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Defendant prayed that there might be no prohibition granted because it hath not béen known that even such a prohibition was granted and he recited the Statute made for assurances of 43 Eliz. and said this
Case was within that Statute and is to be tryed by the Court of Policy and that this case doth properly concern merchandizing and is within both the Letter and reason of the Law And by the words of the policy it appears plainly that the Contract concerns merchandizing the party ought not now to suggest the contrary against his own words in the policy Roll chief Iustice said the words of the policy are not material for the words may be false and the Contract may be for things not touching merchandizing notwithstanding and the intent of the Statute is for things merchantable and if it appear they be not so a prohibition ought to be granted Serjeant Glyn replyed Prohibition that the voyage depended upon the skil of the party whose life was assured by the policy and although the party were indebted and there were security given by bail for his debt to the intent he might goe the voyage yet this is within the Statute Roll chief Iustice answered This is a far fetch'd construction and we cannot avoid the granting of a prohibition but â—raw the suggestion and deliver it on Monday next and joyn issue and try it this term The Case in which this prohibition was moved for and granted was this Denoir and Oyle were baileâ— for one Captain Parr whose life was assured by the policy in a sute against him in the Admiralty brought by one Bushel for 100 l. for fraight due by Parr unto him Assurance and upon that Parr having part in a plantation in the Barbadoes and a quarter part in the ship he was to make his voyage and his life was assured by Denoir and Oyles who were his bail Weston against Plowden Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Rot. 505. THe Court was moved for time for Sir Edmund Plowden the Defendant to plead For time to plead because the Plaintif had declared against him by the name of Sir Edmund Plowden Knight whereas he is by Creation Count Palatine of Nova Albion and that is now part of his name and he must also plead a special plea. Roll chief Iustice answered he is also called a Count of Ireland and neither the one nor the other is part of his name as is suggested and therefore if you will plead in Chief take a wéeks time more for it otherwise plead at your peril for a Count Palatine of Nova Albion or a Count of Ireland are not additions in England Addition Mich. 1649. Banc. sup A Petition was presented to Commissioners of Sewers against one for obstructing a navigable River Against an Order of Commissioners of Sewers and prayed that the Commissioners would remove the obstructions upon which an Order was made by the Commissioners to make a view and to certifie the matter to them and upon this certificate a Iury was returned to enquire of the nusance and a verdict was given by the Iury upon Articles presented unto them to enquire of it This Order of the Commissioners and the procéedings thereupon were removed hither by a Certiorari and these exceptions were taken upon reading of the return 1. That it doth not appear by what authority the Commissioners did sit 2. The presentment made was not good for it is said that antiently the river was so and so and this is incertain 3ly The presentment is that they know not when the Mill was made which is supposed to be an obstruction and if the Mill were made beyond time of the memory of man the Commissioners have no power to enquire concerning it Roll chief Iustice Give notice to the Councel for the Commissioners of Sewers to answer the exceptions Wednesday next Shayler against Bigg Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 24 Car. rot 90. BIgg brought an Action of Trover and Conversion of a Horse Writ of Error brought by the bail and had a Verdict and a Iudgement The bail for the Defendant in the Action brought a writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement given against the principal The Court was moved to abate the writ The Court answered If the writ of Error be brought upon the principal Iudgement it ought to be abated It hath been a question heretofore whether a writ of Error brought upon the principal Iudgement Error and also upon the Iudgement given against the bail together be good in part and ill for other part But of later times it hath been ruled that it ought to abate for all Therefore let the party shew cause why the writ shall not be abated here Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for a forcible Entry For quashing an Endictment upon these Exceptions 1. The party hath made no title 2ly The Endictment is not said to be found by the Iury but by the Iustices 3ly It doth not say that the force was contra pacem publicam as the late Act of Parliament directs but contra pacem reipublicae The Court answered it was a foul riot and deserved no favour yet the Endictment was quashed upon the 1 and 3 exceptions Dell against Brown Mich. 1649. Banc. sup BRown brought an Action of Trespass against Dell in the Common Pleas Error for taking away three Cowes and had Iudgement against him upon a nihil dicit The Defendant brought a writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement Entire damages The Error assigned was that for two of the Cowes there was no value declared and yet entire damages were given for them all which was not good Roll Chief Iustice This is a Iudgement upon a Nihil dicit and so there is no Verdict to help it Postea 136. Barber against Pomeroy Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Entred Hill 24 Car. rot 595. or 1095. BArber brought an Action of debt against Pomeroy for arrerages of rent due for 7. years and for 7. Capons the Defendant pleaded nil debet Arrest of judgement in an action of debt for rent upon this an issue was joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took this exception that the Plaintif of his own shewing had demanded more than was due so ought not to have Iudgement The Question here was Whether the Plaintif might not relinquish that part which is not due and have judgement for so much as is due Yard of Councel with the Plaintif held that he might Relinquishment and cited Godfryes case 11 Rep. f. â—5 b. and Hubbards case 4 Rep. and prayed for Iudgement Twisden of Councel on the other side prayed judgement might not be given and he agreed the cases cited by Yard and cited other cases of the same nature where the Plaintif may release part and have Iudgement for the rest But he said that here the thing is entire and cannot be apportioned for then he shall falsifie his own writ 1 Ed. 4.24 But Roll chief Iustice held Release Damages that the relinquishing of part is not the falsifying of his own writ
although the thing demanded be entire for he may as well release after the writ brought as before and there was no question but he might have released part before and he may release where there is an ill demand as well as where a demand is good Jerman Iustice held that Iudgement ought not to be given for he said that the reasons of the cases cited are not like to the reason of this case for here the verdict is not given for the same sum which is demanded and it doth appear that here is an unjust demand and it is his own fault and if the Defendant had demurred upon the Declaration it would have been adjudged no good Declaration But Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed with Roll chief Iustice and so judgement was given for the Plaintif except better matter should be shewn on Saturday next Avery against Kirton Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 23. Car. rot 239. KIrton brought an Action of trespass against Avery Error upon a judgement in trespass and declared upon an original for imprisoning him till he entred into a bond of 600 l. upon Not guilty pleaded the Plaintif had a verdict and a judgement The Defendant brought a writ of Error and upon the Certiorari to remove the Record the Record was certified and in nullo erratum pleaded but the original in the Record certified was that the Defendant kept the Plaintif in prison til he entred into 2. bonds of 300 l. a piece whereas the right original was till be entred into one bond of 600 l. whereupon the party brought a new writ of Error and by that had the true original certified The Councel for the Defendant in the writ of Error said That original after original may as well be certified before in nullo est erratum pleaded Certificate as afterward but here the parties are at issue and the first original is certified and issue joyned upon that and there cannot be a new original certified and the original here doth not agree with the other parts of the Record and so cannot support it and our original certified stands with the Record and here is no Certiorari to warrant the original here certified and it is a material variance 3 Iac. Banc. Reg. Cummins case 9 H. 6. f. 38. Pasch 1649. Kedgwins case Yard on the other side answered that now the original is certified and is before you in this Court and you ought to judge as it is and not as it ought to be and it is agreeing with the former process And both the originals were before the Declaration and the Court shall take the right original and the other shall be intended for another cause Roll chief Iustice said The Certiorari is general and not inter partes praedict but the certificate is inter partes praedict And the Court may take the right original that is certified and the Iudges are not bound by the plea in nullo est erratum that is pleaded but may grant a new original writ of Error but the party cannot require it for he is concluded by his own plea Original Certiorari and if he discontinue his original he may have a new but not if he plead and the Certiorari is good and well certified and therefore judgement ought to be affirmed Ierman Nicholas and Ask to the same effect and so judgement was affirmed except better matter should be shewed Saturday next Ratcliff and Dudeny Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Entred Hill 23 Car. rot 369. VPon a special verdict A question upon the case falling out upon a special verdict the case was this A lease of a house and lands was made to I S. for 99 years the remainder to I D. for 99 years the remainder to A. B. for 99 years provided that if the lessees doe not inhabit in the house let during the whole term that then the lease shall be void The question here was How long the lessees were bound to inhabit in the house whether for the first 99 years or for that term also during all the years in remainder and which of the lessees were to Inhabit Windham held that the two first lessees only ought to inhabit during the first 99 years and no longer But Roll chief Iustice held that those in the remainder were not bound to inhabit before the remainder falls to them but reddendendo singula singulis they ought to inhabit successively one after another And he took an exception to the verdict That the lease being to begin after the death of one Robert Dudeny it did not find that Robert was dead and so it appears not that the lease is yet begun and so there can be no question stirred as yet Venire and thereupon the case was not argued but a Venire facias de novo was to issue because the special verdict was imperfect Cane against Golding Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THis case Opinion of the Judges upon an arrest of Iudgement in an Action of the case formerly spoken to and argued being an Action of the case for slandering the Plaintifs title was now spoken to by the Iudges And first by Roll chief Iustice who held that the Action did not lye although it be alleged that the words were spoken salso et malitiose for the Plaintif ought to shew a special Cause But that the verdict may supply But the Plaintif ought also to have shewed a special damage which he hath not don and this the verdict cannot supply The Declaration here is too general upon which no good issue can be joyned and he ought to have alleged that there was a communication had before the words spoken touching the sale of the lands whereof the title was slandered and that by speaking of them Case the sale was hindred and he cited 13 Iac Tuer and Bailyes case B. R. 21 Iac. Doctor Edwards and Balls case and 4 Car. Roe and Harwoods case a Iudgement in it in Windsor Court and reversed here and 12 Jac. Sell and Paryes case B. R. Ierman Iustice to the same effect and he said that there ought to be damnum et injuria alleged to maintain the Action for one without the other is not enough and here doth not appear any damage because there appears no communication of selling of the land Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion So the rule was Nil capiat per billam except better cause shewn Roll Iustice said that there is digitus Dei in the case for there was a strange verdict found Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a Supersedeas for the Earl Rivers For a Supersedeas for a Peer of the Realm denyed Privilege Notice who was Arrested by a bill of Middlesex and is in custody of the Marshall of this Court because he is Peer of the Realm and ought not to be arrested The Court answered You must plead your privilege if it be so for we cannot take notice of it upon a motion
not from Morgan their Father It was answered that there is the same reason to provide for Morgans state that was rightly conveyed from him before the year 1641. as of a strangers so deriving from Morgan It is also objected that the Trustees for Pymm and the Common wealth shall have Morgans lands and they shall not be said to be forfeited It was answered that the Act distributes no more than is forfeited which can be no more than Morgan had at that time 2ly The Parliament took no notice that Morgan was seized in fee simple nor what estate he had 3ly After the estate of Mary Morgan ended the reversion in fee returns to Thomas Morgan so that Mary hath but a particular estate and the Ordinance may be satisfied though Mary Morgans estate be not forfeited for the reversion may be forfeited and the particular estate preserved as Cleres Case is and the saving is not here repugnant as it is objected nor destroyes the generality of the Ordinance for it is here satisfyed And the Parliament doth not take notice of the conveyance made by Thomas Morgan nor of any other estate than that he had at the time of the making of the Ordinance otherwise there would be a great inconvenience but it is objected that the Sons claiming under Thomas Morgan are excluded out of the saving It was answered that although they are yet they are not excluded out of the body of the Act Dyer 273 â— o Eliz and here the excepting of the interest of the Daughters in the saving hath its effect viz. the estate which they have of Thomas Morgan after 1641. which shall be given by the Ordinance and not that which they had before and so prayed judgement for the Plaintif viz. Mary Morgans lessee Maynard for the Defendant viz. Pymms heir said That the Act is the rule to measure our case by and that the Act doth take away the right of all the Children and that the saving helps none but strangers and notwithstanding the recompense reserved for Pymm if the estate shall be short it is intended of such an estate not within the saving and the estate of the Children is not within the saving and here is not a general gift but these lands particularly And in this case Morgan had power to revoke his settlement and so there is no breach made by the Ordinance of Common Iustice as is objected because he had an interest in the estate notwithstanding the settlement And all parts of the Act stand very well here together upon the best construction of it according to the makers intent If I grant all my trees fruit-trees will not pass but if I except all my Apple-trees all other fruit-trees pass and the inheritance in Morgan doth not satisfie the Act and so prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said Mr. Maynard you mistake the first part of the Ordinance for do you think that the Ordinance looks further back than 1641. in other lands not expressed and he seemed to encline for the Plaintif but the other Iudges for the Defendant But the Court concluded that it was a great case and deserved great consideration and therefore ordered That it should be argued again the first Saturday the next Term. Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved upon an Assidavit for a Habeas Corpus for one committed for suspition of felony For a Habeas Corpus for one comitted for suspition of felony for uttering counterfeit money because the Iustices will not bail him Roll chief Iustice said It is dangerous to remove such a prisoner and there is a Commission of Oyer and Terminer to try such Offenders and we have no Copy of the Mittimus now but if you bring it we will make some rule in it Mittimus If the prisoner be bailable if the Iustice will not bail him Case bring your Action against him Coswell Mich. 1649. Banc. sup ONe Coswell outlawed moved to reverse the Outlawry upon these exceptions 1. Instead of proxim there is used px for an abbreviation of it To reverse an Outlawry Abbreviation without any dash 2ly Instead of Infra scr the abbreviation of infra scriptam there is used infra sr And for these exceptions it was quashed Dell and Brown Mich. 1649. Banc. sup IT was moved formerly to reverse a Iudgement in an Action of Trespass for the taking away of three Cowes because the Declaration doth not say neither pretii nor ad valentiam as to two of the Cowes Error upon â— Iudgement in Trespass Serjeant Earl moved for Iudgement notwithstanding that exception for he said it was not necessary to express either and urged 19 E. 2. br f. 842. and Pas 20 Ed. 3. f. 2.8 H. 6. reg 97. b. But Roll chief Iustice answered That which you urge is against the received opinion Declaration for if they he live Cattel that are taken it ought to be pretii but if dead it ought to be ad valentiam Therefore shew cause before the end of the Term why the Judgement should not be reversed Spry against Mill. Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Pasc 1649. rot 208. SPry brought a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him upon a nihil dicit in an Action of Trover and Conversion for a Mare in the Court at Lanceston in Cornewall Error to reverse a judgement upon a nihil dicit in a Trover and Conversion and these Errors were assigned 1. In the judgement it is said ideo ad eandum Curiam consideratum est whereas it ought to be per eandem Curiam 2ly It is recuperare debeat whereas it ought to be debet But Roll chief Iustice answered that is well enough in a judgement upon a nihil dicit 3ly In the awarding of the Venire it is praeceptum fuerit 4ly It is for the Iury to enquire in forma praedicta 5ly The Defendant is not demanded To this Roll chief Iustice said The Defendant did appear and so that is not material Judgement 6ly It is said Consideratum suit and it should be Consideratum est Roll chief Iustice said that was a good exception for the incertainty of the words Vpon this Error Prestwood the Councel on the other side moved that the Record is not removed Certiorari for the Certiorari to remove it was directed to the Maior and the Recorder and the Record is returned by the Maior and Deputy recorder Roll chief Iustice said It appears not to us that the Recorder hath power to make a Deputy Therefore advise upon it and so will we Postea Mich 1649. Banc. sup A Retorn made by an Officer of the Admiralty for one committed by their warrant was read To discharge a prisoner upon a return by an Officer of the Admiralty and it was prayed by Hales of Councel with the Prisoner that the retorn might be filed and the Prisoner discharged for these reasons 1. the party was committed for rescuing
the tax by prescription and it is not necessary to shew in what place of the Poe-Dike the breach happened Roll chief Iustice said the prescription here is waived for you say that it was not an inevitable breach and so you are at the Common law and not upon a custom and then the tax ought to be equal and according to the number of the Acres and it is not so here And it appears not that the breach is within the Hundreds whence the Iury came and so they have no authority to enquire Hales said that there is a clause to help this for there is a power in the Commissioners to ease them that have wrong done to them Roll chief Iustice This will not help Tax for the tax ought to be well and equally laid according to the Statute viz. upon the number of the Acres and here it is laid upon the persons of the inhabitants Therefore make a new tax Archer against Holbidg Mich 1649. Banc. sup IN this case the Action being an Action brought upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. Cap. 3. and a verdict for the Plaintif Arrest of Iudgement in an action upon the Stat. of 1 R. 3. cap. 3. it was formerly moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Statute was misrecited whereupon it was ordered the Parliament Roll should be brought in Court which was now done and read and upon the reading it appeared that it was misrecited for the Statute was for suspition of felony and the Declaration was for felony Misrecital whereupon it being held by the Court to be misrecited in matter of substance whereupon the Action was grounded The Court ordered a nil capiat per billam Mich. 1649 Banc. super AN Indictment was found against one for a forcible entry The Defendant traverseth the Indictment For restitution upon an Indictment of forcible entry Restitution and enters his traverse pleads The Plaintif moved the Court upon a suggestion that there had been divers verdicts found for this land for the Plaintif that the Plaintif might have restitution But the Court would not grant restitution before the tryal because the Defendant had traversed and pleaded Mich. 1649 Banc. sup THe Court was moved to discharge the issues set upon the inhabitants of Bridgwater To discharge issues for not repairing the high way Quash for not repairing a High way and to quash the Indictment upon a Certificate that the way was repaired The Court answered that further process should be stayed and the issues discharged But we cannot discharge the Indictment if you have no exception to take against it Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Indictment against a Baker for selling of bread under the Assise To quash an Indictment for selling bread under the Assise The exceptions were 1. That it doth not say what Assise whereas there be divers Assises of bread 2ly The Indictment doth not shew where he sold the bread not to whom Roll cheif Iustice said to the first exception It is good enough to say he sold the bread contra assisam although it say not what assise but upon the second exception the Indictment was quashed Earl Rivers against More Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Earl Rivers was taken by a Latitat and committed to the Marshalsea The Earl by his Councel pleaded his privilege of Peerage and prayed he might be set at large Privilege of Parliament pleased Roll chief Iustice asked How is the plea now amended for yesterday you pleaded in abatement of the writ and now you pray to be delidered upon a bare suggestion Wild of Councel with the Defendant held that a Capias doth now lye against an Earl for comes dicitur a Comitando-rege Capias cessante rege cessat comes And demurred to the plea for want of form Roll chief Iustice said That Earls and Barons are antient titles of the Realm But let him plead as he will stand to it and advise well of the plea before the Demurrer joyned for we can give leave to amend the plea. Amendment VVare against Chappell Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVAre brought an Action of Debt for 500. against Chappel Demurrer to a plea in Covenant upon an Indenture of Covenants between them viz. That Ware should raise 500 Souldiers and bring them to such a port and that Chappel should find shipping and victuals for them to transport them to Gallicia and for not providing the shipping and victuals at the time appointed was the Action brought The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintif had not raised the Souldiers at that time and to this plea the Plaintif demurs Windham of Councel with the Plaintif held that the Defendant ought to have provided the shipping and victual against the time though the Souldiers were not raised for the not raising of the Souldiers can be only urged by way of mitigation of damages and not pleaded in discharge of the breach assigned Yard of Councel with the Defendant held the plea was good in barr of the Action for the Covenants of each part have relation one to the other and there is a condition precedent made by the words to find shipping for the Souldiers so that the Defendant was not to find shipping Precedent condition except the Plaintif raised the Souldiers neither is there any notice given us how many Souldiers he had raised Roll chief Iustice held that there was no condition precedent but that they are distinct and mutual covenants and that there may be several actions brought for them Notice and it is not necessary to give notice of the number of the men raised for the number is known to be 500. and the time for the shipping to be ready is also known by the Covenants and you have your remedy against him if he raise not the men as he hath against you for not providing the shipping Ierman and Nicholas Iustices held against Roll that there is a precedent condition Ask Iustice was of Roll the Chief Iustices opinion Nicholas changed his opinion and so judgment was given for the Plaintif except better matter were shewn Jenkinson against Porter Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 1649. rot 237. THese Errors in the Record were assigned to reverse a judgement given in the Court at York in an Action of debt Error to reverse a Iudgement in debt 1. That the time of the Iudgement is in figures 2. The sum recovered is in figures 3ly Venire is not good for it is Venire facias duodecim c. which is not good with an c. in an inferiour Court 4ly It doth not appear that the cause of Action is infra jurisdictionem Curiae And for these errors the judgement was reversed nisi c. Weston against Plowden Hill 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 1649. rot 503. THis case formerly spoken to was again moved which was this in effect Plea in abatement after imparlance Weston brought an Action of debt against Plowden upon
Hill 24. Car. rot 1062. THis case arising upon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae Argument upon the Case concerning the Manor of Callidown given to Mr. Pym. touching the title of the Manor of Callidowne being part of Sir Thomas Morgans estate that was given to Mr. Pym by Ordinance of Parliament and heretofore argued on both parts was again spoken to First by Twisden who argued for the Plaintif who said the Question is Whether the estate setled by Sir Thomas Morgan before the year 1641. be forfeited by the Act of Parliament and consequently well given to Mr. Pym or no And he said the intent of the Parliament in making this Act is first to be interpreted and he held that according to the Act no estate passeth but such estate as Morgan had in the year 1641. and no more for no man can forfeit a thing that he hath not but only that which he hath but Morgan then had not this estate and therefore he could not forfeit it 2ly There is a priority of vesting the estate in the Parliament and next from the Parliament to the Trustees and the Trustees can have no more than is forfeited to the Parliament and the estate setled before the year 1641. is not forfeited to the Parliament 3ly The penning of the Act is considerable The Act saith all the said lands that is all the said lands that Morgan had in the yeart 1641. and not all the lands that Morgan ever had before that time and had setled for the precedent words are restrained by the words subsequent Althams case 8 Rep. Dyer 369. and from the preamble of the Act to make a construction to punish innocent persons is against the Law of God Man and Nature Nichols case f. 398. Of rewards and punishments consist the essence of Commonwealths and it could not be the intent of the Parliament to punish innocent persons 3 Ed. 4. 2. The Parliament did not intend to give more of Morgans estate than what he had 1641. for then they might give that which might be evicted which they intended not And whereas it is objected that there is a clause of Revocation in Morgans settlement and so the estate was not absolutely setled It is answered That notwithstanding this power of Revocation the estate is not given by this Act unto Pym for it cannot give a power 7 Rep. 13. and a power cannot be forfeited and Mary Morgan had an interest in the land notwithstanding the power of Revocation And notwithstanding there is no saving for Mary yet the estate is not passed for Mary Morgan is not intended to be punished Nichols case Com. f. 483. and so there needs no saving for her 14 H. 8. f. 2. and it cannot be intended because there is no saving for her that therefore she shall forfeit her estate and the saving is not therefore idle for it hath an operation another way The saving is not intended of the estate of a Collateral Auncestor only for this is the begging of the question for the saving saves not any thing and the penning of the words are against this exposition and so he concluded that nothing was given by the Statute to Mr. Pym but the estate of Morgan which he had in the year 1641 and prayed judgement for the Plaintif Steel the Recorder of London for the Defendant said he would only answer the argument of Twisden because he had heard no other arguments And first he held that the Ordinance reaches all the estates that Morgan had as well before as at the time 1641. and the estate setled by Morgan before 1641. was the estate of Thomas Morgan in the year 1641. 2ly The lands are expresly named which are given by the Statute it is not material who hath the estate in them for certitudo nominis tollit demonstrationem Dowbey and Dudingtons case and Mildmayes case 1 Rep. do interpret how the word others shall be interpreted And here cannot be said to be any injustice in the Parliament The Question here is Whether the estate be setled by the Parliament and if it be setled it would be a supposition of injustice to suppose it is not rightly done The Law hath invested the Parliament with a power to dispose of all lands and therefore it cannot be intended injustice And the estate is not in Mary Morgan notwithstanding the Conveyance because there is a clause of Revocation in it for it is a void Conveyance as to her estate by reason of the clause of Revocation for that makes it fraudulent And the estate of Mary Morgan is not passed by the Statute notwithstanding the clause of eviction in the Ordinance an if or an an are no saving of an estate and here is no eviction in the case and here is no saving otherwise their estate cannot be saved for then the lands are all passed And the saving extends to the lands descended to the Children of Thomas Morgan from Collateral Ancestors and not from Tho. Morgan the Father and as reasonable a Construction ought to be made of an Ordinance of Parliament as this is as of an Act of Parliament and so he praid Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said He did not doubt of the power of the Parliament in this case but of their meaning whether they intended these lands should be forfeited or not And the Ordinance was made by the House of Commons without any proviso in it and the proviso was put in by the House of Lords and he enclined that Mary Morgans estate was saved But Jerman Iustice said he conteived that Maries estate was not saved but only the estate of strangers The Court was divided and said they would consider till next Term and then give Iudgement in this and the Case of Garret and Blizard Quaere What Iudgement was given in both cases for I was not in Court at the day they were spoken to again Vincent against VVallis Hill 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 966. rot 906. IN a Replevin for distraining of Cattel the Defendant emparled A Demurrer to a plea in a replevin after imparlance and afterwards pleaded that the lands are antient Demesne where the distress was taken and to this plea the Plaintif demurred Serjeant Parker for the Plaintif and against the Demurrer held that the plea is not to be admitted because that the party hath made his defence Plea and cannot therefore afterwards plead to the jurisdiction of the Court and cited 11 H. 4. f. 47. 2 H. 7. f. 17 b. That freehold only is to be sued for in antient Demesne And 2ly the plea is not sufficient for it doth not appear that the lands are held of the Manor but only are parcel of the Manor and such lands are pleadable in other Courts 20 H. 6. Nat. Brev. 11 M. 41 Ed. 3. 3ly It is not said that the lande are pleadable by Writ of Droit Close which ought to be 2 H. 7. f. 17. 3 H. 6. f.
be used otherwise Barbarism will be induced and circumlocution ought not to be used where there is a proper Latin word to be had to express a thing Ask Iustice agreed with Roll the chief Iustice And the Plaintif was bid take his Iudgement except better matter were shewn to the contrary Hobson against Hudson Hil. 1649 Banc. sup HObson brought an Action upon the case against Hudson for speaking these words of her viz. She went to the Wells to be cured of the French Pox. Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif Arrest of Iudgement is an action for words the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are incertain words and doe not express that the Plaintif had the French Pox at the time of the speaking of them and the causa dicendi shall not make them actionable Shaftoe on the other side said the words are actionable for these words thou hast been laid of the Pox have been adjudged actionable which are not so scandalous as these Mich. 7 Iac. Thou art a Pocky whore and the Pox hath eaten out the bottom of thy belly were held actionable Roll chief Iustice said the words required consideration but the words séem to imply that the party did believe that she had the French Pox else the would not have gone to be cured and so they are scandalous Ierman Iustice said intentions shall not make words actionable and therefore he conceived they are not actionable Nicholas Iustice said he conceived them prima facie to be actionable for words shall be taken according to the common intendment and an Action on the Case may sometimes be brought upon words spoken by implication and interrogation Aâ—k Iustice held they were actionable But the Court said they would advise Posten Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for the quashing an Endictment For quashing an Endictment for suffering one to escape that was taken for Felony But the Court would not quash it though there was cause but ordered the Defendant should plead to it because they believed he had compounded with the Felon VVyat against Harbye Hil. 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 1649 rot 426. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Court at Barnestable in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation The Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgment in Debt at B. râ—estable that the place alleged for the payment of the mony sued for is out of the jurisdiction of the Court It was answered that it is said to be at Chitlehampton aforesaid and it doth not appear whether Chitlehampton be within the jurisdiction of the Court or where it is and therefore it shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction Roll chief Iustice said the Declaration is that the Obligation was at Barnestable and the plea is that it was at Chichley which is a forein plea and the plea is not sworn neither is there any demurrer upon the plea but the plea is received and day given to swear it and for not swearing it accordingly a judgement is given against the Plaintiff by default Iudgement whereas it ought to have béen a Iudgement upon a nibil dicit for want of a plea and he said also Fereâ—n plea. that if one plead an insufficient plea although it be a forein plea it is not necessary it should be sworn The Iudgement was ordered to be reversed except cause shewed to the contrary Iones against Blunden Hil. 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 1649. rot 34. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the palace Court at Westminster in an Action of Assault and Battery Error to reverse a Judgement given in the palace Court at Westminster Tryall The Case was this an Action was brought for an Assault and Battery in Surry The Defendant pleads a plea of justification in Middlesex The Plaintiff replyed that he beat him in Southwark which is in Surry de injuria sua propria absque tali causa and this issue was tryed by a Iury of Midlesex The question was whether it were a good tryal The Court would advise Postea VVatson against Norbury and others Hil. 1649 Banc. sup VVAtson brought an Action upon the Case against Norbury a Commissioner upon the Statute of Bankrupt and others Demurrer to a plea in Trespasse upon the Case for the breaking of his house and taking away his goods upon pretence of the said Commission whereas he was no Bankrupt by reason whereof he was empaired in his credit and hindred in his Trade and declares to his damage c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff had heretofore brought an Action of Trespasse against him for the same trespasse and goods taken and had recovered damages against him To this plea the Plaintiff demurred And upon the demurrer the question was whether this plea pleaded by the Defendant be a good plea in abatement of the writ of Trespasse upon the Case now brought or not Abatement Shafto of Councel with the Plaintiff argued that the plea was not good because the matter in this Action upon the Case and the matter of the former Action of Trespasse are not all one but are several and various matters and therefore severall Actions may be brought for them 15. rep f. 43. Sparies case Hob. 493. The Earl of Bedfords case 4. rep â—lades case Petty Brook 105. 4. rep f. 43. Hudsons case 11 Ed. 2. Fitzh Trespasse 207. 2 R. 3. f. 14. 18 E. 4. f. 23. 20 H. 7. f. 9. 12 E. 4. f. 13. Fitzh estopel 78. 7 H. 4. f. 44. And the variances here between the Action upon the Case and the Action of Trespass prove that they are not all one And that there is a difference it is plain for in this Action upon the Case it is said that the Defendant did enter into the Plaintiffs house malitiose but in the former Action of Trespass it was said that he did enter vi et armis which is a plain difference and variance 8 H. 6. f. 27. Cooks Entries fol. 39. And the matters pleaded upon Record in these several Actions do not destroy one another but may well stand together Pasc 2 Car. Laicon and Barnards case And here this Action of the Case is to repair the Plaintiffs credit but the former Action was to recover damages for his goods taken from him An abduxit of Cattel will maintain a chasing and one may therein recover for the chasing and the value also so here both Actions may stand together And there is matter for both Actions and the matter pleaded in Bar is but to encrease the damages and if the special matter alleged in the Action of Trespasse alleged in the Action upon the Case had been lesse yet it is well enough and it is but surplusage and only by way of inducement to prove the scandal and the Defendant here is not at any mischief for the words here
Plaintif demurs The Court said this Debt due upon the bond became not due to the Husband for it is a thing in Action and therefore the plea is not good Iones against Blunden Hill 1649. Banc. sup Mich 1649. rot 34. THis Case formerly spoken to was again moved by Wild Whether a good tryal or no. who held that in regard that the matter triable ariseth from two places and so the venire may be from both places yet it is well enough if it be from any of them and the Court hath jurisdiction in both places and therefore the tryal is well enough in this case Twisden on the other side said that here are two issues in tryal and so it is not within the Statute of Ieofails for that is of force only where one issue is tryed Roll chief Iustice answered here are not two issues for you have made them one by pleading and so it is within the Statute of Ieofails and helped by it Ierman Justice to the same intent Issue Ieofails and so Nicholas and Ask Iustices Roll chief Iustice said that the issue is joyned upon the matter arising in both places and yet it is well enough for the principal matter was in Sâ— Clements Danes Therefore let the judgement be affirmed except better matter be shewn Antea Adstone against Hunter Hill 1469. Banc. sup ADston brought an Action upon the case against Hunter and his Wife for these words spoken of the Plaintif by Hunters wife Arrest of Iudgement in an Action on the Case viz. Iane Adstone did bewitch my good man innuendo her Husband Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of judgement that the words were too general and uncertain to raise any scandal and therefore an Action could not be brought for speaking of them Shaftoe of Councel with the Plaintif held that the words are actionable because they declare an Act or thing done and the party is scandalized by the words 4 rep â—eames his case and the words my good man are words well known to express her Husband by as 7 Iac. to say Thou art a healer of Felons was well understood to mean a Concealer of Felons and if the words good man be incertain yet they are certain enough to shew that some body is bewitched for the Act done is certainly enough expressed and the Plaintif is thereby scandalized and besides it is after a Verdict and by it they are made certain and damages are given for speaking them Mich. 15 Car. Com. Banc. Stones case rot â—36 Roll chief Iustice said These words Thou hast bewitched a man are actionable it is a scandal to say One hath killed a man by Witchcraft and he held the words actionable Ierman Iustice said they could not be actionable because by them there is no act of witchcraft expressed Nicholas Iustice said the words are not actionable for thou hast bewitched one may be spoken in a good sence words are but wind spoken in passion sometimes and other times in Iest or merriment Ask Iustice said that the words tend to scandal as they are spoken Averment and shall be intended that she hath bewitched one by Diabolical Art And Roll chief Iustice said It is not necessary to aver what Act of Witch-craft was done And these words Thou hast bewitched me and my Aunt have been adjudged Actionable in this Court It was adjourned to be argued again the next term Hill 1649. Banc sup THe Court was moved to quash an Order of a private Sessions of the peace that was removed hither by Certiorari The Order was To quash a Order of a private Sessions of Peace that one should contribute to half the charge towards the keeping of a Bastard Child because he did suffer a Souldier to get the Child upon the body of his Maid servant The Court said this was not within the Statute of 18 Eliz. and therefore let the Order be quashed Hill 1649. Banc. super A Prohibition to the Court of the Admiralty was prayed for Biâ—ckes a Clark of this Court for libelling against him there for prosecuting a matter at the Common Law which they pretend to belong to their Court For a prohibition to the Admiralty and for granting an injunction against him to stop his proceedings The Court answered there is no libel here this is but a citation to appear and is no Injunction against him but because upon the citation there appeared to be matter of Prohibition contained in it A Prohibition was granted Saunderson against Raisin Hill 1649. Banc. sup VPon a rule to shew cause why a Iudgement should not be reversed To amend a Record after Errore assigned the Court was moved that the Roll wherein the Error assigned was might be amended according to the Original which is right though the Nisi prius Roll be not so Holhead on the other side prayed there might be no amendment but the Iudgment reversed for if Iudgement be given upon an erronious Declaration which is the ground of the Action as it is here it is not good nor is amendable The Court answered this is the fault of the Clark who had the original before him which is the ground of all Amendment and by which he ought to form the Declaration But the matter is that here it is after a Verdict and it will be perillous to attaint the Iury though it being the Clarks fault it be amendable But let it rest till the next term and in the mean time we will advise Williamson against Mead. Hill 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 1649. rot 428. VVIlliamson brought an Action upon the Case against Meade Arrest of Judgement is an action upon an Assumpsit and declared upon three Assumpsits made by the Defendant to the Plaintif that the Defendants son should pay such a sum of money to the Plaintif for his boarding with him when he should be thereunto required upon non Assumpsit pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Plaintif doth not shew that he did require the Son to pay the sum of money which the Defendant did assume should be paid upon request but only saith that the Defendant licet saepius requisitus non solvit The Iudgement was arrested till cause should be shewn to the contrary The same day it was moved again and the Councel urged that the request was not necessary to be made and prayed for judgement But Roll Chief Iustice answered that this was a collateral promise Request and therefore the request must be averred to be made to the Son Therefore the Plaintif can have no judgement and so nil capiat per billam was ruled to be entred Hudson Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that there was a scire facias issued out to certifie Errors For time to assign Errors and time was desired to assign them But the Court answered
the bringing of the writ of Error is delay enough and therefore if you have not assigned the Errors according the rules of the Court they shall not be now accepted Dewick against Bamber Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved upon an Affidavit that the Defendant might plead and goe to tryal That an Attorney might be forced to plead Plea Appearance because his Attorney hath appeared and now he saith he is not an Attorney of this Court and doth refuse to plead Roll chief Iustice answered If he hath appeared and yet will not plead enter your judgement against this Clyent and though he have not appeared if he did promise to appear we will force him to doe it VVhitchurch against Pagot Hill 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in the behalf of Whitchurch a Clerk of this Court To be restored to a Clerks place in the Castes Brevium Office that he might be restored to his Office in the Office of the Custos brevium according to an Order of this Court otherwise that he may have liberty to bring his Action against the Custos brevium The Court answered that the Master of the Office is answerable for all his Clerks and hath power over them and they are not Officers but méer Servants and therefore there is no remedy to be had in Law against him Restitution but in Conscience he ought to restore him Therefore let him shew cause next Term why he should not be restored In Michaelmas Term 1654. After divers motions and hearing what was objected on both sides upon his submission in Court to Mr. Paget the Master of the Office he promised to restore him Mich 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintif was 19 years old Arrest of Iudgement for pleading per Guardianum and sued per guardianum which ought not to be for after he is 17 years years old he ought to sue per Attornatum suum The Court answered this is no good exception for if he be within the age of 21 years he may sue per guardianum and he is admitted by the Court to doe so And therefore let the Plaintif take his Iudgement Bigford against Topsam Pasc 16â—â— Banc. sup Mich. 1649 rot 85. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of Debt upon an obligation with the condition for the payment of a certain sum of money after the return of the Ship Error to reverse a judgment in debt to the Port of Plymouth The Defendant pleaded a special plea to which the Plaintiff demurred upon this demurrer the Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff upon which Iudgement the writ of Error was brought Wadhaâ—â— Windham assigned for error 1. That there issued a pone out of the Couâ—â— of Plymouth returnable the 1 of March and the Defendant did not appear till the 8 of March and so there is a discontinuance Hales of Councell on the other side answered that the Plaintiff had accepted of a Declaration Discontinuance and so that fault is helped The Court answered the acceptance of the Declaration doth not help it But the Record is not so therefore passes ouster A 2d Exception was that there is no bail taken Bail for it is erroneous bail and so shall be accompted no bail The Court answered this is not material here A 3d. Exception was that it is said that the plea was held before the then Maior and doth not shew that he was elected The Court answered it is well enough as it is though it might have been otherwise It was adjourned Custodes Libertat c. against Mountain and Lydal Pasc 1649. Banc. sup AN information was exhibited by the Attorney generall against the Defendants for engrossing divers Acres of Corn. Demurrer to a plea to an information for engrossing They pleaded that they had been heretofore prosecuted in the Court of the Exchequer and were acquitted thereof To this plea the Attorney general demurred and these reasons were shewed why the plea was not good 1. It is not pleaded that they were acquitted by judgement or upon a verdict or upon a former information exhibited against them 2ly It doth not appear that the Exchequer had jurisdiction of the cause 3ly There could be no information duly exhibited for it is said to be the 10. of September which is out of the Term and so the Court did not sit 2ly there is no issue joyned for the Plaintiff saith ponit se c whereas it being by way of recital ought to have been posuit se and the other saith petiit quod inquiratur per patriam 3ly There is no verdict in the Case for the issue is non culp contra Statutum and the verdict is non est culp juxta Statutum 4ly There is no judgment for it is eat ad praesens and it ought to be iret ad tunc 5ly There is no averment that the first information was for the same offence 6ly The information ought to be in the same County by the Statute of 21 Jac. and the Barons of the Exchequer are not Iudges by the Statute and so prayes Iudgement against the Defendant Hales of Councell with the Defendant answered to the third exception That in the Exchequer there is a Court the 10. of September to receive informations although it be out of the Term time And he said there is a good issue joyned and a good verdict for the words juxta et contra in this place have one and the same sence And the Iudgement is also good And the information was well brought in the Exchequer notwithstanding the Statute of 21 Jac. for the offence was in Midlesex where the Exchequer is Also if the Iudgement be not good by reason of Error yet it shall be accompted good till it be avoided by plea And although it be erroneous yet here is a discontinuance for Mich. 24 Car. St. Iohn was chief Iustice of the Commons Pleas and not solliciter as the plea supposeth The Court answered that they cannot take notice of that And here is no issue joyned nor any continuance to part of the plea pleaded by the Defendant and the demurrer goes not to the plea upon which the party puts himself upon the Country and there is no demurrer to that The demurrer is referred to the last plea and not to all and so there is a discontinuance to part and the first Iudgement is not void untill it be avoided by plea and here the fact was done in the County where the Exchequer is Void and â—oideable Discontinuance Câ—râ—â—orari and so the Barons are Iudges of it by the Statute and a fine that is voideable is not void untill it be made so by pleading And if you cannot answer the discontinuance all the rest is to no purpose therefore take time to answer that It was said also by the Court that the Defendant may remove an information exhibited against
him out of any County to the Courts at VVestminster notwithstanding the Statute Hamond against Kingsmill Pasc 1649. Banc. sup HAmond a Iustice of peace brought an Action upon the Case against Kingsmill Arrest of in an action â—â—r words for speaking these several words of him viz. Mr Hamond did of his own head put into Mores confession that he stole the Lambs And 2ly That he was a debauched man and is not fit to be a Iustice of Peace Vpon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that none of the words were actionable or at least the last words are not and so Iudgement cannot be given For the first words he said they ought to be taken in mitiori sensu and they may have a good construction viz. that he framed the confession without being helped by any other body And for the second words that he was a debanched man they cannot touch his office at the present Mich. 24 25. Eliz. C. Banc. 1. because they are spoken in the preterperfect tence not in the present tence The Court said that the words was a debauched man are incertain words Therefore take Iudgement for the first words and nil capiat per billam for the second except cause shewed to the contrary Iennings against Lee. Pasc 1649. Banc. sup IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee For a repleader because an immaterial issue joyned The Defendant pleaded non cul to the Battery and pleaded a special justification as to the Assault It was prayed there might be a repleader granted because the issue joyned is immaterial The Councel on the other side prayed for Iudgement Wild held that there is an Issue joyned for the Record faith so and the Iury have found the Issue and if it be ill it is not helped by the Statute and so there can be no Iudgement All issues are not joyned by an expresse affirmative and an expresse negative for if it be but by implication it is good enough An immaterial Issue is not helped by the Statute but an informall issue is helped and here the issue is immaterial 32 Eliz. Lovelace and Griffin rot 934. Trin. 22 Car. Coles case rot 932 Banc. Reg. 23 Car. More and Clipson and prayes for a repleader Serjeant Parker on the other side said the cases cited were not to the purpose as to the Case at the Bar for here is a good issue joyned to one thing pleaded if not to the rest Roll chief Iustice held that where there is an immaterial issue there ought to be a Repleader and it is not helped by the Statute and there can be no Iudgment for the matter is not putin tryal Repleader and for this cause it would be unreasonable to give Iudgement Ieofail Issue and this is an immaterial issue Trin. 9 Car. entred Mich. 8 Car. rot 366. Tayler and Sparks an affirmative and an implyed negative make a good issue though it be not an express negative Therefore replead Hurd against Lenthall Hill 1649. Banc. sup Entred Mi h. 1649. rot 568. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae Question upon the words of a will whether a joyntenancy or a tenancy in Common The Case upon the words of a Will was this Lands were devised to two daughters equally to be divided and to the Surviver of them and to the Heirs of the Body of the Surviver of them Maynard held that here is a joyntenancy because otherwise the Will cannot take effect in all parts Hales held that there is a tenancy in Common and not a joyntenancy nor any crosse remainders Roll Chief Iustice said That the words equally to be divided in a Will Ioyntenant Tenant in common do make a tenancy in Common by construction but in a grant it would be otherwise but here upon the entire Will it doth not appear that the Lands should be divided but that there should be a Surviver And the Land was intended for a security for a portion and that the devise should stand till the monyes should be paid And in a Will the last words of it do explain the first words but it is not so in a grant Will. Grant All the Iudges agreed in opinion with the chief Iustice and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi causa c. Pasc 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a Certiorari For a certiorari to the Lord Maiors court of London Certiorari to the Lord Maiors Court of the City of London to remove an information exhibited in that Court against a Woodmonger of London grounded upon an Act of Common Councell The Court answered we cannot do any thing in it if it should be removed hither if it be grounded upon an act of Common Councel but if the Act of Common Councell be against Law we may grant a Certiorari Adjourned till Friday next to hear Councell on both sides Lamb against Duff Pasc 16â—â— Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit the Court was enformed that Lamb had arrested Duff after a verdict found for Lamb against him to the intent For false practice that he may have him in Custody when the Iudgement is entred against him and for no other cause as appears by his own confession it was therefore prayed the party may be set at large The Court made answer that this was a strange and an irregular course and ought not to be If one take out a latitat against one and have no cause of Action against him the party may have an Action of the Case for it Case Attach nt Take an attachment if he will not discharge the party or else let him shew cause to morrow why he should not discharge him Hollingworth against VVhetstone Pas 1649. Banc. sup HOllingworth brought an Action of Debt upon a single obligation against Whetstone Demurrer to a plea in debt upon a single obligation Bar. Abatement The Defendant pleaded payment of part of the sum since the Action brought in Bar of the Action To this Plea the Plaintif demurred The Court answered the plea was not good in Bar of the Action but in abatement of the Writ it had been good Therefore let the Defendant shew cause why Iudgement should not be against him upon the demurrer Gibbon against Kent Pasch 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 24 Car. rot 60. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6 in an Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. for the not setting forth of Tithes The Errors assigned were 1. That it doth not appear that the Lands sowed do lye in the Parish that is laid in the Declaration 2ly The Plaintiff hath not intitled himself well to his Action for the Statute of 3â— H. 8. is taken away by the Statute of 13 Eliz. 3ly The Statute is
actionable the judgement was formerly stayed till the Plaintif should move At this day Pepes for the Plaintif prays for judgement because he held the words were actionable and cited one Bragges Case adjudged and said that the Plaintif had laid a special damage by the words Windham on the other side said That the Plaintif had not laid any special damage as Pepes supposeth but only allegeth a general damage namely that he by speaking of the words lost his credit and could not buy wares upon trust as he used to do before but only for ready money and so there can be no issue joyned Ierman Iustice held the words actionable and also Roll the chief Iustice for he said it was a hinderance to him in his Trade to be so spoken of although they bring him not within the Statute of Bankrupt and he cited 11 Car. Iackson and Hewes his case where an Action was brought by Iackson being a Grasier against Hewes for saying of him Thou art a base beggarly Rogue and art not able to pay thy debts Nicholas Justice held the words actionable but Ask Iustice doubted for such words may peradventure be true it they be spoken of a young Tradesman that begins with little And said that the chief question is whether the averment of the damage be well alleged and he held it was not because it was so general that no issue can be joyned upon it Roll chief Iustice said the words are found by the Verdict to be spoke falso et malitiose And therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement except better matter be shewed Pasch 1650. Banc. sup AN Information was exhibited in this Court against one for engrossing of Hay the Defendant appeared and pleaded to the information For the Defendant to try an Information at his own charge denied Indictment Information the Plaintif moved that the Defendant might be ordered to carry the cause down to be tryed at the Assizes at his own charge But the Court answered that they could make no such Order because the sute was not upon an Endictment which is at the sute of the Custodes but upon an information which is at the sute of the party Cater against Startute Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 1025. THe Plaintif brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an award The Defendant pleaded that there was no award made Demurrer to a replication in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an award The Plaintif replies that there was an award made and sets forth the award and assigns the breach Vpon this the Defendant demurs and for cause shews that part of the award was that one of the parties should make such a general release to the other as Councel should advise so that the Councel are made Arbitrators in regard that a judicial act is referred to them which ought not to be for the Arbitrators cannot delegate their authority to others Ministerial Act Judicial and 8 E. 4. f. 10. was cited to this purpose But Wild on the other side said that the referring of the making of the releases to Councel was warrantable because it is but a ministerial act and not a judicial as is objected Roll chief Iustice said that there is no judicial thing left for the Councel to do but only a ministerial act and therefore it is well enough but it had been otherwise had it been a judicial act for that had béen for the Arbitrators to delegate their anthority to others which is not warrantable because it is contrary to the submission of the parties but to delegate a ministerial act is not contrary And with him the Court agreed and ordered the Plaintif to take his Iudgement except better matter were shewn Saturday next Dawkes against Payton Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 306. AN Action was ordered out of the Chancery to be tryed in this Court Whereupon the cause was tryed Error to reverse a judgement in the Upper Bench. upon an issue directed out of the Chancerie and a Iudgement upon a Verdict was given for the Plaintif The Defendant brings a writ of Error here to reverse this judgement The first question was whether it did sufficiently appear by the Record whether the party did appear in person or by Guardian Hales held that it did not appear but that it belongs to the other party to shew it for he ought to have all the Record upon which the Error is assigned A second question was Whether the Error assigned if it be Error be not helped after a Verdict by the Statute of 21 Iac. Hales held that however the party appeared whether by Guardian or in proper person it is helped by the Statute of 21 Iac. and cannot be assigned here for Error and the writ of Error that is brought is as well to reverse the judgement given here as the former judgement given in Chancery which cannot be for this Court cannot reverse their own Iudgement except it be for Error in process 1â— H. 6. 2. 44. 7 H. 6. f. 28. nor can this Court reverse their own judgement for Error in fact because it is to overthrow their own act yet the Chequer chamber may doe it yet there it is more proper to appeal to the Parliament and he said that the Cases of 2 Rich. 3. f. 1. and Dyer 1â—5 cited to be resolved have been since disputed and so prayed the writ of Error might abate Roll chief Iustice said that for the first matter whether it appears by the assignment of the party whether the appearance were per Guardianum Appearance or otherwise we will not imagin either Attorney or Guardian in the Case but that he appeared in propria persona because nothing to the contrary appears by the Record Error and if it be otherwise you ought to have shewn it And for the matter whether it be Error to appear by Attorney where the party ought to appear by his Guardian he held it was Error and that it is not helped by the Statute of 21 Iac. because it is more dangerous for an Infant to appear in propria persona or per Guardianum than per Attornatum for against an Attorney he may have remedy but not against himself or his Guardian and this is casus omissus out of the Statute And as to the question Casus omissus whether this Court may reverse their own judgement he held that they may for Error in matter of fact as the case here is though they cannot for Error in matter in Law as was adjudged Mich. 25. rot 96. and Mich. 5 Jac. in Watkins and Giffins case and if it should not be so here the party would be without remedy for he can have no remedy in the Chequer Chamber and there is no president in Parliament be to relieved there and it is neither against reason nor any Rule of Law for this Court to do it Vpon this the Councel moved to quash the
is not within the Iurisdiction of the Court and so they cannot hold plea for it at Barnestable and the judgement was given upon a nihil dicit because the Plea being forein the Defendant would not swear it which in this case he is not bound to doe Roll chief Iustice If it appear by the Declaration that the money was to be paid out of the jurisdiction of the Court jurisdiction the Iudgement is not good and it is not necessary to swear the Plea if it appears upon the Obligation that the monies were to be paid out of the jurisdiction of the Court Plea and he plead payment according to the Condition Iudgement but if one will not swear a forein Plea where he ought to doe it the Plaintif may enter judgement upon a nihil dicit for such a forein Plea not sworn is no Plea upon the matter The Iudgement was reversed nisi c. Ley against Anderton Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 524. LEy brought a writ of Error to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas for Anderton in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation Error to reverse a judgement in debt upon an Obligation and Assigns for Error that the Obligor in the Obligation upon which the Action was brought made his wife his Executrix and dyed and that the wife being Executrix dyed intestate and that the Plaintif in the Action took administration of the goods and Chattels of the feme and brought the action of Debt upon an Obligation as Administrator to the wife whereas the Plaintif ought first to have taken Letters of Administration de bonis non administratis of the Testator and so to have brought his Action Administration To which the Court agreed and said it is a plain fault and reversed the Iudgement nisi c. Elsy against Mawdit Trin. 1650. Banc. sup ELsy brought an action of Assault and Battery against Mawdit an Attorny of this Court Whether the Huâ—band must put in bail for his wife in assault and battery and his wife The Defendant Mawdit appeared in propria persona and his wife was in custodia and so the Plaintif declared against them the question here was whether Mawdit the Defendant ought not to put in bail for his wife Burrel of Councel with the Defendant argued that the Declaration was not good because that the Husband Mawdit ought to have put in bail for his Wife and cited Smith and Smiths case and Mich. 17 Car. Simon Fanshaws case and Dyer 377 a. and Brook title Privilege 353 a. and 9 rep Roll chief Iustice said he ought to put in bail therefore the Plaintif nil capiat per billam Bail because his Declaration is not good against her in Custodia The City of London against De roy Trin. 1650. Banc. sup LAtch shews for cause why a procedendo should not be granted to London against De roy Cause why a a procedendo should not be granted to London who upon a tryal against him was committed in London for using the Trade of a working Gold-smith and a working Ieweller not having served as an Apprentise to the Trade and was brought hither by a Habeas Corpus 1. That the Declaration is founded upon a By-law and that By-law is founded upon a Custom and if either the Custom or By-law be not good in all patts the Declaration is naught and here the Custom is certified in the negative and this is oppositum in subjecto and meerly contradictory in it self By-law 8 E. 3. 77. and the By-law also that is certified is not certain and it is also unreasonable for every stroke the Defendant strikes is using of his Trade and it is unreasonable he should pay five pound for every stroke 2ly The Declaration is not applied to the By-law upon which it is grounded for the doing of a thing one day is not using to doe it and the words diversis vicibus do not help it for they are not applyed to his working as a Ieweller but to his working as a Goldsmith only also it doth not appear who is to have the forfeiture for one third part of the fine set upon him and it is not said that he gained his living by the Trade or sale of the commodity wrought and the words of using it pro lucro et proficuo do not help it for it may be he uses it for his private use and that is to his profit though he sell not the commodity Next it is unreasonable that a stranger an Alfen shall be restrained by a By-law made 40 years ago Notice where of he had no notice and that by reason of such a Law he should be punished for doing a thing which the Common Law allows namely to get his own living It is also said Non existens liber homo usus est arte c. which are words very incertain for by the offence so expressed every Apprentice may be punished for working for an Apprentice is not Liber homo Maynard on the other side cited 5 E. 3. that a negative with an affirmative implyed is good and that it is exclusive of Strangers and inclusive of the Citizens And the offence is the matter not the time of the Defendants using the Trade it is also well designed in all points to what use the fine is to be put and if there be Error they ought to bring a writ of Error and to except to the Declaration And this case cannot be likened to an Apprentises working for he uses the Trade not for himself but his Masters benefit The Court desired books and adjourned it till the next Term. Custodes libert c. against White VVHite was outlawed in an Action of Trespass To reverse an Outlawry Abreviation It was moved to reverse the Outlawry because in the exigent it was Utlest being put for an abbreviation of utlagatus est and upon this exception it was reversed Disne against Grigson Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 98. DIsne brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Grigson Demurrer after an issue joyned the condition was for the payment of a certain sum of money upon the resignation of a living and a certain annual sum at two payments The Plaintif aseigns a breach in not paying such a sum at such a day upon this the issue was entred and after the Defendant demurs Roll chief Iustice The Defendant is a Mad-man and we cannot give Iudgement against him stay therefore till he is recovered Yet take your Iudgement nisi Iudgement Error c. for the other may bring his writ of Error if he will Nota. Bernard against Levit. Trin. 1650. Banc. sup BErnard brought a writ of Error against Levit to reverse a Iudgement given against him in the Common Pleas in an action upon the case for speaking these words of him Thou Bernard art a base fellow Error to reverse a judgement in an Action
verdict in the case by which it is helped Ierman Iustice said there is only an implication to shew in what Parish the lands lie and that is not a violent implication neither and therefore the Declaration cannot be good But Roll Chief Iustice answered What if the Plaintif had only said that the tithes belonged unto him And it is here after a verdict and the Declaration is helped by it Declaration but if you had demurred to the Declaration it would have been ruled to be naught Demurrer And if the tithes do belong to the Plaintif why may it not be implyed that they belong to him as Parson of the Parish and are of lands lying within the Parish But let us see a Book and speak to it again the next Term. Robinson against VValker Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 251. WAlker brought an Action upon the Case upon an indebitatus Assumpsit for wares sold Demurrer for doubleness in a replication The Defendant pleaded the Statute of limitations of Actions in Bar. The Plaintif replyed that he is a Merchant and was in Ireland and did not return thence till such a time and shews precisely when and that within six years after his return he brought this action Vpon this Replication The Defendant demurred and upon the Demurrer Iudgement was given for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement and assigned for Error 1. That the replication of the Plaintif upon which the Demurrer was joyned is double For first he allegeth that he is a Merchant so is a person out of the Statute of limitations And secondly he shews that he brought his Action within 6 years after his return which is needless 2ly He saith That he did not return into England whereas the Statute is general If he return and he may return into Wales But to that the Court answered that to return into England or into Wales was all one as to the intent of the Statute 3ly The Action was an Action upon the Case that Action is not mentioned in the Statute But Roll chief Iustice said this is no new Case for it hath been ruled that an Action upon the Case is within the Statute Case Ierman Iustice said the Proviso of the Statute is intended to be as large as the body of the Act. Nicholas Iustice to the same effect and said that the word Trespass mentioned in the Act doth comprise in it an Action upon the Case The Iudgement was affirmed nisi Trin. 1650. Banc. sup AN Endictment was quashed To quash an Endictment because it was said to be taken ad generalem Sessionem Pacis Custodum libertatis Angliae where it ought to be Sessionem Pacis publicae by Ierman Iustice absente Roll. Treton against Squire Trin. 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that a Prisoner in the Marshalsea might have liberty by rule of Court to be at a tryal to give his testimony as a Witness in the cause To have a Prisoner to testifie at a Trial. Ierman Iustice absente Roll answered Bring him thither by a Habeas Corpus but take a good guard with him for it shall be at your peril if he escape Habeas Corpus and he shall be brought thither and carried back again at your own charge Gibs against Price Trin. 1650. Banc. sup GIbs a Barrester of Lincolns Inne brought an action upon the case against Price for speaking these words of him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words William Gibs hath dealt falsely with me being his Clyent and hath joyned with mine Adversary Vpon not guilty pleaded there was an issue joyned and a Verdict given for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable But the Court held clearly the words were actionable and were ordering judgement to be entred for the Plaintif Case but because another exception was taken That the Plaintif doth not aver that he was a Practiser at the time of the bringing of his Action Averment and because it was also objected that the Plaintif was now sequestred Therefore the rule was that the Record or the Postea should be brought into the Court and that Councel should again be heard This was moved again And Roll chief Iustice said That the Plaintif ought to aver he is a Practiser for he may be a Barrester and not practise But the Court would advise Boomer against Cleve Trin. 1650. Banc. sup IN this Case in Arrest of Iudgement upon a verdict given for the Plaintif in an Action upon the Stat. of Winch. 12 E. 1. of Hue Cryes Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Statute of 12 E. â— of Hue and Cries Recital the question being whether the Plaintif in his Declaration had mis-recited the Statute or not Roll chief Iustice took this difference that if one bring an Action upon a Statute and in his Declaration mis-recite it in words which go to the ground of the Action though there be a Verdict in the case yet it is not helped but if the mis-recital be in words which doe not goe to the ground of the Action it is helped after Verdict by the Statute of Ieofails Ieofails Bynion against Trotter Mich. 1650. Banc. sup BYnion brought an Action upon the Case against Trotter for speaking these words of him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words He is a Thief and hath stollen my Turnips and my grass Vpon a Verdict given for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because the grass might be growing upon the ground and the Turnips in the ground Case and so part of the Freehold But Roll chief Iustice held the words are actionable for the Turnips shall be intended to be pulled up and the Grass mowed the last words are not cumulative Therefore let the Defendant shew cause why the Plaintif shall not have his Iudgement Pinder against Dawkes Mich. 1650. Banc. sup PInder brought an Action of Trespass against Dawkes Error to reverse a Iudgement in Trespass quare clausum fregit and declares quare clausum fregit contra pacem publicam et postes et palos suos ibidem nuper inventos cepit et asportavit The Plaintif hath a Verdict and a judgement the Defendant brings a writ of Error to reverse the judgement and assigns for Error 1. That the Trespass was done in the late Kings time and therefore the Declaration should have been contra pacem Domini Regis and not publicam 2ly That the Declaration is incertain for it appears not whether the Posts and Pales were fixed to the ground or no nor how many of them there were and so the nature of the offence cannot be certainly known But the Court held that the first exception was but a mistake of the Clark and so may be amended and as it is there is no repugnancy in it
And as to the second the Court held that it shall be intended that the Posts and Pales were not fixed to the ground Amendment and there is no necessity to express how many Posts and how many Pales the Defendant took Intendment and it is not material whether they were fixed or not But the Court would advise and ordered Councel to spake again to it Popham against White Mich. 1650. Banc. sup AN Action of Trover an Coversion was brought Exception to a Declaration in a Trover and Conversion wherein the Plaintif declared pro Arboribus Twisden of Councel with the Defendant argued that the Declaration was not good because a Trover cannot lie de Arboribus Roll chief Iustice he may declare de Arboribus if he say that he was possessed sicut de Arboribus suis propriis But Ierman Iustice doubted Therefore the Court would advise Martin against Hendlye Mich. 1650. Banc. sup MArtin brought an Action of Debt against Hendlye a Sherif for an escape and had a Verdict against him Arrest of Iudgement in an action of Debt against a Sherif for an escape Advantage The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took these exceptions 1. That the Action was brought by the Plaintif as an Administrator for the escape which was made in the life of the Intestate only 2ly That there is no Capias issued to the Sherif The Court answered That the Sherif cannot take advantage of an erronious process but the first exception is good for the Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only the Plaintif being but an Administrator Detinet who recovers not to his own use Therefore stay Iudgement till the Plaintif move Dethick against Mich. 1650. Banc. sup DEthick moved for a Prohibition to the Admiralty for preferring an Endictment there For a prohition to the Admiralty Prohibition Certiorari which is not within the Statute touching the Admiralty and so they have no jurisdiction of the cause The Court answered that a Prohibition lies not in cases of Felony but if there be Cause it may be removed by Certiorari But we will advise Bennet and the Hundred of Hartford Mich. 1650. Banc. sup IN a tryal at Bar between the inhabitants of Hartford and Bennet a Caryer upon an Action brought against them upon the Statute of Winchester Evidence by one of the lury to the rest Evidence for a robbery committed within that Hundred upon his servant It was said by the Court that if either of the parties to a tryall desire that a Iuror may give evidence of something of his own knowledge Examination Where a hundred shall be charged for a robbery or where not to the rest of the Iurors that the Court will examine him openly in Court upon his oath and he ought not to be examined in private by his companions And it was also said that if a robbery be done in crepusculo the Hundred shall not be charged but if it be done by cleer day light whether it be before Sun rise or after Son set it is all one for the Hundred shall be charged in both cases Mich. 1649. Banc. sup SErjeant Earl A Iury being ready at the Bar for a tryal challenged the Atray for want of Hundreders A challenge of the array f r want of Hundredors the manner of it and delivered in the challenge in writing to Woodward the Clark of the Court to be read But the Court interrupted him and said to the Serjeant you ought first to read it your self in French which he accordingly did and afterwards Woodward read it in Latin Twisden of Councel on the otherside said that the challenge was taken to no purpose for the Iury was returned by the Secondary by rule of Court and the Hundreders were put out by the consent of the parties But the Court answered that the consent of the parties was to no purpose to avoid the challenge but that it was a good challenge Consent Challenge Tales and there cannot be a tales granted upon a challenge for default of Hundreders and therefore the panel was quashed and a new Iury ordered to be returned by the Sheriff In this case it was said that after the first man of a Iury is sworn the Array cannot be challenged Cage against Dod. Mich. 1650. Banc. sup VPon a tryal betwen Cage and Dod touching a Copyhold it was said by the Court that a Copyholder for life cannot prescribe against his Lord What copy-holder may prescribe against his Lord and what nor but a Copyholder in fee may for he hath the Copyhold in the nature of Land of inheritance And also that if a Copyholder for life cut down tymber trees the Lord may take them And that if an under Lessee for years of a Copyholder cut down tymber Forfeiture it shall not be a forfeiture of the Copy-holders estate The Countesse Rivers Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Countesse Rivers put in her plea of Privilege of Peerage into Court A Plea of privilege of peerage by Countess Privilege and prayed by Sejeant Glin of her Councel that it might be read and allowed Vpon which it was read by Woodward Clark of the Court. After which Roll chief Iustice said it is questionable whether a Countess made so by patent only for her life be privileged or no therefore let her remain in the Custody of the Sheriff till Saturday and not be turned over to the Custody of the Mareschall and then move it again Postea Burton against Low Mich. 1650. Banc. sup BUrton brought an Action of debt against Low Demurrer in debt upon a Sheriffs bond upon a Sheriffs bond given by Low to the Sheriff being arrested by him by virtue of an Attatchment directed to him out of the Chancery the condition of the Bond was that the Defendant should appear on such a day in Cancellaria apud Westmonasterium ubicunque suerit The Defendant pleads in Bar the Statute of 3 H. 6. she Plaintiff demurred to this plea. Moseley of Councell with the Defendant argued that the Bond upon which the Action was brought was void and against the Statute 1. Because the party is bound to appear in a Court which is not a fixt Court and so incertain namely the Court of Chancery at Westminster whereas the Chancery is a moveable Court and not fixt to Westminster or any other place 2ly The condition of the Obligation is impossible for it is that the Defendant shall appear in the Chancery at VVestminster wheresoever it shall be and it is impossible for him to appear at VVestminster and at another place at the same time 3ly The Bond varies from the Statute in some things and enjoyns more than the Statute requires in other things VVilmot on the other side held that the Bond is not within the Statute because the King is not within the Statute as was held 13 Car. 7 H. 4. f. 44. 5 rep VVhelpdales case Dyer 119. Roll chief
refusing to appear and do his service at his Court he had forfeited his Copyhold and that therefore he did enter The Case was this The Defendant being Lord of the Manor and holding of his Court the Plaintif being Tenant and being in the Court and there being a question whether the Court were legally then held or no and being asked if he did appear or not he answered If it be a legal Court I do appear but if it be not a legal Court I do not appear The question was whether this be an appearance or such a refusal to appear whereby the Copyholder shall forfeit his Copyhold or not Latch held it was no appearance and that therefore the Copyhold was forfeited and cited 43 Ed. 3. f. 25. And he said though it be not expressed by the Defendant that the Plaintif was legally summoned to appear in Court it is not material seeing he was present in Court and did refuse being demanded to appear And that this was a sufficient contempt to make a forfeiture And he said that the Rejoynder is ill for it is dixit comparuit and he doth not answer to the fact alleged viz. That he denied to do his sute and service Wild on the other side said that it is no forfeiture for if the Court be well held then he doth appear as his words do plainly manifest and so there is no contempt and if the Court were not well held his not appearing shall not burt him for he is not required to do it 37 Eliz. Est and Hardinges case and 4 rep 27. Hobard and Hamonds case And besides this cannot be a voluntary contempt because he did appear conditionally and did not absolutely refuse And the Replication hath not entitled you to a forfeiture Besides it appears not here that the Court was legally summoned as it ought to do nor that there was any proclamation made for the holding of the Court nor any notice given to the Tenants of the holding of the Court 38 39 Eliz. Banc. Reg. Crisp and Dyer Roll chief Iustice This case hath depended long Forfeiture It is a hard thing to make a forfeiture of the Copyhold if there was a real controversie whether the Court was well held or not but if not and that the words were used only as a shift to avoid the Plaintifs sute and service it is a forfeiture for the words are like Iack in a Box and no body knows what to make of them Ierman Nicholas and Ask enclined that it was no forfeiture Adjourned to the next term Fielder against Tovy Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 430. FIelder brought an action of debt upon a bond given to the Sherif by Tovy the Defendant to appear to the Plaintif in the Vpper Bench Demurrer to a Declaration uâ—on a Sherifs Bond. to an Action there brought against the Defendant The Defendant appears and demurs to the Declaration and shews for cause that the Bond upon which the Plaintif declares and the Declaration do not agree for the Plaintif declares pro quadragint libris and the Obligation mentions that the Defendant is bound in quadragent libris Divers cases were put to resemble this viz. Massam and Iollies case where sexigint was put for sexagint and yet held good and Waters case where septuagint was put for septingent And Downes and Hussies case 12 Car. Banc. Reg. where quingint duabus libris was used instead of quinquagint and yet held good because it might be an abreviation of quinquagint Ierman Iustice held the Declaration not good because the condition of the Obligation is to doe a collateral thing and so it cannot appear by it what the sum is in which the party is bound as it may where the condition is for the payment of money Roll chief Iustice held the Declaration not good Declaration because the Bond upon which it is grounded doth not warrant it and the meaning of the word cannot here be known and if the Condition were not collateral it would not help it Nicholas Iustice differed and said it would be hard to make it no Obligation for the mis-writing of a word and therefore it were good to search presidents for it as a considerable case Ask Iustice said the meaning is obscure and this makes the difficulty Adjourned Postea Wentworrh against Wentworth Hill 1650. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 531. VVEntworth brought an Action of Debt against Wentworth upon an Obligation The Condition of it was this in effect That whereas the Defendant had granted an annuity to the Plaintif that the Defendant should make further assurance to the Plaintif for the enjoying thereof within one month when he should be thereunto required Vpon a special verdict the question was from what time the month should begin whether from the date of the Obligation or from the time of the request to be made Latch held it should begin from the request and not from the date of the Obligation because a month from that time is too small a time to do the thing required but if it shall be after the request it will be a proportionable time fit for the doing it Roll chief Iustice If there be an indifferent construction which may be taken two ways Interpretation we will take it that way which is most reasonable to make the Obligation stand in force and me seems the words here are plain namely that the assurance shall be made within a month after request not after the date of the Bond. Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that although the request for further assurance were not within one month after the date of the bond yet the party may require it after the month is ended and within a month after such request the assurance is to be made and the Obligation shall be intended for the benefit of the Obligor Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect so judgement ruled for the Plaintif Nisi c. Child against Guiat Hill 1650. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 153. IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit made by the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a certain sum of money at a certain day Special verdict Q. whether a variance between the declaration and the promise on which it was granted Vpon a speciall verdict The question was whether there were a variance between the promise and the Declaration which question grew from the doubt whether the day of payment in the Assumpsit shall be intended according to the old stile or according to the new for if it were intended one way there was no variance if the other way there was a variance Hales held that there was no variance and though there should be yet he said the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement because the time in this case is not material for the debt for the payment whereof the promise was made appears to be due upon an Accompt made between the parties which time is past and grows not due
upon the Assumpsit for this is no new promise in Law and it is all one here as if the promise had been set forth that he promised to pay when he should be thereunto required And whereas it hath been objected that the debt upon the Accompt appears to be due by two and that the Action therefore ought to have been brought against them both and not against one of them as it is here he answered that the Action may be brought against both or any one of them at the election of the party and the custom of Merchants makes no difference in the case for the Law creates the debt and makes both lyable though the custom give election to sue one or both of them and so one may here be sued for the debt is by the custom transferred upon one although it be the debt of both And here both the dayes viz. according to the old stile and according to the new were past before the action brought Roll chief Iustice held Date that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement but that day shall be taken according to the old stile Averment if there be not a speciall averment to the contrary and so there is variance between the pleading and the verdict but this doth not hurt here for the Action doth not fail although the day be limited upon the evidence otherwise than it is in the Declaration for the debt is the duty arising upon the accompt made between the parties Time and the day upon the Assumpsit for the payment is not material for the Action lies though no Assumpsit had been made Actual promise Debt and here is no need of an actual promise But if an Assumpsit be made upon a contract there is no precedent duty and so there is a difference between one case and the other And if two be found in arrearages of accompt Custom by the custom of Merchants one may be charged to pay all the debt as well as both Ierman Iustice as Roll and said that where the day is part of the contract it ought to be alleged to be past at the time of the Action brought but it is not so here and also both the dayes are here past Nicholas to the same purpose Roll chief Iustice If the Action be specially laid and the day made part of it there if the Plaintiff fail in the day his action also fails And if one declare generally for 100 l. upon an indebitatus and it appears upon the evidence that the Defendant did owe the Plaintiff but 10 l. yet the Plaintif shall recover But if the Plaintiff declare specially Declaration General Special viz. for a horse sold for so much and by the evidence it appears he owed a lesse sum there the Plaintiff shall not recover for it shall be intended another contract and not that upon which the Action is brought and so Iudgement for the Plaintiff nisi c. Maynard spake again to it But Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff upon the former reasons Paul VVilliams and his wife against the Custodes c. Hill 1650. Banc. sup PAul Williams and his wife had a Iudgement given against them at the Sessions at Hickes Hall Error to reverse a judgment at the Sessions for speaking words upon an endictment for speaking words against the Lord Fairefax whereupon they brought a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse the Iudgement The Exceptions taken were these 1. That the Iustices there had not power to hold plea for words spoken To this the Court answered that they have power to hold plea for such words because they tend to breach of the peace and the speaking of them is a great misdemenour The second exception was that it is said juratores jurati electi triatiad veritatem dicunt ad dicendum is left out 3ly There issued out a capias pro fine against the parties whereas there was no fine set upon them The Court to that answered that a fine was set Wild took another exception viz. that the endictment ought not to be joynt against two for words spoken by them both Endictment but severall endictments for the words of one are not the words of the other though they be the same words But the Court answered Case that a joynt endictment was good enough although a joynt Action of the Case cannot be brought against two for words spoken by them both He took also this Exception that it doth not appear that the parties were tryed in the Court for it is only said that they were ducti ad barram and then that they were removed from Hickes Hall to Newgate The Court answered that the words ducti ad barram were sufficient and it is needless to say they were tryed in Court And therefore the whole matter rests upon the 2 d. Exception whether the want of the words ad dicendum be Error and for that let the Clark of the peace be here on VVednesday next and then speak again to it and then by the whole Court the Exception was adjudged good And the Clark of the peace was fined 40 l. Masterman against Rusholme Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 594. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit Error to reverse a judgement in an Action upon an Assumpsit to pay Mariners wages the Exceptions taken were first that the plaint was for 10 l. and the Declaration is to the damages of 20 l. and so there is variance between the plaint and the Declaration Next the promise is laid to be made the 1. of May 1641 to serve the Defendant for a year and he saith that he served him from the 1. of May for a year whereas the 1. of May ought to be excluded so that he ought to say that he served for a year from the making of the promise Roll chief Iustice said Variance that there is variance between the plaint and the Declaration but it is helped by the verdict for that finds that he hath served a whole year But two other exceptions were taken at the Bar. 1. That the Declaration was pro salore insteed of Salario And 2ly It is said deserviret for deservivit Error And upon these the Court ordered the Defendant in the VVrit of error to shew cause why the Iudgement should not be reversed Hill 1650. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Case was brought in London for calling a woman whore the Defendant removed the cause into this Court For a Procedendo into London whereupon the Plaintiff moved for a procedendo to try it in London where the action was first brought Roll chief Iustice held that a procedendo was to be granted for we cannot determine the Custom but if a Iudgement be given in London if it be erroneous a writ of Error may be brought in the Hustings to try the custom therefore
of the first Intestate and after moved the Court that he might have a scire sacias to revive the Iudgment obteined by the former Administrator But the Court answered that he could not have it but must begin a new Action for the debt against the party Hill 1650. Banc. sup ONe was endicted for speaking these words against a Maior of a City To quash an endictment viz. you are a forsworn man and have broken your oath Hales moved to quash the endictment because the words have no reference to the Maior in respect of his office Ierman Iustice answered that the speaking of the words is a breach of the good behaviour and thought it fit the Defendant should plead to the endictment to which the Court at first enclined But afterwards ruled the other party to shew cause on Monday following why it should not be quashed The Countesse Rivers case Hil. 1650. Banc. sup THe Countesse Rivers was arresten by a bill of Midlesex and prayes in Court by her Councell that the Writ may abate Arguments touching privilege of peerage not to be arrested and the Precept and pleads her patent whereby she was created a Countesse and so pleads that she ought not to be arrested Latch of Councell against the Countesse argued that her patent was not good because it wants the words of investiture which are materiall words in the making of an Earl or Countesse for although the Act of investiture may be omitted because she is a woman and she cannot be girt with a sword yet she may be cloathed with a mantle as it is in the Institutes f. 16. and so was it in the case of Ann Bullein that was made Marchioness of Winchester by King Henry the 8. and of the Lady Finch made Countesse of Winchelsea by King Iames 6 Iac. Pasch 1. but in this Case there was a non obstante to dispence with the clause of investiture and in the viscount Barkleys case the patent whereby he was made Earl of Nottingham was adjudged naught for want of this clause 2ly It doth not appear by the patent that she is made an English Countess and then she hath no privilege 8 Rich. 2. Banc. Reg. 204. 11 E. 3. Banc. re 473. Neither is there any relation to the patent to any place of which she is made a Countess For although the patent be sealed with the English broad Seal this is not materiall for outlandish honours may be granted by the broad Seal of England 3ly The cause that she shall have privilege of an English Countesse is not material because she is not made an English Countess and she is no Countess to have privilege against the Common Law although she may it may be have her privilege in point of honour in the Marshalls Court and Heralds office because there is no publique good and service in making her a Countess 43 E 3.4 for being a woman she cannot be imployed in Arms or otherwise for the publique And an Embassador cannot have privileges granted him which do not concern him as an Embassador Dyer 60. and 1.1 H. 7. rot 24 C. Banc. The King cannot grant one to be exempted from arresting as it is in Cooks Mag. Char. Pasc 7 H. 8. rot 66 C. B. for the reason of that clause of Magna charta nulli negabimus Iusticiam The King cannot grant a Sanctuary to protect men from the arrests of his subjects 29 Ass 34. Keiw 190. And there is no instance to be given of a woman made a Countess that was ever frée and protected from arresting In the Statute of 20 H. 6. C. 9. for Earls wives and 21 H. 8. to qualifie Chaplains there is no notice taken of Countesses by creation but only of Countesses dowagers or Countesses by descent 6 rep 9. C. de Rutlands case and Ann Bullein was tryed per pares as she was Queen and not as she was Marchioness of Winchester And further the privileges of Earls and Countesses are now extinct for the cause of those privileges viz. the King and house of Lords are extinct and gone and the privilege of being free from arrests is a privilege executory and not executed Neither doth the sufficiency of their possessions only give them the privilege not to be arrested but their publique scrvices to the State which is the final cause of the privilege and the other was but a partiall cause and not the sole cause Reliefs were payed by Barons and Earls when Earldoms and Baronies were created but they are not now payed as they were then but according to the value of the possessions now and Amercements of Earls and Barons were equall The privileges of Earls and Barons was derived originally from Soldiers after it was derived to Bishops and great Counsellors and so it appears that they were privileged in respect of publique imployments and not by reason of their revenues All the Abbots and Priors had the privilege not to be arrested yet all were not Lords of the Parliament 21 E. 3. Mich. 59. Tres Mich. 7 H. 7. pl. 7.31 E. 3 process 54.27 H. 8.7.7 H. 6.11.29 E. 3. f. 30. Dyer 315. And a Iudgement without a Capiatur was in Trespass against a Bishop because the King was to have no fine 14 H. 7.21 But it is not so in a temporall peer where the King is to have a fine The privileges have severall expressions and the reasons for the privileges of the lay peerage is fully expressed in the Writs directed to them Regist 287.247 Rast Exigent Britton 88.10 H. 4.15 per Hull 14 H. 6.2 per Newton 39 E. 3. f. 35. Hill 14 Eliz. Dyer 314.3 H 6. f. 38.48 E. 3. f. 3.35 H. 6.46 for other privileges they are not allowable And now also all tenures as well as the House of Lords is taken away by the late Act and though her privilege do continue yet she hath not taken the right way to have it allowed for she ought to have brought a writ out of the Chancery to have it allowed and not to have done it dy a dilatory plea 8 H. 6.9 10. and the Patent cannot try whether she be a Countess or not 9 rep 31. Inst 16 b. 6 rep 63. And lastly mischief and misery will ensue to many if this privilege should be allowed and the very matter speaks for it self and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Hales of Councel on the other side prayed the privilege might be allowed and he followed Latch in the points of this Argument And first he said that the thing grounded by the Patent is only in creation of the dignity and there is no need here of investiture for if there were then a recital of it should be also necessary but because it needs not therefore it needs no recital of it in the Patent Seldens Tit. of honour f. 876.21 R. 2. There is a recital of an Investiture but there was no Investiture and so it was not material and a non obstante is to no
the power for it ariseth partly out of her interest and partly out of her Authority and both may well stand together and the Estate made out of both is a good Estate or if not the Estate may be intended to arise out of the power given her to make such an Estate and not out of her interest and the joyning of her daughter is not materiall though no good estate be derived from her and so he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice It is usual in the West of England to make Estates for lives upon the old rent but it is not here expressed of what nature this manor is or whether it used to be let and here is no limitation to let for lives But here either the laster words are idle or else the Feme hath such a power that she may destroy the remainder And itsh all not be intended that he trusted his Executrix with more than he gave her and the words of the Will do not express that and the question is how it shall be interpreted The words may be interpreted Cumulative Interpretation otherwise the feme hath power to destroy the remainder which would be a hard construction To which Nicholas assented Roll chief Iustie The intention of the Testator is not cleer to give this power to the Feme but if it did appear to be his meaning it might be otherwise and here it is in a Will And the Verdict is not well drawn up for the Case might have been made better for all the land may be in Demesite for ought appears by the Verdict Adjourned to be argued again Postea VVebb against Wilmer Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 309. VVEbb brought an Action of Debt for rent reserved by him upon a lease for years made to Wilmer Arrest of Iudgement in Debt for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and obtains a Verdict The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and alleged for cause that the Plaintif had abated his writ The case was this Webb leaseth certain lands to Wilmer for years reserving a rent with a clause of re-entry for not payment the rent being behind the Lessor brings an Action of Debt for the rent and pending the sute re-enters into the land and after the Lessee re-enters The question here was whether the writ once abated by the Plaintifs entry Reviver Abatement pending the writ were revived by the Defendants re-entry Roll chief Iustice held it was not Twisden argued that the writ is not abated but only abatable by plea and so this matter is not to be offered to stay the Iudgement 5 H. 7. f. 47. and he hath pleaded nothing in abatement but to the Action only and he said that it now being after a verdict it is helped by the Statute Hales on the other side said that it doth here appear that the Plaintif hath no cause of Action for he was in possession when he brought the Ejectment Roll answered If one declare having no cause of Action Declaration Departure if there be cause afterward it is well enough But here is a departure and the 1. Ejectment is not revived for it is purged by the re entry The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi The Custodes Libertatis c. against Hall Pasch 1651. Banc. sup HAll was endicted for forestalling of Butter Error to reverse a judgment upon an Endictment for forestalling and pleaded and had judgement given against him whereupon he brought his writ of Error and took these exceptions 1. That it doth not appear that the Endictment was at the Quarter Sessions as it ought to be by the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. for it is only said to be ad generalem Sessionem Roll chief Iustice answered if it be ad generalem Sessionem it may be intended the Quarter Sessions Intendment 2ly It was objected that there is no Capiatur awarded in the judgement as there ought to be The Court answered they would advise VVillis against Bond. Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 86. BOnd an Administrator brought an Action of Debt in Bristow against Willis upon an indebitatus assumpsit Error to reverse a judgement in debt and had a judgement The Defendant brought a writ of Error and took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif declares for a thing the conusance whereof lyes out of the jurisdiction of the Court Iurisdiction for it is for wages to be paid upon the performance of a Voyage to be made in locis transmarinis Roll chief lustice said this was a good Exception for they cannot enquire at Bristow whether the party hath performed his Voyage or not The 2d Exception was that the Plaintif declares that the Defendant was indebted to him in such a sum of money to render him an accompt The Court answered this is not good Accompt Debt for in such case an Action of accompt lies and not an indebitatus assumpsit And for these causes the Iudgement was reversed nisi and pronounced by Ierman Iustice at the prayer of the Plaintifs Counsel in English being the first that was pronounced so in this Court according to the late Act for proceedings in Law to be in English Quod nota Gowr against Pasch 1651. Banc. sup IN Arrest of Iudgement upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif Arrest of Iudgement in a Trover and Conversion Demand Trover in a Trover and Conversion brought by Baron and Feme for goods of the Feme dum ipsa sola suit The Exception was that it is not expressed that the goods were demanded by the Feme Roll chief Iustice said the Demand of the Feme is good to found the Action and it was then also said that a Trover and Conversion lies for goods found and converted although they come afterwards to the hands of the party that lost them The Rule was judicium nisi Pasch 1651. Banc. sup MEmorandum The first rule of this Court made in English was between White and Keblewhite Pasch 1651. Pease against Shrimpton Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 191. THe Court was informed by Councel that the Habeas Corpus and Bail-piece were lost and therefore it was prayed that there might be a new Habeas Corpus and that the old Bail put in may be allowed by the rule of Court Roll chief Iustice answered make a new Habeas Corpus Habeas Corpus Bail and a new Bail-piece but first let Tutt the Attorney that was Clark of the Bails attend here to be examined whether the Habeas Corpus Bail-piece be lost as is suggested Ritch against Sanders Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 758. RItch brought an Action of Trespass against Sanders for taking away his Corn set forth for tithes Special verdict in Trespass for tithes upon the words of a Will upon issue joyned a special Verdict was found whereupon the case fell out to be upon the construction of the
his promise to take notice of her coming Roll chief Iustice answered if all the Declaration be considered together here is a good consideration expressed for this is not like to the case of tender of money And the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi shall be intended to the Defendant himself Consideration and then he must néeds have notice of her coming thither D ves of Counsel with the Defendant took this Exception that the Plaintif in setting forth her offer of mariage doth not say tunc et ibidem soe there is neither place nor time set forth Roll chief Iustice answered it is after a Verdict and you move this Exception too late Advantage and you have now lost the advantage of taking it If there be a sufficient notice it is well if not it is not good for there ought to be a notice for she may come to his house in private so that he cannot take notice of her coming thither Notice The question only is this whether notice be sufficiently and necessarily imployed in the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi Curia advisare vult Postea King against Weeden Pasch 1651. Banc. sup IN Arrest of Iudgement upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif in an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit brought by an Administrator Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case 2 Exceptions were taken 1. That the Plaintif did not shew his Letters of Administration and 2ly That there is no good consideration set forth to ground the Assumpsit upon for it is that the Defendant did promise that if the Plaintif would forbear to take his course for the monies he would pay them which words are uncertain and he should have said his course in Law and not generally his course Roll chief Iustice to the 1 answered It is not necessary here to shew the Letters of Administration for they are but inducements to the Actio◠and not the ground of it And for the second exception the consideration is certainly enough set forth Consideration although the Latine be not very proper Therefore let the Plaintif have his judgement nisi c. Sawyer against Russel Pasc 1651. Banc. sup SAwyer brought an Action upon the case against Russel Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for taking away certain Cattel and obtained a Verdict against the Defendant The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took exception to the Plaintifs Declaration for the incertainty thereof The Plaintif declared of a Trover and Conversion de ducentis Averiis viz. bobus juvencis Anglice Steers Iuvencis Anglice Runts Iuvencis Anglice Heifers which is uncertain and so judgement cannot be given for it is uncertain for what number of each of the Steers Runts and Heifers judgement should be given Roll chief Iustice enclined that it is certain enough Averment and that the number may be averred and the Cattel are all of one kind yet The Court would advise afterward it was ruled Iudicium nisi Shedlock and La. Pere Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 211. IN a Writ of Error brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an inferior Court The Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgment in an interior Court Iudgement Error Abatement that the Iudgement is quod recuperare debeat whereas it ought to be recuperare debet Roll chief Iustice answered That if it be so there is no Iudgement given and so no Writ of Error lies therefore let the writ be abated For the Writ of Error supposeth a Iudgement for the words of it are si judicium redditum sit and in 3. Iacobi in the Exchequer Chamber the very case was adjudged so Collins against Sillye Pasc 1651 Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 302. THe Case was this Demurrer upon an entry upon Lessee for years Lessée for years by indenture covenants with the Lessor that he will not assign over the land let nor any part thereof without the consent of the Lessor The Lessor during the term enters into part of the land let the Lessee assigns over the remainder of his term in the rest of the land without the consent of the Lessor and the Lessor thereupon brings an Action of Covenant against the Lessee the question was whether it did lye in regard that the Lessor had entred into part of the land Covenant Roll chief Iustice held that the Covenant was collateral and therefore it is broken by the assignment notwithstanding the Lessors entry into part of the land And the rule was judicium nisi Custodes against Monger Pasc 1651. MOnger was endicted for forgeing a presentment to a Iury in a Court held before Commissioners of sewers Exceptions to the setting forth of a presentment against Monger for casting of 10 loads of soil into the Thames Exceptions were taken that it doth not appear by the endictment by what authority the Court was held where the presentment was found 2ly It is not averred that the presentment did present the casting in the soil to be any annoyance 3ly There doth not appear to be any process in the case against the party upon the presentment To the first it was answered by councell on the other side that it is not necessary to shew by what authority the Court was held for their Authority is by Act of Parliament and it is a publique Act to be taken notice of Roll the chief Iustice answered That it is a private Act made for the City of London and concerned the Lord Maior though part of it be publique Statute for part of an Act may be publique and another part of it private and of that part which is private we are not bound to take notice and it was here said that in criminal causes Errors in proceedings are not helped by a verdict Notice Roll took an exception that the endictment was only contra pacem publicam Ieofail Indictment whereas at that time when it was preferred it ought to have been contra pacem nuper domini Regis contra pacem publicam nunc Adjourned 23 Car in the Kings Bench. Pasc 1650. rot 414. Cremer Plantiff in a Replevin Burnet Avowant in a Replevin THe Plaintiff complains for the taking of his Cattell Whether a copyhold estate be extinct by the Kings leasing it for life to wit a Horse Colt and three Mares the 13 of Ianuary 21 Car. at Chingford in the County of Essex in a close there called Pipers down THe Defendant avows the taking of the Cattel in loco quo c. as Bailiff unto Thomas Boothbye as damage feasant in the Close aforesaid being the soil and the freehold of the said Thomas Boothby Vpon the pleading the case appeared to be as followeth KIng Henry the 8. being seised in Fée in the right of his Crown in the maner of Chingford Comitis in the County of Essex of which manour a certain tenement called Lormiers
dis-inherited by doubtfull and ambiguous words as it must be here if these tithes should pass Next as to the verdict he said that it is not thereby found that the Testator died possessed of the tithes as it ought to have been as it hath been adjudged 43 Eliz. and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Maynard of Counsel with the Defendant argued That the tithes did pass by the Will otherwise part of the Will must be void which ought not to be if all parts may be so construed that they may stand together and he agreed that lands and tithes are distinct things but in Wills it is not to be so much considered whether the words of them be proper but what was the intent of the Testator in them and whether they do declare his meaning or not and here by construction of the words by freelands inheritance is meant in opposition to Copyhold lands or terms for years 2ly Here is a positive assertion of the Testator himself that in his understanding he had free lands in Holford for he had no other lands there 35 Eliz. Robinsons case rot 504. Banc. Reg. by a will things of one nature may pass by words which are proper to pass things of another nature 44 45 Eliz. rot 125. A devise of lands and tenements will pass leases for years if there be no other lands to pass by those words in the place expressed in the Will and so prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Verdict Roll chief Iustice asked what he said to the exception that it is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the tithes without doubt it had been ill upon a Demurrer therefore see if you cannot help it by the notes by which the Verdict was drawn up But for the matter in Law me thinks it is a strong case that the tithes do pass for we are in the case of a Will where the meaning of the party shall be observed if it may be found out by any means though it cannot be collected ex vi Terminis and should it not be so here part of the Will would be void which may not be if we can make it otherwise by a reasonable construction But I will consider of the Verdict and do you consult with your notes Ierman Iustice The Verdict ought to find the dying seised and till I am satisfied from the Notes I will deliver no opinion Nicholas Iustice held both the devise good and the Verdict also but said it had been otherwise upon a Demurrer Demurrer Ask Iustice to the same intent Ierman Iustice It is clear that the Testator intended to devise the lands in Holford and it is a good devise but if the Verdict be imperfect it is for the Plaintif but if otherwise it is for the Defendant The Court would advise touching the Verdict Hayward against VVilliams Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 824. THe Case was this a Feme was sued as a Feme sole but by the Sirname of her Husband Who may bring a Writ of Error who not she being then Covert The Feme appears and pleads and Iudgement is given against her and the Baron and Feme joyn in a writ of Error to reverse this judgement The question was whether the Baron who was a Stranger to the Record might joyn in the writ to reverse the Iudgement It was moved divers times and the Court advised and at last they said that a Stranger to a Record may not bring a writ of Error to reverse it but that is only where he may have another remedy to avoid the prejudice he may receive by it but in this Case the Baron hath no other remedy for his Wife is taken in Execution and by this means he shall lose her society And therefore reversetur nisi Antea Shann against Bilby Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1065. SHann brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise against Bilby Arrest 〈◊〉 Judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declares that in consideration that the Plaintif should surrender a Copyhold unto I. S. and his heirs according to the Custom of the Manor the Defendant did assume and promise to pay unto him 100 l. and that he did surrender the Copyhold into the hands of a Customary Tenant of the Manor according to the Custom of the Manor to the use of I. S. and his heirs and that the Defendant had not paid the hundred pound according to his promise and declares to his damage c. Vpon non Assumpsit pleaded and Issue thereupon joyned a Verdict was found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement by Latch of Councel with the Defendant that the Declaration is not good 1. Because it doth not set forth to whom the promise was made and if it do not appear to be made to the Plaintif it is nudum pactum for the promise here is the consideration 2ly The Consideration is Executory and the Plaintif doth not shew that he hath performed it and then he hath no cause of Action The Consideration was that the Plaintif should surrender a Copyhold to I. S. and his heirs according to the custom of the Manor and he only shews that he did surrender the Copyhold into the hands of a Customary Tenant according to the Custom of the Manor to the use of I. S. and his heirs and doth not shew that this surrender was presented at the next Court and so it appears not to be a good surrender Surrender for it is uncertain whether it shall be presented or no and till it be presented it is imperfect To which the Court assented and ruled against the Plaintif a Nil capiat per Billam nisi ◠c. In this case it was said that if a man covenant to convey lands Covenant it ought to be done at the charge of him that covenanteth to do it except the contrary be agreed Consideration And that if there be a double consideration alleaged for a promise if one of them be good and the other be not yet an action will lie upon the promise that is broken which was grounded upon these consisiderations Barcock against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 444. A Writ of Error was brought by the Bail to reverse a judgement given against him upon a scire facias the Error assigned was Error brought by the Bad. that there was no Capias taken out against the principal and therefore the scire facias against the Bail is not good Hale answered that it was too late to urge this now for Error for the judgement is upon two nichils returned and cited 21 E. 3. f 13. 6 Roll chief Iustice said that two nichils is as much as a scire feci returned and it is no Error to give judgement upon it but it had been a good plea upon the scire facias to say that there was no Capias against the principal but now there
supplyed by a forein intendment and the party shall be intended to be in custody according to the Custom of London and not by the Common Law Declaration Roll chief Justice held the Declaration good for the prisoner was in custody of both the Sherifs although he was in the Custody of Pack and it stands well enough with the Record and the words ut praefertur do not hurt the averment Averment and the words existent in custodia is a good averment that he was in custody as in an endictment Tunc existens tenementum is good and it is also here found by the Iury that he was in custody for how else could they find for the Plaintif Ierman ad idem But because the two other Iudges had no Books delivered them they would deliver no opinion then Afterward Iudgement was given for the Plaintif Cottrell and his VVife against Theoballs Mich. 1651 Banc. sup COttrell and his Wife brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against Theoballs and declared that the Defendant Arrest of judgement in an Action upon an Assumpsit in consideration that the Plaintif would marry A. that is now the Plaintifs wife did assume and promise to the Plaintif to make good a Legacy given unto her by her Fathers Will and would also give unto her 40 l. more out of his own part given unto him by the said Will at her age of 18 years and declares further that thereupon he did marry her and that the Defendant had not performed his promise and so concludes to his damage so much Vpon non assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of judgement and took divers Exceptions but the Court insisted but upon one of them and that was held material and it was this That the Wife did here joyn in the Action with her Husband Action which she ought not to do because the promise was made to the Husband only and for his benefit and the sole consideration for the promise doth arise from the Husband namely his marying the Feme And Bafield and Collins his case 22 Car. and Cheesman and Wats case 23 Car. were cited and Roll chief Iustice put this case A promise was made by one to a Feme Covert that if the will procure her Husband to levy a fine of such lands that he would give her a riding suit And it was adjudged that the Baron and Feme cannot joyn in an action for breach of this promise and he said that in the case at Bar it was a meer covenant and no duty grew thereby to the Feme Case Postea Goodyer against Shaw Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 633. GOodyer brought an Action of Trespass for an Assault and Battery Demurrer to a plea in an Action of Trespass and wounding of his Servant and taking away 12 plate locks against Shaw The Defendant Shaw pleaded not culpable to the Assault and Battery and wounding and as to the taking away of the locks he pleaded a special plea of Justification by vertue of Letters Patents of incorporation granted to the Lock-smiths of Durham by Cutbert Bishop of Durham who had jura regaliâ— within the County Palatine of Durham and that by vertue of this Charter the locks being not good he as Warden of the Company did take them To this Plea the Plaintif demurred and for cause it was shewed that it appears not by the Plea that the Black-smiths are a Corporation created by the Bishop but only that the Customs used amongst them in Order to the regulating of their Trade were confirmed by the Bishop which doth not make them a Corporation Plow f. 199. Long quint. f. 40 41. 2ly It doth not appear by the Charter that they have any authority to take away ill made locks and therefore judgement was prayed for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice said That here doth not appear any Order made by the Corporation to take away the Locks Corporation and therefore it was done without warrant though the Corporation had such a power But besides it will be very hard to maintain the Lock-smiths to be a Corporation because the Bishop confirmed their Orders Therefore let the Plaintif have his judgement nisi Bishop against Fitzherbert Mich. 1651. Banc. sup BIshop brought an Action upon the Case against Fitzherbert Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words for speaking these words of him thou art a Theef and hast stollen Horses Vpon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that as the words are laid in the Declaration they are not Aâ—ionable for it is incertain of whom they were spoken The Declaration was thus That the Defendant Colloquium habens cum querente in the presence of others dixit meaning the Plaintif Thou art a Theef and hast stollen Horses The Court at thâ— first moving of this Case enclined the words were actionable because it shall be intended they were spoken of the Plaintif though it be not directly said so And afterward it being moved again the Court held the words well enough laid to bear an Action because upon the whole Record the words plainly appear to be spoken of the Plaintif and therefore Iudgement was given for him Freeman against Childeress Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Entred Trin. 1651. rot 45. FReeman brought an Action upon the Case against Childeress for speaking these words of her She is a Whore and I will prove her a Whore Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words and an arrant Whore Upon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are but words of choler and spoken in passion the judgement at the first moving of it was stayed yet it was then doubted whether the words did not import more in them than to say barely of a woman she is a whore But afterwards it being again moved Roll chief Iustice said that the words were too generally spoken to be actionable and that they are but words of passion and that before the Act made against Adultery prohibitions have been granted to the Prerogative Court for libelling against persons for calling of women whores Prohibitions and therefore Nil capiat per Billam nisi Preston against Mortlock Mich. 1651. Banc. sup AN Action of Trespass was brought against 4 Defendants and before a Verdict one of them dyed and the Verdict was found against the Defendant Iudgement Twisden prayed the Plaintif might have judgement against the other three Roll chief Iustice answered If you will relinquish your damages as to the person that is dead you may have judgement against the rest Davis against the Lord Foliot Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to grant the good behaviour against the L. Foliot Motion for the good behaviour because he was endicted for a foul Battery at the Sessions
in London and the Bill was found against him But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be granted upon a motion Good behaviour but you must prefer Articles against him here upon Oath and then you may move for it and if there appear cause in the Articles it shall be granted Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior For a Writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior of a Town to which he was elected for the Borough of Trevenny in Cornewall because the old Maior did not swear him in due time as he ought to do but did adjourn the Court before it was done Roll chief Iustice answered that there is no president to swear such an Officer yet ordered that notice should be given to the Town and presidents to be brought into Court if any were to warrant it Whitway against Pinsent Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 61. A Man made a lease of lands for years by deed Demurrer to a plea in Covenants and covenanted that the Lessée his Assigns should enjoy them during the Term the Lessor made the Defendant his Executor dyed The Lessee assigns over his Term a Stranger enters upon the Assignee the Assignee takes 40 l. in satisfaction for his being ejected of the Assignor and afterwards brings an Action of Covenant against the Executor of the Lessor the Defendant The Defendant pleads the acceptance of the 40 l. of the Assignor in satisfaction of the wrong done him in Bar of the Action and to this plea the Plaintiff demurred Bar. The question here was whether the Action of Covenant did lye against the Defendant since that the Plaintiff had received 40 l. of his Assignor in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that here is a double Covenant one of the Lessor and the other of the Assignor and therefore the party may have two Actions Action and therefore he is not here barred to bring this second Action though he have barred himself by the acceptance of the 40 l. from bringing an Action against his Assignor and the Defendant hath not pleaded that the 40 l. was given in satisfaction of both the Covenants for then it had been otherwayes Ierman Iustice to the same effect That they are several Covenants by several deeds and both the parties are severelly bound and satisfaction given by one of them is not the satisfaction of the other And he said if Lessee for years assign over his Term the Lessor having notice thereof and he accept the rent from the assignee he cannot demand the rent of the Lessee afterwards yet he may sue other Covenants conteined in the lease against him as for reparations or the like The rule was for the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement nisi Mich. 1651. Banc. sup SErjeant Glyn moved for a certiorari to remove an endictment of forcible entry that was once before removed hither For a certiorari to remove an endictment and after sent down by a procedendo because the Iustices below will not grant restitution Roll chief Iustice answered There is a plea put in and in such case it is not usual to grant a certiorari yet it may be that it may be granted therefore let the other side shew cause on Monday next why it should not be granted Cantrell against Stephens Mich 1651. Banc. sup CAntreli brought an Action upon the case against Stephens for stopping his way in a Meoow called Madbrook in the parish of Redriff in Kent Arrest of judgement for an Action upon the case for stopping a way upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff as Lessee to the Haberdashers company of London claimed to have a way for them whereas they having let the land cannot have the way but the Lessée in possession 2ly The prescription is not rightly applyed for it ought to be for them to have a way pro tenentibus et occupatoribus suis which is not so here Twisden answered it shall be intended Tenants and Occupyers to the Haberdashers though it be not said suis Latch said that a prescription per que estate is good in an Action upon the Case because no land is claimed and Green on the same side said the exception taken was helped by the verdict Wild on the other side said that it doth not appear that the Tenant who brings the Action comes in by the Haberdashers who claim the way and so he cannot prescribe to have it Prescription and the prescription ought to be laid pro tenentibus subtenentibus which Roll chief Iustice denyed and said that it is laid that the Haberdashers were seised in Fée postea huc usque and so they have the Fée at the time and may prescribe but it had been better for the party to have shewed that he was their Tenant but it being after a verdict the question is whether it be not helped Vpon reading the Record Roll chief Iustice observed that it appeared not whose Occupyer and Tenant the Plaintiff is but only by way of argument but said the question is whether the verdict do help it and he inclyned it did not Verdict because the Action is brought by the Tenant who hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath made only a title to the way in the Haberdashers Title but hath derived no Estate from them to himself At another day Roll chief Iustice said we must not take things by intendment and here is a failer in the very gist of the Action for the Plaintiff hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath no interest for it appears not how he is Ocupyer of the land for he doth not say he is Ocupator suus and as he hath laid the Declaration the Company ought to have brought the Action Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that upon a demurrer it had been cleerly naught and the verdict here doth not help it for no title appears for the Plaintiff and the verdict cannot give him that he had not before Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect Roll If it had been Ocupator suus I doubt it would not make the Declaration good because it shews not by what title So The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi Tayler against Web. Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 240. IN an ejectione firmae upon a lease for 7 years there was a special verdict found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae and the questions in the Case grew upon the words of a Will that were false orthography viz. I do make my Cosen Giles Bridges my Solle Ayeare and my Yexecutor meaning my sole Heir and Executor Powis of Councel with the Plaintiff held that the Will was good to make Giles Briges the Testators Heir and Executor notwithstanding the mis-writing of the words
and that by the Will the Land and personal Estate passed unto him for he said if by my Will I make one my Heir This is a devise to him of all my Lands in Fee for the Devisee is put in loco haeredis and shall be like an Heir by descent for he is haeres factus although he be not haeres natus Mich. 31 32 Eliz. rot 235 Godfreys Reports Hob. rep f. 34. b. Coundens case Hob. new edition 75. Spark against Burrell the very case in point adjudged 7 E. 6. Br. Done 44. and Devise 48. and in this Case the Devisee had annuities to pay and monies for Legacies which shews the intent of the Testator to be that he shall have his Lands and Goods neither shall the misspelling of the word Heir hurt the Will for the intent of the Testator shall be followed if it may be known as it may well be here Hob. f. 32.15 H. 7. f. 12. Cooks Lit. f. 323. Dyer 325. 2ly Misnaming in a Will shall not hurt the Will Dyer 323.21 Rich. 2. Fitzh devise 27.10 rep 57. 3ly False Latin shall not destroy deeds nor pleadings though it will abate writs a fortiori false English shall not destroy a Will 9 H. 7.16.10 rep Osborns case Hob. 227.10 rep 133. a. 9. H. 6.7 a. and here is only vitium scriptoriâ— and that cannot destroy a Will Hob. f. 162. Walkers case f. 104 104.9 rep 48. a. Dyer 17 Eliz. f. 342. Digbyes case Another reason is the word Heir is here written according to the pronunciation and sound of the word though it agree not in letters and H. that is left out is no letter but an asperte note and the language in England as it differs in time so it differs in place for men speak not nor write English in all parts of England alike and a Will in latin or greek is a good Will within the Statute so that it is not necessary for a Will to be good English and the Testator was bred in France and could neither write nor speak good English and his Will so much the rather is to be favoured And false English hath been allowed in a Bond viz. senteen for seventeen pounds 9. rep 48. a. much more may it be in a Will and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintiff Latch for the Defendant argued that the Will was not good he considered 2. points 1. When a man makes one his solle Ayeare and Yexecutor what construction the words shall have 2ly What Estate is conveyed by them And first he said that Hoberts Case cited by Powis was not to the purpose 1. Because it is not the principal case And 2ly It is but an opinion there and an Heir may be without land And for Counden and Clarks case that was cited as it was urged it is for me and not against me and there can be no authority cited that if one make a man his Heir that his lands are thereby conveyed to him in Fee simple But in our case there can be no certain intent of the Testator found out and the making of one his Heir in France where the Testator was bred according to the Civil Law there used is but to make him his Executor and so the Testator might mean it And if one in his Will say I make one of my Daughters my Heir and do not say of his Lands this shall not disinherit the other Daughters and if there should be any Estate conveyed here it cannot be but an Estate for life Brook Done 44.8 Jac. C. B. Inkersalls case 3ly The ill orthogrophy here makes the Will naught for a Will cannot be made good by conjectures Hob. 34. Mich. 23 Car. Robinsons case the Iudgement was reversed for writing the word Aeris insteed of aeris with a dipthongue Trin. 17 Car. C. B. rot 74. and in Skirret and Skinners case libis with a dash over put for libris was adjudged ill and in our case here are divers words miswritten And for the variation of our English dialect which is objected it is to no purpose because this will was lately made the dialect alters not in so short a time and the dialect of the County where the Will was made viz. Glocester Shire agrees not with the Will And Hill 6. Car. this Will came in dispute in the Court of wards and a decree there passed against the Will in this point The Court said the case is doubtful Will. because the Will doth not say I make him heir of my Land but generally my heir and Executor but the false writing hurts not a Will if the Testators mind may be found out Adjourned to be argued again Wood against Topham Mich. 1651 Banc. sup VVOod brought an Action of Trespasse upon the case quare filium baeredem rapuit et maritavit against Topham Arrest of judgement in an Action on the case upon not guilty pleaded and a verdidict found for the Plaintiff the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions to the Declaration 1. That the Plaintiff doth not say cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet 2ly That he doth not say that the Heir was within age and Maynard of Councel with the Defendant said that the exceptions are not to the writ but to the Declaration and the Action being a Trespasse to recover the Damages the Plaintiff ought to entitle himself to the mariage for the losse whereof he would recover damages for the Heir it may be is not Heir apparent to him and then is no mariage due to him and here is a special Declaration for the losse of the mariage Roll chief Iustice answered Writs Declaration the writs are good both wayes and so may the Declaration be either with those words or without them and he makes not the ground of his Action to be that the mariage belonged to him Common right but of Common right it doth belong to him and the words are used to be alleged only to increase the Damages and the ground of the Declaration is only quare filium suum haeredem rapuit and for this the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgement Ierman Iustice differed and said the Plaintiff doth not shew he had any damage by the mariage it may be that he had been maryed before or was of full age so no cause of Action Nicholas Iustice as Roll and said that by the Law the mariage belongs to the Father and it may prove a dishonour to the family to have his son taken away and maryed without the Fathers consent Ask Iustice to the â—ams effect and so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi Antea Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to mitigate fines Motion to mitigate fines for riots that were to be set upon rioters that were found guilty upon an information exhibited against them for the riotous cutting down of wood But Wild on the other side prayed there might be good fines set
upon them according to the fact found upon the Record because it was a foul riot The Court answered they are found guilty of the riot Fine and therefore the fine cannot be lesse than ten pounds at the least for the principal there being a verdict in the case and so let it be and 4. marks a piece for the rest For we must preserve the peace of the County Baker against Smith Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe case of Baker and Smith formerly spoken to was again moved In answer to a matter spoken in arrest of judgement and Maynard answered the exceptions offered in arrest of Iudgement 1. It was objected that here was not a mutual promise set forth between the partyes for there is no agreement made by the Feme for it is only said that she consented to marry the party which is not a binding agreement To this he answered here was a mutual and binding agreement though it be not so plainly expressed in words as it might have been 3 H. 6.36 37. A verbal promise may be discharged by words and so it is here London and Stokes case Trin. 10 Car. rot 236. Next it is not necessary here to give notice of the discharge of the promise though if there be notice it is well enough because the thing to be done upon it to wit the payment of the 1000 l. is certain and the discharge shall be intended to be in the presence of the party to whom it is given for the Declaration is exoneravit ipsum which shall not be intended in his absence Pasch 10 Car. Harvy and Inglethorps case and Mich. 8 Iac. Martin and Wilbie Hodges and More Pasch 1 Car. Banc. Reg. 7 Iac. Bradlyes case 14 Iac. Beedly and Goodrose Latch on the other side argued that here is no binding promise on the behalf of the woman to marry with the Defendant and so the discharge of it can be no consideration for this is not a reciprocal but a bare acceptation of the promise made by the other and an action of the case lay not against her if she had refused to marry with the Defendant because here is no repromission made by her 2ly It appears not that the discharge was in convenient time for it was 2 years after but admitting that to be so yet here is no notice of the discharge and that is necessary to be given and it shall not be intended to be given without shewing it for the Declaration ought to be certain and here is no inducement in it that there was any notice given in his presence and if it were given in his absence he ought to have notice given him of his discharge else how should he know it and it were unreasonable to charge him if he had no notice and by a third person he cannot receive notice as it is in the Cases put by Mr. Maynard on the other side In the Case of Peck and Ingram in this Court adjudged that the party ought to have notice when the Feme left her Fathers House and came to such a place Roll chief Iustice said here are two promises 1. The Feme assumed that if the Defendant would marry her she would consent to him Coâ—sideration Promâ—se in Law Mutual Coâ—tract Implication and here is a consideration although there be not an absolute mutual promise for it is a promise in law and the Action may be laid by way of consideration or by way of mutual Contract 2ly Here is but a promise de futuro and there may be a temporal loss although the thing to be done viz. the mariage be spiritual And the dis-engagement of the party doth not imply notice but the demand of the 1000 l. now implies a discharge nor can the party here take notice of a third person and therefore it is necessary to give him notice Notice for where the party cannot take notice from any but the party himself there notice must be given him Ierman Iustice held here was a good mutual promise to raise a consideration and by the words exoneravit ipsum it shall be intended to be to the person himself this implyes a notice especially it being after a verdict Nicholas Iust much to the effect as Roll chief Iust but he doubted whether the words do imply a personal notice for it may be it was in his absence and the verdict will not help it and so there can be no judgement Aâ—k Iustice said here was a good promise but the words exoneravit ipsum do not imply a notice so the Court was divided and would advise Hume against Hinton Mich. 1651. Banc. sup HUme brought an Action upon the Case against Hinton Aâ—rest of judgement in an Action upon the case upon a promise and declared That whereas the Son of the Defendant did in his life-time owe unto the Plaintif 8 l. and dyed intestate the Plaintif did demand the said 8 l. of the Defendant being Mother to the intestate whereupon she being satisfied of the justness of the debt did assume and promise unto the Plaintif that if he would stay for the money till Mich. next that then she would pay it Vpon non Assumpsit pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that here was no consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon because it was not the debt of the party that assumed to pay it neither was she Executor or administrator nor consequently lyable any way by law to pay it and therefore an Assumpsit to pay a remediless debt if the Plaintif would stay for it is no good Assumpsit as in 6 Car. in this Court in Morgans Case An Assumpsit to pay the rent of the land behind if the party would forbear to distrain Corn in the shocks was adjudged no good Assumpsit because such Corn is not distreinable and it appears not here what person the Son was or where he lived or that he either had or lest any goods and the meer ground of the Action is the piety of the Mother and no other matter And here appears no person liable to pay this debt neither plainly nor by intendment and the Ordinary is not chargeable if no goods come to his hands And 2ly There is now no Ordinary for it is taken away by the Parliament and 9 rep Bains case is not like to this case neither is Iones and Smiths case Trin. 8 Iac. rot 192. like to this case for there was a person liable to be sued but it is not so here so that this is a stronger case But if there should be a good consideration yet the averment of the performance of it is not good for it is not certain how he stayed Wild for the Plaintif held that here is a good consideration because the Plaintif is hereby tyed not to sue any person whatsoever for the debt till Michaelmas and so it is a prejudice to him to forbear And it shall be intended
Testator meant Heir of his Lands and not the element of Ayre or a year as hath been strangely objected and would prove a ridiculous construction Osborns case 10. rep in Thyns case in this Court a demand of dower de capella although the word were of doubtfull construction in it self yet by the subject matter it was held to be made certain enough so the word Ayeare here shall receive construction according to the subject matter and the coupling of it also with the word Yexecutor which is also falsely written shews the Testators intent For answer to the main objection viz. that in 6 Car. there was a decree made in the Court of wards by advise of the Iudges that this was a void and sencelesse Will I say that that decree is not of so great waight as is a Iudgement given in a Court of judicature at the common Law and this was but an opinion delivered in Court where the Iudges were not Iudges and the decree was made as I am enformed because they believed the Will to be nonsence Heir the contrary whereof doth appear by my argument The Court enclyned strongly that the Testator intended to make the Devisee Heir of his lands and that the words can receive no other construction for other constructions would be very strange Will. and forced and the party that made the Will is to be considered as one that was inops consilii and also that wanted a scribe and his intent seems plain and shall not be taken according to the Civill law and if it should the word Heir will as well extend to the lands as goods Adjourned to be argued again Kymlock against Bamfield Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 24. Car. rot 592. KYmlock brought an Action upon the case upon an indebitatus assumpsit against Bamfield for making of apparel The Defendant pleaded Demurrer in an action on the case upon an indebitatus assumpsit that he became bound in a Bond of 60 l. to the Plaintiff in satisfaction of the Debt and that the Plaintiff accepted of it the Plaintiff replyed that he did not accept of it to this replication the Defendant demurred shews for cause that the Plaintiff had tendred an issue upon the non acceptance of the Bond whereas it should have been that the Defendant non devenit tentus On the other side it was said that it is well enough that it is sufficient to say non accep it and it is not necessary to say he refused the obligation and though the replication be not good yet the plea is also naught and therefore no Iudgement can be for the Defendant The plea is quod devenisset tentus whereas it ought to be devenit tentus And 2ly He shews not in what sum or place nor that he became bound in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that by entring into Bond the former contract is gone if you do not refuse it and it is not sufficient to say you did not accept of the Bond for you may yet accept it if you please and the party cannot plead non est factum Contract if you bring an Action upon it until it be absolutely refused and the contract here is turned into a Bond and the law determines the contract Plea and it is not all one with pleading of the acceptance of a horse in satisfaction or or any other thing as a collateral satisfaction and the Plaintiff ought to shew that he refused the Obligation and doth yet refuse it And here is a negative preignans Negative preignan◠for you imply by saying that you accepted not the Obligation in satisfaction that he gave you the obligation and you might have said Non devenit tentus and for the other exceptions they are to no purpose Discontinuance And therefore Iudgement ought to be given against you but by the favour of the Court we can give you leave to discontinue your Action Harding against Freeman Mich. 1651. Banc. sup HArding brought an Action upon the Case against Freeman and declared against him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon the sale of a Horse that the Defendant did sell unto him a Gelding and upon the sale did falsely affirm unto him that the Gelding was his own Gelding and that he bred him of a Colt whereas he bred him not of a Colt neither was it his own Gelding but another mans Gelding and so concludes to his damage Vpon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement 1. That in this sale of the Gelding the Defendant had made no warranty of him and therefore though the sale were not good yet the Action lies not 2ly The Plaintif doth not declare that the Defendant knowing the Gelding to be another mans did affirm him to be his own and so here doth not appear to be any fraud in the sale Twisden answered that the words are sufficient to imply a disceit though they express not that he knowing it to be another mans horse did make that affirmation for the words are that he did it falso et fraudulenter and affirmed the Horse to be his own But the Court stayed the Iudgement for they said that here is no direct affirmation but only an intendment that scienter fecit yet afterwards judgement was given for the Plaintif Davis against the Lord Foliot Mich. 1651. Banc. sup DAvis brought an action of Assault and Battery and wounding against the Lord Foliot and had a verdict against him and a writ of enquiry of damages For a new writ of Enquiry of damages and upon the writ of Enquiry 200 l. damages were found The Plaintif moved the Court for a new writ because by reason of the wilfulness of the Iury the damages were found too small Twisden on the other side urged that it could not be because there was no miscarriage proved in execution of the writ but it appears to be well executed Roll chief Iustice answered though we grant not a new writ yet we can increase the damages upon view of the wound and here appears to have been a foul Battery by the dagger produced in the Court Damages increased by the Court. and by the party himself that is wounded and it is not fit that a wilfull Iury should prejudice the party therefore either consent to a new writ or else bring your witnesses on both sides and we will hear the motion again At another day Wild said the Court cannot increase damages upon a view of the party if he be not maimed and here is no maiming but only a Battery and wounding But the Court answered that they would advise upon that point for it séems there is the same reason for encreasing of damages in both cases At another day Green moved for increase of damages upon the view and urged 9 H. 4. f. 1. 3 H. ◠◠10 H. 4. and Bret and Middletom case in this
Court Twisden on the other side confessed the Books were so but here the Battery is not apparent and the wound is internal and not to be viewed by the Court. Roll chief Iustice said 3 things are considerable 1. whether the Court can increase the damages 2ly Whether the wound be apparent and 3ly Whether the damages given be too small The Court upon view of the party and examination of Chirurgions and Witnesses on both sides upon Oath did conclude that they might increase the damages and that the wound was apparent and that the damages were too small and therefore they increased them to 400 l. and said they would not encrease them more because they could not inquire into all the circumstances of the fact as the jury might but they thought fitting to encrease them in some proportion because the offence was great and such outragious Acts are not to be slightly punished VVallis against Bucknal Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae the case sell out to be this Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmse A Copyholder of inheritance made a Letter of Attorney to two joyntly and severally to surrender his Copyhold lands in Fee to certain uses after his death according to the Custom of the Manor The question made by Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif was whether the Custom was good or not he argued that it was not a good Custom In Sir Iohn Davis Reports it is said a Custom must be reasonable and a Custom may be reasonable when it is but against a particular Law and not a general Law but the Custom here thus to convey land is against a general Law Particular Customs may be against publique interest pro bono public but if they be not as in our case they are not they are not good Pro bono publico Next an authority given ought to be Countermandable and to determine at the death of the party but this is not so and therefore it is no good authority 19 E. 3. f. 5. 2ly None can give an authority to another to do a thing which he could not do himself but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not a good authority 3ly By the death of the Copyholder the lands are setled in the heir and this authority given shall not devest them and this is not like the surrendring of lands into the hands of the Lord for a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority is revokable Next the Verdict doth not find that the 2 Attorneys are Customary tenants but only by way of recital which is not good nor doth it appear they were customary tenants at the time of the admittance and here is not found any possession or title in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is guilty neither is it found that the customary Tenant had see-simple in the land And if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a letter of Attorney Also the authority given is not warranted by the Custom set forth Wilmot of Councel with the Defendant said That this authority here is supported with a special direction which may survive the party that gives it 1 H. 7.8 And an authority may survive the party that gives it else how can an Executor sell lands by the authority given unto him 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31. E. 1. Fitzherb 45. and as for the heir he hath neglected his advantage it he had any and cannot now take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with circumstances of time and person and here is also a Custom to support it and this Custom is a reasonable Custom for it is but to enable a man to dispose of his own lands and there are far more unreasonable Customs than this allowed in our law as the Custom of Kent for one of the age of 15 years to be enabled to sell his lands and this Custom is not against any positive rule of Law for the custom is to create the authority to begin after his death and so it is not to determine by his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and it is extended but within a small compass of land and so cannot be very prejudicial to the publique And Bambridge and Whaddons case 17 Car. in this Court cited on the other side doth differ from this case for tâ—ere was no Custom to support it And it doth appear here by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission here is found to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii And one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so here can be no primer seisin intended and it is found the Copyholder is seised Roll chief Iustice said It will be hard to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the party was seiâ—â—d in see of the Copyhold lands But 2ly it is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land then the custom doth not reach it Neither is it found that the 2 Attorneys were Copyhold Tenants and the primer possession here will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found and then it is for the Plaintif and I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law for a man cannot devise a Copyhold and here the case is worse Devise but he may surrender to the use of his last Will and Testament At another day Wilmot to the Exception taken That it is not found that the two Attorneys were Tenants of the Manor said there is so much found as shall make them be presumed to be Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetudinem Manerii which cannot be a good admittance if they were not Tenants Roll chief Iustice answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes â—o the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorney But we will advise At another day Twisden prayed judgement for the Plaintif and insisted upon the Exception that the two Attorneys were not found customary Tenants for one of them is not mentioned at all and the other is found so only by way of recital and so they have not entitled themselves to the Custom and then the Defendant hath no title The Court ruled to shew cause Saturday following why the Plaintif should not have judgement Antea Custodes against Tawny and Norwood Hill 1651. Banc. sup TAwny and Norwood were jointly endicted for blasphemous words severally spoken by them Endictment for speaking blasphemous words upon the late Statute made against blasphemy and were convicted the parties being removed hither by Habeas Corpus It was urged that the Endictment was not good because it was joynt whereas the words being
spoken by them severally they ought to have been endicted severally for the words spoken by one of them cannot be said to be the words of the other But Roll chief Iustice said The Endictment was good enough though it be joynt as it is in the case of several perjuries and several batteries where a joynt Endictment doth lie although it do not for several felonies and here the Endictment is upon one and the same Statute and for one and the same offence and therefore the judgement given upon it is also good and it shall be taken reddendosingula singulis i. the words to each of them as they spoke them Floyd against Morgan Hill 1651. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of Trespass for taking away divers goods Error to reverse a judgement in Trespass for taking away goods Anglice and the Error was that there were the words instrumentum ferri used in the Declaration to express divers things viz. de quodam instrumento ferri Anglice a Grioiron de quodam instrumento ferri Anglice a Brandiron et de quodam instrumento ferri Anglice a Mortar whereas there are proper Latin words for them therfore are not to be so uncertainly described Darcy against the writ of Error said it was certain enough as they were described cited the Reg. f. 45. and said if it be not certain in the Latin description Description yet the Anglice helps it Roll chief Iustice demanded what say you to the Case of instrumentum ferri Anglice a Horse-lock adjudged naught lately in this place and there are proper Latin words for the things you describe which you ought to have used therefore this description is not good for where a Latin word signifies many things there an Anglice is proper to be added to it otherwise not and if there be no Latin word to express a thing one may invent a word and interpret it with an Anglice but it is not so here therefore let the judgement be reversed nisi c. Postea Keightley against Nodes Hill 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 869. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement in a Trespass vi et armis at Doncaster And the Error assigned was Error to feverse a judgement in Trespass vi et armis That the Plaintif declared that the Defendant took certain Cows of his out of the Iurisdiction of the Court and brought them within the jurisdiction and there disposed of them to his own use In which case in regard that the taking of the Cattel which is the ground of the Action was without the jurisdiction of the Court although the disposing of them was within yet the Court had no iurisdiction of the cause To which Roll chief Iustice agreed Trover and said if the Action had been a Trover and Conversion if had been good but being a Trespass vi et armis it is naught and therefore let the Indgement be reversed nisi Cottrell and his VVife against Theoballs Hill 1651. Banc. sup THis case was again moved spoken unto by Turner Iudgement prayed in an Action upon a promise who prayd judgment for the Plaintif because as he conceived the Action was well brought by the Husband and Wife and to prove it he cited these books 39 H. 6. f. 45.9 H. 6. f. 4. Nat. Brev. 131.28 H. 8. Dyer f. 21. Pasch 5 Car. Brown and Floyds case Pasc 13 Car. Oldhams case and said That the consideration here did move from both parties and not from the Husband only 2ly It is not necessary to give the Defendant notice that his wife had attained to the age of 18 years at which time he was to pay the money for he might take notice of it himself Latch on the other side prayed that the Iudgement might be arrested because the promise was made to the Husband only that he would make good the Legacy given to his wife by her Father and give 40 l. more to the Baron and Feme and the Husband is only to have the benefit of the promise and the consideration namely the mariage moved only from the Husband and therefore the Action is to be brought by the Husband only and not by the Husband and his wife and this promise is not like a promise made to a servant to pay money to the use of his Master and it is not here laid that the promise was made to both as it might have been and it is not reasonable to turn over the wives portion for which the Husband hath made her a joynture unto the Feme for if it should have been so the wife might have released it before the mariage and the Case cited of Rippon and Norton was otherwise laid 37 Eliz Banc. Reg. 2ly Here ought to be notice given when the Feme came to her age of 18 years for here the Assumpsit is to make good a Legacy which was to be paid to her at such an age and he ought to give notice of her age as he ought to an Executor and this case is not like as where one binds himself in an Obligation to pay another such a sum when he comes to such an age and the legacy here is to be made good in that manner as the Executor is to pay it Roll chief Iustice said that the party is not bound to give notice Notice but the other must take notice at his peril But the promise is here laid to be made to the Husband only and though the money is to be paid to doth yet it would be inconvenient to intitle the Feme to it and here it was the folly of the Husband to joyn his wife in the Action for he might have brought it alone if he would Iovning in Action for he hath alleged that the promise was made to him alone and therefore the Action is not well brought and it appears by the Declaration that the Feme was of age before the mariage and so the notice is out of Doors The rest of the Iudges agreed with Roll chief Iustice in all and so the Court ruled a nil capiat per Billam nisi Antea Hill 1651 Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment because it was for a private Trespass To quash an Endictment for a private Trespass Endictment viz. for stopping an antient water-course and the Endictment doth not conclude ad commune nocumentum but ad grave damnum which shews it to be no publique nusance so he is not to be endicted But Roll chief Iustice answered A man may be endicted for a private Trespass but the party here hath made himself no title to the water-course and therefore let the Endictment be quashed Comport against Beech. Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the Defendants behalf For a reference touching a Trespass That he was a very poor man and in making of a Ditch
had where the Feme being Covert is not Tenant to the praecipe she shall be bound by it and he said she is not In other cases the party may be bound by estople namely where he might have pleaded to the writ or might have counterpleaded the voucher but here the Feme is not subject to be admitted to these things 17 E. 3. f. 37. and the Feme Covert here is not so concluded by her admission that she shall not be admitted to speak against this recovery if she survive her husband neither are her Heirs concluded if she do not survive although peradventure as to the warranty they may be concluded â—0 Ass pl. â— 11 E. 3 Fitz. voucher 1432 E. 3. Fitz. estople 246. 21. E. 3 13. and the recovery here is not duely had because there is no tertenant Roll chief Iustice said it is not to be questioned whether a recovery bind a Feme Recovery Examination Averment for it is the Common practice 2ly It is not necessary to examine a Feme Covert upon suffering a recovery although it be a prudentiall thing to do it but if it be not done it is not averrable that it was not done but the single question material here is whether the Feme be Tenant to the praecipe or not Feme Covert so that she shall be estopped to speak against the recovery and he held she was estopped for she joyns in the recovery with her Husband and here is no default made by the Baron and now the record is perfect and a thing contrary to it ought not to be averred against it but before the Record was perfect she might have pleaded Plea and the recompence in value here shall go to the Heirs of the Feme and the Tenant for life is also bound by this recovery and the Feme is party and also privy to the recovery Party and privy and therefore if it will bind her it will bind her Heirs also If a stranger had been Tenant to the praecipe and the Baron and Feme had been vouched the Feme had been bound and this is a stronger case and this case may concern many mens estates and therefore such recoveries are not to be questioned Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Hill 1651 Banc. sup ONe Turner and Marian were Bail for one by the names of Turner and Mary Motion to alter the name of a Bail Amerdment Bail the Court was moved that the name Mary might be made Marian But Roll chief Iustice answered let the party come and find other Bail for upon the matter this is no Bail Hill 1651. Banc. sup AN Endictment was removed by a certiorari into this Court For a procedendo and the Court was moved for a procedendo because no Bail was put in here Roll chief Iustice answered If no Bail be put in you may proceed below without any procedendo Hill 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede an Execution against one quia erronice To supersede an execution because he was taken in Exeeution whereas there was no declaration given against him in the Term time as it ought because the party was in custodia and the Declaration against him was upon the by viz. at another mans sute and not at his at whose sute he was in custody Roll chief Iustice answered if it be a Declaration on the by it ought to be given in the Term time Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a rule to shew cause why an attatchment should not be granted against Cox an Attorney of this Court and Maior of Newberry Cause why no attatchment for issuing out of Execution upon a judgement given there after a writ of Error brought and allowed there Wild shewed for cause that the Malor was enformed by Councell that the Record was not removed thence because the writ of Error was not good This was allowed for cause and the former rule discharged quod nota Hill 1651. Banc. sup LEtchmore moved the Court that the word publicae might be put into an Endictment which was removed hither by a certiorari To mend an endictment Amendment Fine But the Court answered it could not be but because the endictment was of another Term the Clark of the peace was fined at 10 l. for his carelessenesse and grosse oversight Pasch 1652. Banc. sup THe court was moved for a habeas corpus For a habeas corpus for one committed by an order of Sessions of the peace Surety for one that was committed to prison by an order of Sessions of the peace untill he should find sufficient suretyes for the peace whereas he had tendred suretyes which would not be accepted but extraordinary suretyes were required such as he was not able to procure Roll chief Iustice answered a thousand pound bond may be required for the keeping of the peace as the case may stand viz. if the party to be bound be a dangerous person Yet take a habeas corpus but be sure you bring good suretyes Pasch 1652. Banc. sup AN action of debt was brought against one for 50 l. due for divers pieces of lixnen cloath sold to the Defendant Wager of law waived and a plea put in The Defendant was ready at the Bar to wage his Law but the Court being enformed that the Defendants wife kept a shop and used to buy and sell by her husbands privity and allowance and that these parcells of cloath were bought by her to furnish her shop and that the Defendant her husband although he was a Sea man and medled not in buying and selling of any of the wares in the Shop yet his wife did it by his allowance Roll chief Iustice advised the Defendant to take heed he waged not his Law for that he could not do it with a good conscience because his allowance of his wifes buying the wares was all one as if he had bought them himself and counselled him to plead to which the Defendant consented and the ley gager was waived by consent of the partyes and an emparlance given till the next Term. Emparlance Dudley against Born Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the part of the Defendant that in regard Motion to put in security for costs denyed the Plaintiff had obteyned the cause between them to be tryed at the Bar that therefore he might be ordered by the Court to give security to pay the costs in case the tryal should be against him But the Court would make no such rule but said if he will not pay the costs in case the verdict be against him he shall take no benefit here afterwards upon it Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1651. rot 1295. THe Plaintiff brought his Action upon the case against the Defendant for speaking these scandalous words of him Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz you are a knave and keep a bawdy house after a verdict for the
willingly kept a Bawdy house and then he is not punishable Pepes on the other side held the words to be actionable and cited Hill 3 Car. Elsey and Harisons case thou art a whore and a Bawd to thy daughter and keeps a Bawdy house which words were adjudged actionable 24 H. 6.14.38 39. Eliz. In the Lady Barkleys case the keeping of a Bawdy house is an offence punishable at the Common Law and therefore the words spoken are actionable Case Roll chief Iustice To call one whore in London is Actionable And the words here are actionable for the keeping of a Bawdy house is a crime punishable at the Common Law for the party may be endicted for it and it shall be intended to be a common Bawdy house although it be not so expressed Endictment and the Plaintiff is scandalised by the speaking of the words Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices were of the same opinion Iudgementt was given for the Plaintiff nisi Snelgrave and Bosvile Pasc 1652. Banc. sup Mich. 1651. rot 200. BOsvile brought an Action of debt against Snelgrave Debt against an heir upon an obligation as Heir unto his Father upon an Obligation entred into by him unto the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads riens per discent jour del bref the Plaintiff replyes that he had lands by descent and upon this an issue is joyned and the Iury find he had lands by descent and name them particularly and upon this a Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff in the Common pleas that he shall recover his debt of the lands descended upon this Iudg ment a writ of Error was brought here and the Error assigned was that the Iudgement ought to have been given generally against the Defendant and not particularly of the lands descended 2ly the Iury ought not to have found what lands particularly the Heir had by descent but generally that he had lands by descent because the issue is general whether he had lands by descent or not and therefore the Iudgement given upon this ill verdict is not good Roll chief Iustice The Iudgement is unwarrantable for the verdict is against the issue joyned Iudgement Verdict and the Iudgement here ought to have been generall of all the lands and goods and against the person of the Heir for his false plea and not particular to recover of certain lands as it is here for this is not so good a Iudgement for the Plaintiff as the general Iudgement is and this Iudgement may be against the Plaintiffs mind Error for any thing doth appear to the contrary and a like Iudgement was reversed in Alleâ—n and Holdens case in this Court Ierman Nicholas and Ask of the same opinion And thereupon the Iudgement was reversed Floyd against Morgan Pasc 1652. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement in an Action of Trespasse for taking away of certain Houshold stuff Error to reverse a judgment a trespasse for taxing away of of goods and the Error assigned was that the Declaration was incertain for that it wanted latin words to expresse the things for which the Action was brought for the Declaration is for the taking away of quoddam instrumentum ferri Anglice a gridiron et quoddam instrumentum ferri Anglice a morter et quaedam instrumenta ferri Anglice brandirons which are words utterly incertain for the generality of them what they may signifie Roll chief Iustice My Iudgement is that the Iudgement is erroneous for we must not take meanings because we are bound up to proceed by the rules of the Law and Statutes and we are to consider here whether there be Latin words in the Declaration as there ought to be to expresse the things for which the Action is brought and certainly this word quoddam instrumentum ferri is too general to expresse any thing and the Anglice added to it will not help it for if the word precedent in it self be not fit Latin to expresse the thing the Anglice subsequent is litle to be regarded Anglice Declaration and these words being incertain the Declaration must be incertain and so the Defendant cannot know what to answer to it or how to defend himself as he ought to do which may prove very prejudicial to him Ierman Iustice Issue The issue cannot be certain if the Declaration be incertain and by the Common Law and Statute Law our pleadings must be Latin and where there are not elegant Latin words to expresse things we may use those which they call barbarous words if they be known for use makes a language and where there are no Latin words we may coyn words and add an Anglice to them and here the Declaration is as incertain also for the number of the things as for the nature of them for here is quaedam instrumenta ferri which may signifie any number be it more or lesse Nicholas and Ask ad idem And so the Iudgement was reversed nisi Antea Brian against Twite Pasc 1652. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these words of the Plaintiff Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words you are a whore and have plaid the whore with so many men you cannot number them upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for the saying the party had plaid the whore are words incertain and do not enforce any Act of whoredom to be done by her but Ierman Iustice gave Iudgement for the Plaintiff for he said the words should be construed to a common intendment THe Court was moved for Iudgement upon a verdict given 2 years since Motion for Iudgement denyed and the cause stayed till now by the Committee of indempnity but it was denyed because it was the last day of the Term. Nota. Pasc 1652. Banc. sup IT was shewed for cause why a certiorari should not be granted to remove an indictment of battery Certiorari to remove an endictment against an Attorney of his Court preferred at a Sessions of the peace in the Country that the bill was found there and the party hath entred into a recognisance there to go to a tryal the next Sessions Roll chief Iustice The recognisance may be also removed by the certiorari and what hurt can it be if the endictment be removed and the tryal had at the assises and if it be removed hither we will not quash the endictment but the party shall plead and carry it down and try it at the next assises at his own charge Byron against Stonehowse Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 1658. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a writ of dower in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgment in dower in the common pleas the Errors assigned were that the Iudges of the Common Pleas had set a side the verdict given by default by the Iudge of
assise because it ought not to have been taken but a petite cape of the lans awarded whereas though this was a fault in the Iudge to take the verdict yet this is to be amended by a writ of Error for the Iudge of assise and the Iudges of the Common pleas in this case are but as one Iudge Dyer f. 194. f. 76. and here is a waiver of the default because the enquest was taken at the prayer of the party 27 H. 8. f. 18. 10 H. 7. f. 21 And the Demandant may release the default either expresly or implicitly 3 H. 6. f. 48. 10 H. 7. f. 21. 3ly Here is a discontinuance which is not helped because the Enquest is taken by default and the Tenant by the Iudges taking advice is out of the Court 7 H. 4. f. 14. pl. 13. Here is day given in Court to the Demandant but not to the Tenant and the Iudges cannot advise afterwards And here the judgment is given upon a default after a default whereas the 2d default was the same day with the 1. not at another day as it ought to have been Hales on the other side held that the judgment was not erronious for here is no judgement but only an awarding of the Enquest and if it be not good it is done by those that had no power to doe it and so not material and the Iudges of the Common place have a distinct authority from the Iudge of the nisi prius 2ly Here is no release of the default nor Enquest nor can the Iudge of the nisi prius take a release of the Default for by awarding the default the power of the Iudge of the nisi prius is determined And the release ought to be of the default upon which the judgement should be given and it is not so here Next here is no discontinuance for it is not necessary to give day to the Tenant by the Curia advisare vult for then there could be no petite Cape And the judgement here is good for there is no other day of default Roll chief Iustice Verdict by default Petit Cape The Iudge ought to have called the Tenant or to award a petite Cape of the land and not to have taken the Enquest by default but here the Iudge of Assize did not award a petite Cape For the 1 Exception The Iudge of the nisi prius had no authority to take the verdict and so that is done coram non judice and so the nullo habito respectu to the Enquest by the Iudges of the Common Pleas is good enough Error and so they may in that Court award a petite Cape and they may also advise and there is no need for them to give a day of continuance to the party for that were to take away that of which they would advise and the ad alium diem is also good and so there is no Error in the judgement Affirmetur nisi Doctor Trigg against the College of Physicians Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1651. rot 1143. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas for the College of Physicians against Doctor Trigg in an action of debt brought upon the Letters Patents Error to reverse a judgement for practising Physick without License and Stat. of 3. H. 8. for practising Physick without licence The 1 Error assigned was that it is said that quidam Willielmus Trigg and so it may be intended another party and not the same whereas it ought to have been praedictus Willielmus Trigg But to this Roll chief Iustice answered that the party came in and pleaded and so he must néeds be the same party The 2 Error was that the Iudgement was wholy given for the President of the College of Physicians wheress it should have been given part for the President and part for the King Hales in maintenance of the judgement answered that the judgement is to be given for the party who brings the Action and if the Action had been brought by the King only Iudgement should have been given for him only yet the money recovered shall be distributed as the Statute directs Roll chief Iustice The King may be better trusted than a Common Informer So the Case is not alike where the King brings the Action as where the Informer brings it for the King may receive all the money and the Informer may have his part by Petition to the King and here neither the Information nor the Verdict is pursued for that is tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso c. and here the Iudgement is only for the Informer Iudgement The King may if he will sue alone and have Iudgement for all if he begin his sute before the Informer but if he begin it afterwards the Informer shall have his part And if the King do inform tam pro seipso as for the College there the College shall have its part For these reasons the Iudgement is not good Therefore let it be reversed nisi Trin. 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to vacate a latitat that issued out of this Court erronice To vacate a Latitat Supersedeas for that it was made retornable two days before the Term Ierman Iustice Take a supersedeas Godwin against Batkin Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1477. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of Trespass upon the Case in the Court at Burton upon Trent Error to reverse a judgment in an Action upon a promise wherein the Plaintif declared that the Defendant in consideration that he was indebted unto the Plaintif in 20 l. did assume and promise to deliver divers Cattel to I. S. to the use of the Plaintif and for non performance of this promise he brought his Action and had a Verdict and a Iudgement But the Iudgement was reversed because the Court held that here is no consideration expressed which can relate to the discharging of the debt of 20 l. and so the promise is but nudum pactum Consideration Nuâ—um pâ—ctum and the Plaintif is notwithstanding the promise at liberty to bring his Action against the Defendant for the money Child against Sir Iohn Lenthall Trin. 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Escape was brought against Sir Iohn Lenthall as Mareschall of this Court Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for an escape wherein the Plaintif declared that whereas I. S. was indebted unto him by Obligation in a certain sum of money and was thereupon by a latitat out of this Court arrested and did thereupon put in Bail and did appear to the Action and the Plaintif obtained a judgement against him who thereupon in discharge of his Bail did render himself to Sir Iohn Lenthall in Execution and that afterwards Sir Iohn Lenthall had suffered him to escape per quod c. to this Declaration Sir Iohn Lenthall pleaded and a Verdict was had against
him Wild in Arrest of Iudgement takes these Exceptions to the Declaration 1. It saith that the Principal rendred himself in Execution to discharge his Bail and saith that afterwards he escaped whereby he could not have him in Execution which séems contradictory to what he formerly said 2ly He saith that he rendred himself to the Mareschall whereas he ought to say that he rendred himself to the Court for it is the Act of the Court that turns him over to the Mareschal Roll chief Iustice He cannot render himself to Sir Iohn Lenthal in discharge of his Bail Bail for only a Iudge can take and discharge a Bail and not Sir Iohn Lenthall but here it is that he did it in Court and therefore it is well enough for he may render himself to Sir Iohn Lenthall in Court though out of Court he cannot and therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement Rogers and Done Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Pasch 1652. rot 354. IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for 3 Cart loads of Dats Arguments upon a Demurrer to a Plea to the jurisdiction of this Court Barlie and Pease The Defendant pleaded a special Plea to this effect That the land where the Trover was supposed to be is 5 acres of land lying in B. and that is within the County Palatine of Chester and that he holds the land for term of years and by vertue thereof did sow and take the Corn thereupon growing and traverseth the Conversion out of the County Palatine and avers that there are Courts of Iustice held within the County Palatine so that Iustice may there be had and says that he ought to be sued within the County Palatine and not elsewhere and therefore demands Iudgement if he ought to be sued in this Court. To this plea the Plaintif demurred and shewed for cause that the Action being for a transitory matter it may be tryed out of the County Palatine as well as within although if it were for a local matter it would be otherwise and the party here hath pleaded not guilty which may be tryed any where Cooks Instit 282. In some Cases an Obligation hearing date at Chester may be sued in another place 19 E. 3. Fitz. Oar. 29.45 Ed. 3. Fitz. visne 50.9 Iac. C. B. Richardson and Meares a Battery in Chester tryable out of it 11 H. 4. f. 40. Crompton Iuriâ—diction of Courts f. 213. Transitory things emergent in the County Palatine of Chester may be tryed else-where 45 E. 3. f. 17. And so it was prayed the Defendant might plead over Serjeant Glyn on the other side held that this plea was a good plea to the Iurisdiction of the Court. Here are many matters of fact confessed and the matter in Law is whether the title of the land within Chester shall be tryed out of that jurisdiction In 31 Ed. 1. in the Exchequer it is clear they have conusance of Pleas. Roll chief Iustice to that answered but it is not that they shall not be removed thence Serjeant Glyn proceeded said that also upon a reference to 4 Iudges by Queen Elizabeth it was certified that all Actions real and personal arising in Chester are tryable there and not elsewhere 22 E. 4. Fitz. Iurisd 61. 21 H. 7. f. 23. 1 H. 7.26 10 H. 6.14 a H. 4. f. 25. As to the Objection that this is a clear personal Action and therefore transitory 1. I deny the authority of Cook in his 4 Institutes cited on the other side Next the Action here by the pleading of it is made real and then though Cooks opinion should be Law it comes not home to our case and a transitory action may be made real by the pleading of it 27 H. 6. f. 1. Hill 38 Eliz. Banc. sup Hill 2 Car. in Belamy and Bolthorps case in this Court 6 rep 14. A thing is tryable there where the best conusance of it may be had 6 H. 7. 3 2ly The averment of the party here is that all actions personal and real within Chester are tryable there and this being matter of fact is confessed by the Demurrer 9 H. 7. Porter Nicholls in the Exchequer 10 Car. And it would be a great inconvensence to try the title of lands lying within Chester out of it for so all causes real may as well be tryed in forein Counties even through all England which would be very mischievous Roll chief Iustice Tryall If we can avoid it it is not good to try causes in forein Counties but here you have by your demurrer confessed that all causes real and personal shall be tryed there and what say you to that 2ly Traverse Waiver Issue It is to be considered whether your Traverse be not repugnant to your Plea for you have waived the plea to the jurisdiction of the Court and put your self upon an issue by the traverse which you ought not to have done but you ought to have relyed upon your plea to the jurisdiction of the Court for as the traverse is taken untill a tryall be had in the cause we cannot tell whether the Trover and Conversion be within the County Palatine or out of it and this is matter of substance and tryable and therefore it would be hard to maintain your plea. At another day the case was argued again and first by Twisden for the Plaintiff and he took thrée things into consideration 1. Whether the plea were a meer plea to the jurisdiction 2ly Whether it be made good by the demurrer 3ly Whether the traverse have not spoiled the plea. 1. He held the plea was not good because the Action is meerly transitory and may be laid in any place 2. Mar. Br. traverse 983. Cooks Lit. f. 202. and the Defendant cannot plead that the cause of Action lyes in any other place than where the Plaintiff layes it Cooks Iurisd of Courts is full authority in point what ever is objected against it 30 H. 6. f. 6. I admit of the jurisdiction of the County Palatine but yet it must not entrench upon the Common Law and I admit all the books cited but they are of other local matters or of things transitory which are fixed to Chester by the pleading of them and Dyer 122 comes not to our case nor crosses the case of 10. Iac. 3. rep Ridgwayes case and here it shall be intended that the Iury may there have best conusance of the matter where the Action is laid and not else-where although the Action do savour of the Land For the second matter the demurrer makes not the plea good for the law sayes it is not good and the partyes cannot alter the Law Burtons case 5. rep f. 59. 5 H. 7.1 3ly The traverse makes not the plea good for the traverse is waived and he relyes upon another matter 5. Car. rot 817. Burton and Cornish the traverse taken took away the justification before pleaded so doth it here and the traverse here is not good because it is in a
shew that a Master of the Chancery hath authority to take an Oath for it is the common course and practice of the Court of Chancery for the Masters to take oaths and the Chancery being a Court of Record here this Court is bound to take notice of the Customs used in it 3ly The taking of the Oath upon the Holy Evangelists and the taking of it upon the Holy Evangely is all one in effect Roll chief Iustice The most material Exception is whether a Master of the Chancery hath authority ex Officio to take an Oath and certainly antienly he had not and therefore you should have expressed that he had authority to take an Oath At another day Hales said that it doth well appear by the Record that the Master had authority to take the Oath of the person Oath and many presidents are as our Case is Roll chief Iustice The Presidents are that he hath authority to take an Oath prout per Recordum c. but it is not so expressed here Nicholas Iustice A Master of the Chancery of common right hath no power to take an Oath and therefore in this Case you should have pleaded precisely that he had authority otherwise it cannot be good Hales at another day answered another Exception taken that it did not appear that the Affidavit in which the false Oath was made was filed and then it was not upon Record and so could be no perjury and said it is all one whether the Affidavit be filed or not for the forswearing is before the filing the party who takes the oath may choose whether he will file it or no and therefore it is not necessary in the pleading to say as it appears by the Record Green on the same side It may be that it was filed and afterwards taken off from the file and then he cannot say as it appears by the Record and it would be mischievous if the party should not be punish d for the perjury because the Affidavit was not filed Serjeant Glyn on the other side said that the Presidents which are shewn to prove that a Master of the Chancery may take an Oath are that the party hath made an Affidavit as it appears by the Record and this is not so pleaded here and therefore the Presidents make for us An Endictment cannot be at the Common Law for perjury in an Affidavit if it be not filed Filing for the filing of it makes it a ground to frame the Endictment upon and so is it in other Courts for the filing of it gives power to the Court to make rules and orders upon it Wild on the same side said that it appears not here positively that the Affidavit was made in this cause alleged but only by way of argument which is not good Roll chief Iustice If it be in the same businesse it shall be intended to be between the same parties Perjury Perjury at the Common Law is intended to be in some Court and legal proceedings for a false oath made before us not touching the matter in question between the parties an endictment of perjury lies not Endictment and it appears not here that the Chancery took notice of this Affidavit for nothing was done upon it and the words as it appears by the Record are material words and do make up the businesse but they are here omitted If one make a false oath the party is punishable for it by an action upon the case in case it be not perjury for which he may be endicted for it Case False Oath A false oath is one thing and perjury is another thing for one is judicial and the other is extrajudicial And the Law inflicts greater punishment for a false oath made in a Court of justice than if it be made else-where because of the preservation of justice Ierman Iustice said that perjury takes its name from perverting of justice and therefore it is intended to be in a Court of justice The Court held the endictment ill and gave Iudgement against the Custodes Postea Trin. 1652. Banc. sup VPon a retorn of the Coroner of an enquest found before him that one had killed another man with a gun by misadventure Whether one might plead the general pardon Manslaughter The question was whether the party might plead the general pardon Thereupon Roll chief Iustice said if one kill another by doing an act which was needless for him to do it is man slaughter and so was it adjudged in Sir John Chichesters case lately who killed his man by misadventure in fenceing with him but if he kill another in doing an act which belongs to his calling Pard on it is not man slaughter therefore men must be wary not to do things which concern them not to do And therefore this Act is not within the generall pardon but he must purchase his pardon Williamson against Norwitch Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1651. rot 1668. IS was indebted to Williamson the Plaintiff by a contract and to Norwitch the Defendant upon an obligation and dyes intestate Demurrer to a plea in debt against an Executor descu cort demesn Norwitch intermedles with the goods Williamson brings an Action of debt against him as Executor of his own wrong Norwitch takes letters of administration of the Goods and Chatels of I. S. and then pleads that I. S. was indebted unto him by Obligation in the sum of 50 l. and that he had taken out letters of administration of the Goods and Chatels of I. S. and by virtue thereof doth retain Goods and Chatels of I. S. to the value of the said debt and besides those hath nulla bona c. To this plea the Plaintiff demurred and the question here was whether the Executor of his own wrong afterwards taking out letters of administration pendente lite may retain the goods of the intestate to satisfie his own debt due upon Bond or ought to satisfie the Plaintiffs debt due by contract It was urged that he could not plead this plea and these books were cited 5. rep Cowlters case and 21 H. 6. f. 8. and 38 Ed. 3. f. 17. and it was said that this case is stronger because the administration was taken pendente lite 5. rep Midletons case 2 E. 4.7 Latch on the other side held the plea good and agreed Cowlters case 5. rep and that the taking of letters of administration shall not destroy the Plaintiffs writ but here is a legall administrator and he might have reteyned the goods if he had been Debtor but in equal degree with the other but he is a Debtor of a higher nature than the other for his debt is by Bond and the others but by contract and the law requires his debt to be first satisfied 2 H. 4.21 Coment 545. If he have more goods than will satisfie himself he ought to make election what goods he will have and alter the property but where there are not
knowledge of the matter may try it although it may be tryed in another place but if the tryal be ill the Verdict will not help it but there must be a new tryal Therefore it were good to replead as to the place Mich. 1652. Banc. sup ONe took out a Latitat out of this Court and arrests the party Attachment for abusing the processe of the Court. and refuseth to take Bail of him but carryed him into another liberty to charge him with an Action there Vpon this the Court was moved for an Attachment for abusing the processe of this Court And it was granted nisi c. Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN a tryal at the Bar between â—heesman and Turner and others in Trespass and Ejectment Roll chief Iustice said Where ne unques Executor is a good Plea Revocation Reviver That if there be divers Executors of one Will and one of them refuse to prove the Wil he may plead ne unques Executor And that a Will in writing may be revoked by parol and revived again by parol Theoball and Conquest Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1652. rot 1999. AFter a Verdict in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment it was moved in Arrest of judgement that the Lease was altered after pleading Arrest of Iudgement in Trespass and Ejectment On the other side it was moved for judgement 1. Because the Lease was only amended in matter of form and not in substance 2ly Because by the rule of Court the Defendant is to confesse the Lease and so it is not material whether the Lease be good or no. But Roll chief Iustice answered that the Lease was amended in matter of substance and if the Lease be defective we can give no judgement Amendment Iudgement Confession and by your own shewing it is not good and the rule of the Court doth not bind the Defendant to confesse the Lease otherwise than you have made it and therefore let the judgement be stayed Fowke and Boyle Mich 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1652. rot 460. THe Plaintif brought an Action upon the Case for selling unto him false Bills of publique faith to the value of 800 l. knowing them to be false Demurrer to a Declaration in Action upon the case with an intent to deceive him The Defendant demurs upon the Declaration And Babington of the Inner Temple offered these Exceptions to it 1. That the Ordinance of Parliament for the bringing in of money plate into Guild hall and giving the Commissioners authority to give these bills to them that brought it in for re-payment thereof with interest at 8 l. per centum per â—â—num was mis-recited for it is said that the Ordinance was made by both Houses of Parliament whereas it should be by the Lords and Commons in Parliament for the Houses are the places where they sit and can make no Ordinances and he cited Mich. 13 Car. Tydalls case 2. The Aldermen that are the Commissioners are not called by their Christian names as they ought to be but only by their Sirnames 3ly It is not shewed in what manner the Bills were assigned to him but he says only that they were assigned in due form of Law which is too generally expressed and to this he cited Mich. 10 Iac. Banc. Reg. Glass and Gowes case To these exceptions Latch answered That the mentioning of the Ordinance of Parl. and of the Aldermen is but by way of inducement to the Action and nothing to the ground of it and therefore there need not be so punctual a recital as is surmised neither is it necessary to shew how the Bills were assigned and they are the Defendants own words nor is it material how the money was to be paid Râ—â— chief Iustice The ground of the Action is the deceit in assigning over false Bills and affirming them to be true Inditement Confession and the other matters are meerly matters of inducement and used only by way of recital and not material to the Action And you have confessed the deceit for which the Action is brought by your general demurrer upon the Declaration And therefore let judgement be for the Plaintif except better matter be shewn Postea Wood against Holland Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1652. rot 1061. VVOod brought an Action of Trespass and Ejectment against Holland Demurrer to a Replication in Trespass and Ejectment The Defendant pleads that the Plaintif did disseise I. S. of the Land and then made a lease of it to him and that afterwards the land did descend to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff replyes that he was seised of the lands and traversed the disseisin supposed to be made to I. S. And to this the Defendant demurs add for cause shews that he ought to have traversed the descent and not the disseisin But Roll chief Iustice said That the traversing of the disseisin makes an end of all and therefore it is well taken as being the most material matter Traverse Se sin Descent although that the descent might have well enough been traversed And therefore let the Plaintif have Iudgement nisi Reckwitch and Moyle Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 503. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Inferiour Court A Writ of Error to reverse a judgement given in an inf riour Court and the Writ of Error was to remove a Record quod coram vobis residet de placito in Curia manerii de Cuttingbye whereas the Record was de placito in Curia Custodum libertatis Anglae authoritate Parliamenti de Cuttingbye And therefore against the writ of Error it was objected that there was a variance between the writ of Error and the Record and therefore that the writ of Error was not good But against this was cited Lodge and Goodales Case in this Court 23 Car. that it is not necessary to recite in a writ of Error all the words 〈◊〉 the description of a Court and here the writ is not to remove a Record out of an inferiour Court but the writ of Error is to reverse a judgement in a Record quod coram vobis residet Hales answered That here is a right description of the Court in regard of the place where it was held and of the Iudge of it but not in regard of the Lord of it and therefore he conceived it a material objection because a part of the stile of the Court is mistaken not only an additional description of it Roll chief Iustice answered Variance If it be but an additional addition or description it is well enough as it is but we will see what hath been done in like Cases heretofore but me thinks that it shall be intended here to be Curia Custod libertatis Angl. c. for here it is in a Writ of Error which will not lie if it be not a Court of Record But Nicholas and Ask Iustices said It cannot be intended a Court of Record but a Court Baron
and so the stile implies common by intendment The Court advised till the next Term. This Case was afterwards moved by Latch who said That here is no variance between the Writ and the Record although the Writ be not so full as it might have been to describe the Record and it is agreeable to the antient and usual practice at this day and cited the old book of Entryes 171 and said that in Paytons case the Record was in Curia Domini Regis Civitatis and the writ of Error was in Curia Civitatis Glocestriae Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. rot 569. and all Courts of Record are originally the Kings Hales on the other side said that the writ of Error ought to shew whose the Court is and the rather because it is said to be Curia Manerii Wadham Windham The Register is both ways and by direction of Parliament the Common Pleas is stiled Curia de Communi Banco But here the Record appears to be Custodum c. Civitatis and the Writ doth not mention that The Court would advise oâ— the Presidents This case was again moved and Lodge and Woodhalls case 22 Car. urged that the Return of the Certiorari upon the writ of Error was not good for the variance formerly alleged but Wadham Windham held it good enough and relyed upon Presidents shewed to Hern the Secondary as the Court had directed Hales on the other side urged that the variance made it not good for it cannot be intended the same Court Roll chief Iustice here is no diâ—â— opposition between them for they may both stand together and the writ of Error intends it to be a Court of Record and yet it is the Court of the Manor also and therefore it is good in substance De facto it is the Court of the Lord of the Mannor but virtually and in dignity it is the Court of the King but the Venire is clearly vitious and therefore let the Iudgement be reversed for that cause Jervis and Lucas Mich. 1652. Bane sup THe Court was moved for one Iervis Motion for the Court to view a wound to encrease damages that the Court might view his wound and increase the damages given him by the Iury because they had given him but twelve pence damages for his wounding whereas the parties Arm was broken and he was in great danger still to lose the use of it But Roll chief Iustice answered it appears not by his Declaration what manner of wounding it was he received as it ought to have been and how can we know how he was wounded But we will advise and hear Councel on both sides At another day Serjeant Parker moved the same matter again and cited 3 H. 4. f. 4. and 18 H. 4. f. 23. and Dyer to prove the Court might increase the damages Twisden answered That the wounding ought to have been particularly expressed in the Declaration that the Court might judge of it by the Record and the party is not to be viewed by the Court upon the bare averment of the party made at the Bar. View To which Roll chief Iustice agreed and said how can it appear to us that he was wounded so as you aver by this Battery for it may be he was wounded since your action neither can you now discontinue the Action because it is after a verdict Discontinuance so that you are now without remedy Mich. 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a prohibition to the Prerogative Court Motion for a Prohibition to the Prerogative Court because they do proceed to examine witnesses there to disprove a will that was proved there 20 years since by which Will lands were devised and the lands are sold and this they do to prevent a tryal at Law touching the title of the land directed out of the Chancery Roll chief Iustice answered they may examine the probate there for you have libelled there to take benefit of the probate and therefore the other party may disprove the probate if he can as far as concerns any goods devised by the will And therefore we will grant no prohibition Mich. 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for the Parishioners and Officers of the Parish of Clarkenwell Motion to make Scavengers execute their Office By-laws Mandamus to make Scavengers that are elected in that Parish to serve the Office Roll chief Iustice answered It is marvel that the City of London do not look to this for they have power by their by-laws to make men serve such offices yet take a mandamus for them to be brought hither to shew cause why they will not execute the Office Actoâ— and Ayres Mich. 1652. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas in an Ejectione firmae Error to reverse a judgment in the Common Pleas in an Ejectione firmae Iudgement and the Error assigned was that the judgement was quod querens recuperet the words quod defendens capiatur are omitted And upon this Exception the Court reversed the judgement for they said in this judgement thus entred there is no return of damages nor a Capiatur and so the Common-wealth is cozened of the fine and the Defendant barred from bringing his writ of Error Dawkes and Coveneigh Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 653. COveneigh was endicted for felony for breaking the house and taking 250 l. Special Verdict in an Action of Trespaâ—â— quare clausum irâ—gâ—t out of the house of Dawkes and found guilty and was burnt in the hand afterwards Dawkes brings an Action of Trespasse quare clausum fregit and for carrying away the 250 l. against Coveneigh who pleads not guilty and thereupon a special verdict was found to this effect that the Defendant did feloniously break the house and carry away the 250 l. and was endicted for it and was found guilty and burnt in the hand for it and if upon the whole matter c. The question upon the special verdict was If after the Defendant was endicted and found guilty and burnt in the hand for this fact at the sute of the keepers of the libertyes of England c. an Action of Trespasse quare clausum fregit and for carrying away the mony be maintainable by the party who was thus robbed against the party that robbed him or no. Latch of Councel with the Plaintiff held that the Action did well lye and that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement and that this special matter found by the Iury is no bar to the Action for if he had been attainted for another Felony it would not have barred the Plaintiff from his Action after he had been discharged but otherwise it is if the party bring his Action whilst the party stands attainted or the party be attainted pending the Action of Trespasse 33 Eliz. Wade and Prescots case in this Court and 34 Eliz. Trussels case in this Court and 6 Ed. 4. 4. and in our
expressed by them And how can we take notice here that there was not fair play in the running of the race and I doubt of the books cited by Latch Bar. Auditors Accompt for where matter may be pleaded in Bar the party shall not be compelled to come before Auditors for that were unreasonable If I deliver goods to deliver over and the party do it not he is accomptable to me but if he deliver them over he is not for he may plead this in bar of the Action and so is it in the Case at the Bar and you might have given the special matter in evidence here by the meal Act Plea and this plea here before the Auditors is cleerly void The main doubt here is whether there be apparent matter to the Court to hinder the Plaintiff from his Iudgement I conceive the Articles shall be interpreted fairly and that there ought not to be fowl play according to Common intendment and it is material to shew there was fowl play in the replication and so the issue is well joyned and Iudgement ought to be for the Plaintiff Ierman and Nicholas Iustices to the same purpose as Roll. Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IT was moved for Coronel Baxter that he was elected high Steward of the Town of Colchester in Essex Motion for a mandamus to Colchester to swear the high Steward there and therefore that the Court would grant a mandamus to be directed to the Maior there to swear him in that place Roll chief Iustice If he be duely elected and he refuse to swear him take a mandamus Iaques Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN the case of one Iaques in an Action of Trespass quare vi et armis What plea amounts to not guilty for the entring into his Land It was said by Roll chief Iustice That if in an Action of Trespass vi armis for entring into land the Defendant plead his entry by virtue of a lease for years this amounts to no more than not guilty and the Plaintiff may demur upon the Plea Demurrer◠and shew it for cause of demurrer that it amounts to no more Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN the case of one Poynes Mawrice it was said Where one cannot be declared against in Custodia that if one be committed to the upper Bench prison for a misdemenour and not for debt one cannot declare against him as against one in Custodia Mich. 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the behalf of the Defendant Motion for a certiorari to remove endictments for a certiorari to remove certain endictments preferred against him in London for selling of leather to the end he may have an indifferent tryall notwithstanding the Statute which directs that the endictment be preferred in the County were the offence was committed Roll chief Iustice The Statute was made for the ease of the Defendant and therefore he may remove the endictment otherwise he shall be in worse case than he was before the Statute Therefore take a Certiorari Yongue and Petit. Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Pasc 1652. rot 159. YOngue brought an Action of debt against Petit upon an Obligation and declares Demurrer to a replication in debt upon a Bond. that whereas at the request of the Defendant he did become bound with a third person for the payment of a certain sum of mony unto I. S. at a certain day the Defendant became bound in an Obligation to the Plaintiff the condition of which Obligation was that if the Defendant did pay the mony unto I. S. at the day limitted for which the Plaintiff was bound and in the mean time should save him harmlesse that then the Obligation should be void and for not performing this condition he brought his Action The Defendant pleads that he caused the party with whom the Plaintiff was bound to submit himself to Prison and that the Plaintiff was not damnyfied The Plaintiff replyes and denyes not the Bar but sayes that a latitat was sued out against him and that he feared to be arrested and upon this replication the Defendant demurs and these exceptions were taken to it 1. That he doth not say he took out a latitat prout patet per recordum 2ly It was questioned how the words in the mean time shall be understood For the first exception Latch held it not material Relation and for the second he held that they refer to the whole condition Roll chief Iustice said it is not necessary here to plead non damnificatus if the party be in prison and the words in the mean time refer to the last words only of the condition But one hath pleaded an ill plea and the other hath alleaged an ill breach therefore nil capiat per billam nisi Yet we will advise Mich. 1652. Banc. sup AN endictment was quashed for not repairing a highway Endictment quashed because it did not set forth from what place to what place the way did lead The Maior and Commonalty of London against Hatton Mich. 1652. Banc. sup THe Maior and Commonalty of London brought an Action of Covenant against Hatton Demurrer to a Plea in Covenant for not paying a rent reserved by them upon a lease for years made unto him of the Garblers office The Defendant pleaded that this office was an office of trust reposed in the City of London and could not be let for years and consequently there was no ground of Action To this plea the Plaintiff demurs Hales held that this office may be let for years because the Maior and Commonalty of London have a Fée simple in the office by their charter and that they have not only a meer trust reposed in them to execute it And 2ly If it could not be granted yet here is no forfeiture for this lease shall be accompted but a deputation and not a granting over of the office And 3ly The Lessees covenant shall bar him from pleading this plea. Wadham Windham prayed a day to be heard Roll chief Iustice It will be hard for you to maintain the Defendants plea Deputation Lease For without doubt the Maior may make a Deputy to execute this office But here he hath a Fée simple in it and may thereby make a lease of it and the Lessees Covenant will bind him to pay the rent Iudicium pro querente nisi At another day Wadham Windham put the Case and argued that the office of Garbler is not grantable because that this office is an office of trust reposed in a corporation and it is so reposed for the publique good and the office it self is not vested in the Maior and therefore he cannot grant it although he may make a Deputie to execute it for there the Acts of the Deputie do light upon the Master to be answerable for 29 H. 6 44. Dyer 238. a Maior of a Town may make a Deputie but he cannot grant this office or make a revenue of it Roll chief Iustice
be undestood eight hangings Roll chief Iustice A pair is properly when one of the things so called cannot be properly used without the other but yet the words may be also understood so many couple and here you cannot intend the words to mean so many suits of hangings and you might have expressed your meaning by so many pieces of hangings and therefore it seems doubtfull Ierman Iustice Here the words do not expresse the number of the things as they do when you say a pair of Oxen or the like Nicholas as Ierman Ask Iustice A pair is incertain for that word may be meant more than two in number as when you say a pair of cards and a pair of hangings in some places is meant a suit of hangings Roll chief Iustice If it be so then it is more incertain the word hangings may be good enough but how can the number be known Curia advisare vult Afterwards the Court moved the Defendant to suffer the Plaintiff to amend his Declaration and to plead anew and to consent to a new tryall Askwiths Case Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made at Durham against Askwith Motion to quash an order of Sessions for not serving the office of a Constable or finding an other able person to serve the place for him being elected according to the custom of the place where he was elected to serve The Exception taken was that it is not shewed that he was elected at a Court Leet and the Sessions have no power to elect a Constable Roll chief Iustice He is a Constable elected by a by-Law By Law it is not necessary there should be any other election then according to the custom and he must serve in his turn or contribute to the charge for another to serve for him Custom and this is a good custom used in many places and I do find one my self in my turn in one place and make no use of my privilege to avoid it Another exception was taken that the complaint made of the party was that he would neither serve the office nor contribute for another to serve it and the order is only that he refused to contribute and so is not warranted by the custom by which he hath an election to serve or contribute Quashed nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup A Prisoner was brought into Court by a habeas corpus out of the Fleet to the intent to turn him over to the Marshalsea to charge him with an Action here Creditor examined upon oath it his debt were reall whereupon the creditor was examined upon his oath whether the debt was real for which he surmised he would bring his Action and upon making oath thereof the Prisoner was turned over accordingly Nota. Smith against Holyman Hill 1652. Banc. sup IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in Assumpsit False English and Exceptions taken 1. That the Defendants Christian name was mistaken And 2ly That the jurata was erroneous for it says in a plea of dept instead of a plea of debt and the Iudgement was arrested for dept written with a P. is no word though it sound like debt written with a B. Custodes and Howell Gwin Hill 1652. Banc. sup HOwell Gwin was brought to the Bar being convicted for forgeing of a deed Iudgement against one convicted of forgery and was demanded what he could say why Iudgement should not be given against him Boynton of Councel with the Prisoner moved the Court that in regard there was an information of perjury depending here against the witnesses upon whose Testimony the Prisoner was convicted of the perjury and that the Prisoner doth endeavour to proceed with all the speed that is possible against them in this information that the Iudgement may be stayed in the mean time against him Roll chief Iustice answered if they be found guilty of the perjury they shall be punished but we will give Iudgement against your Clyent in the mean time which was done accordingly in these words following Iudgement for forgery viz. you are convicted of forgeing a deed by putting a dead mans hand unto it therefore the Court gives this Iudgement against you that you are fined at a hundred pound and shall stand on the pillory two hours before the Hall dore with a paper on your head shewing the nature of your offence Memorandum the party cut off a dead mans hand and put a pen and a seal in it and so signed and sealed and delivered the deed with the dead hand and swore that he saw the deed sealed and delivered Mich. 1652 Banc. sup MRs. Lucy Fotherby was brought into Court to be turned over into the Marshalsea out of the Fleet with an intent to charge her with an Action of debt Against this it was urged that she was a Prisoner in the Fleet A Prisoner turned over committed thither by an order of the Court of Chancery Prisoner But Roll chief Iustice answered this order is nothing to hinder her turning over if the debt be reall and so upon proof that the debt was reall she was turned over Locky and Dumiloe Hill 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1462. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Special verdict in an ejectione firmae I. S. seised of lands in Fée makes a lease of it to I. D. at Will A. B. puts the Tenant at Will out of possession and after the Tenant at Will enters and takes a lease at Will of him that put him out of possession the question was whether he should hold the land by virtue of his first lease or by virtue of his second agreement To this Roll chief Iustice said if one make a lease at Will to one and he be ousted Will. Determination and then enter again and take a new estate the Will is determined but a stranger cannot determine his Estate without his consent but here he hath determined his first Estate by his new contract with the disseisor of his Lessor And he said if Livery and Seisin be made upon one Acre of land in the name of two Acres it is good for both the Acres for it is not necessary that the party that gives the livery should go to all the land mentioned in the deed of Feoffment Livery and Seisin And he also said that if Tenant at Will cuts down a tree upon the land which he holds at Will by this Act he hath determined his Will Drake and Drake Hill 1652. Banc. sup DRake brought an Action against Drake for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz. Thou hast preached lyes in the Pulpit the Plaintiff being a master of Arts and incumbent of a living Wadham VVindham held the words actionable because they were spoken of the Plaintiff in relation to his
arrears are which are accrewed since the purchase Award for how can he know when the purchase was made for it is made by a stranger and what if the stranger will not tell him when he made it so that me thinks the Award is unreasonable and then it cannot be good The rule was Nil capiat per Billam Nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe question being upon a motion in Arrest of judgement in an Action brought for money paid upon a Bill of Exchange brought by a wrong person Question in Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon a Bill of exchange to whom the Bill belonged not and a verdict for the Defendant Twisden said That if money be paid to a wrong person upon a Bill of Exchange if the wrong person do shew the Bill by the Custom of Merchants this is a good payment and the party that paid it shall not be charged again Wild It is doubtfull whether the Custom be so or not But Roll chief Iustice said Custom here is a verdict for the Custom and therefore it were well if the parties would agree to a new tryal but if they will not take your judgement because the verdict hath found it a good custom Custodes against the Inhabitants of Stoneham in Suffolk Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Inhabitants of the Parish of Stoneham in Suffolk were indicted for not repairing a High-way Motion to set a fine upon a conviction for not repairing a High-way and a verdict found against them The Court was moved that a good fine may be set upon them because the way is not yet amended and a Traveller that passed that way hath lost his horse since the Tryal by reason the way was so bad so that the Horse brake his Leg. Twisden on the other side moved the fine might be respited because there was a contest between this Parish and another which of them ought of right to repair the way and in regard this Parish is very poor and lastly because the way cannot be amended until Summer and then it shall be done Roll chief Iustice The fine shall be set upon you for not repairing it already because the verdict found you ought to do it and the Country suffers by your neglect Fine Distringas Therefore take a Distringas to levy a fine of twenty pounds of the Parishioners for not repairing it Hill 1652. Banc. sup VVIld moved the Court that paying costs the Plaintiff might have a rule to discontinue his Action because there is such a travers now taken that the title of the land in question can never come to be disputed Roll chief Iustice Motion for the Plaintif to discontinue his Action You may do this by the course of the Court without motion therefore why move you for it But I conceive your reason is because there is a peremptory rule of Court upon you to try the cause this next Term and now you move to avoid the contempt you may fall into for disobeying that rule Contempt if you should not go to a tryal Yet pay good costs and discontinue your Action Q. Nota. Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that a Feme that was sued only as an Executrix might be discharged upon putting in Common Bail Motion that Common bail might be accepted Roll chief Iustice It is the common course if there be no special cause of Action against an Executor as a Devastavit or the like for Common Bail to be admitted Hill 1652. Banc. sup HOdsden One of the Attorneys of this Court For an Imparlance was together with another made a Lessee in an Ejectment Lease and would not grant an Imparlance to the Defendant as the usual course is because he is an Attorney of this Court and so claims his privilege Privilege that the Defendant may answer him this term or else he will enter judgement against him for want of a plea. Q. what was done hereupon Hill 1652. Banc. sup IN the case of one Hoff the Court was moved to confirm a rule made between the Plaintifs Attorney and the Defendants Motion to confirm a rule for a Tryal at the Bar. Roll chief Iustice Let it be so for if the Attorneys agrée to reasonable things we will not oppose them Rule But the Attorneys ought not to make rules of themselves Hill 1652. Banc. sup BOynton moved for a Deer-stealer that was convicted at the Sessions in London upon an Endictment preferred against him upon the late Act made against stealing of Deer and removed hither by a Habeas Corpus Exceptions to a retorn of a Habeas Corpus that the Retorn might be filed and took this Exception viz. That it appears not in what Parish the offence was committed as it ought to doe Roll chief Iustice Here is a conviction and a judgement in the Case and the party is in Execution and therefore bring your writ of Error if the judgement be erronious for we will not overthrow it for a fault in the retorn of the Habeas Corpus But because it did appear to the Court that the party was convicted behind his back they moved the Councel to advice of a way how he may come to a fair tryal for the satisfaction of the party Error and of the people For it is a hard case and let the Marshal take him in the mean time And we will also advise Hill 1652 Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice If a sum of money be to be levied upon a Corporation it may be levied upon the Maior or chief Magistrate How money is to be levied upon a Corporation or upon any person being a Member of the Corporation This was spoken in the Case of the Town of Colchester in Essex Nota. Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that a Sherif might be ordered to retorn a Writ upon a pain Motion for a Sheriff to return his writ Pain Affidavit Sugestion But Roll chief Iustice answered let him return it but not upon a pain because here is no Affidavit to prove that he refused to return it but only the suggestion of the Councel at the Bar. Hill 1652. C. B. BY Pinsent protonotary of the common place Who may defend a title in Trespasse and ejectment If one move that the title of land doth belong unto him and that the Plaintiff hath made an ejector of his own and thereupon prayes that giving security to the ejector to save him harmlesse he may defend the title this Court will grant it but will not compell the Plaintiff to confesse the lease entry and ouster except he will be ejector himself But it is not so in the Court of the upper Bench for there in both cases they will compell him to confesse lease entry and ouster But Q. for I have not known it so ruled Hill 1652. Banc. sup AN order of Sessions made at Arondell in Sussex for paying so much money
weekly to a Parish Order of Sessions quashed towards the keeping of a Bastard Child was quashed because it did not appear by the order that the Child was born in that Parish to which the mony was awarded to be paid Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to discharge the plea of not taking the engagement pleaded to a Soldier in the States service in Ireland Motion to discharge the plea of engagement Certificate upon a certificate under the hand and seal of an officer in the Army there under whose command he was that he had taken it and also upon a certificate under my Lord General Cromwells hand and Coronel Whaleys hand that they did believe the other certificate was true Roll chief Iustice answered we cannot help you for our hands are tyed up by the Act from which we must not vary Nota. Hill 1652. Banc. sup ROll chief Iustice said Whether one endicted of perjury be bailable that he doubted whether one endicted of perjury may be bailed although the clarks of the criminal side said he might Q. Brightwell and Robson Pasch 1653. Banc. sup AN Action upon the case was brought for delivering in a false note of goods Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case for which excise was to be paid into the office of excise whereby he was compelled to pay 50 l. to his damage c. upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff Green moved in arrest of Iudgement because that the Declaration did not set forth the Act of Parliament which gives authority to the commissioners of excise And 2ly The damage is not coupled with the fraud nor is it exppessed how he was compelled to pay the 50 l. and the Court is not bound to take notice of the Ordinance of Parliament touching the officers of the excise because it is not a general law But Roll chief Iustice answered that the fraud is the ground of the Action and all the other matter set forth in the Declaration is but matter of inducement to the Action and it is not requisite to be so punctual in setting that forth as is surmised and we are bound to take notice of the Ordinance Inducement Notice and the Action brought is to recover damages caused by the fraud and it is no more necessary to set forth all the circumstances occurring in acting of the fraud than for one to set forth all processes in an Action grounded upon a fraudulent Iudgement obteyned against him by which he is damnified Iudicium nisi c. pro querence Pasch 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Endictment for breaking the Peace If one that is bound to the Peace do break his recognisance he may be endicted upon it for this is a new offence Pasc 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved upon an Affidavit to discharge a Prisoner brought to the Bar by a habeas corpus Motion to discharge a Prisoner because he was arrested on the Sabbath day Roll chief Iustice plead this matter to his Action that arrested you for we cannot discharge you upon an affidavit Custodes and Rickaby Pasch 1653. Banc. sup RIckaby convicted of Felony for killing a man during the wars Motion to discharge a Prisoner upon the general pardon Surmise and brought hither by a habeas corpus moved by his councell to be discharged upon the Act of the late general pardon Roll chief Iustice It appears not to us whether you are excepted out of it or no. But enter your surmise upon the Roll by the advice of your councell as you will stand to it Postea Pasch 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iutice One cannot answer for an infant as Guardian Who may answer for an Infant as Guardian Motion Prochein amy Infant either in the Chancery or in any other Court except he be asigned Guardian by the Court for if he might that were to make himself his Guardian and that might prove to the damage of the infant therefore if one will sue an Infant he must move the Court to assign a Guardian that may answer for him But an Infant may sue per prochein amy though his prochein amy cannot answer for him Pasch 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who may be a witnesse although upon a Tryal one who is a Legatee by a Will may not be admitted for a witnesse to prove that will yet he may be examined as a witness to prove a deed or other thing which hath not relation to the will in respect of the interest which he claims by the Will And he then also said that Deeds were inrolled at the Common Law Eorollment for the preservation of them although not to pass any estate as it is now by the Statute of Enrolments made 4 H. 7. Pasch 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice How a disseisin is taken away Entry If one disseise me and a Stranger enter upon the disseisor for me this Entry takes away the disseisin and if a Copyholder of a Manor enter as a Commoner it is in right of the Lord although it be not by his command nor he have any notice of it Nota Pasch 1653. Banc. sup AN Action was brought for not paying monies upon the receipt of a bill of exchange according to the custom of Merchants Arrest of Iudgement in an Action to non paying monies upon a bill of exchange and upon a verdict found for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgement and the exception taken was that it appears not whether the demand of the mony sued for was according to the old stile or according to the new and so it is incertain whether the mony was due when it was demanded or no for if it were demanded according to the new stile 〈◊〉 as not due but if according to the old stile then it was due for the new stile is 10. dayes before the old Twisden answered it shall be accompted according to the old stile for that is used here in England and he said if there be two Perchants that have a joynt trade and one of them accept a bill of Exchange if he do not pay it an Action lyes against the other Roll chief Iustice If the bill of Exchange be accepted there is no necessity to allege a demand Demand and the demand here is not laid as part of the custom upon which the Action is founded Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement Herbert and Lane Pasch 1653. Banc. sup HErbert a Carryer brought an Action upon the case against Lane an Inn-keeper Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for goods lost out of the Inn viz. certain packs full of linen cloath and other goods and after a verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that it doth not appear by the Declaration what sort of cloath was in the packs nor of what value the cloath and
goods were and so the Declaration is incertain But Roll chief Iustice answered that the Declaration is good enough especially now there being a verdict in the case Pasch 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Where a Certiorari may not be granted Affidavit Surmise A Certiorari to remove a Record ought not to be made but to a known Officer who is known to have the custody of Records and upon a surmise that he hath such a Record in his hand and therefore We will not upon an Affidavit grant a Certiorari but upon a surmise made upon the Roll. Pasch 1653. Banc. sup COunt Arundeland my Lord Chandois Bail denâ—ed for Maâ—slaughter to whom Count Arundel was second in a duel being formerly endicted at Surrey Assizes before Iustice Ask Iustice Warburton for killing Mr. Hen. Compton found guilty only of Manslaughter by the grand Inquest were brought to Bar to be arraigned for it and were not admitted to be bailed but were delivered over to the Marshal to be brought again at another day Nota. Pasch 1653. Banc. sup IOhn Weeks who had been endicted and convicted upon the Statute of King Iames made against stabbing Pardon allowed being formerly brought to this Bar did plead the general pardon which he had sued forth and prayed it might be allowed But then the Court said they knew not whether he were excepted out of the general pardon or not and ordered him to enter his averment upon the Roll that he is not excepted Surmise entred and then to appear again at another day at which time he was brought again and then he declared he had entred his Averment and produced his pardon and prayed it might be allowed which after a grave admonition made to him by Mr. Iustice Ierman exhorting him to repentance and amendment of life was done Harris and Tooker Pasch 1653. Banc. sup HArris brought an Action upon the Case against Tooker for turning of an old Water-course from his Mill to a Mill which the Defendant had lately erected and obtains a Verdict Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case The Defendant moves in Arrest of Iudgement 1. Because it appears not by the Declaration what estate the Plaintif hath in the Mill for he only says that he hath been seised of it 2ly It is not shewed from whence the water runs as it should be 3ly The erecting of the new Mill is not actionable but the diverting of the water to his damage and therefore ought not to be jumbled together Case Roll chief Iustice It is a damage to turn the water out of its antient course and it is not needfull to say that there is a new Mill erected But what say you to the first Exception viz. That you have not shewed what estate you have in the Mill. Wild answered they had shewed it Roll chief Iustice Be it so or not the Action lies for what estate soever he hath an Action of the Case will lie therefore take your Iudgement Pasch 1653. Banc. sup MEmorandum Arraignment for Manslaughter This day by Rule of Court my Lord Chandois and Count Arundel were again brought to the Bar and arraigned for Manslaughter Chandois as Principal and Arundel as accessary for killing Mr. Henry Compton in a duel They confessed the fact and craved their Clergy and Peerage by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. But because the Court doubted whether the Statute was repealed or not Clergy and in regard the prisoners were not willing to lie longer in prison the Court refusing to bail them because the fact was notorious they waived their Peerage and prayed their Clergy as Commoners of England Whereupon the Ordinary was called who appeared and brought his Book which was a fair Latine Psalter The Court called for the Book and seeing it to be Latin commanded him to bring an English Book which he did But because the Officer was not provided who should have burned the Prisoners in the hand the Court would not then hear them read though the prisoners urged it But they were ordered to be still in Custody till another day and then to be brought again Trin. 1653. Banc. sup TWisden moved for a reference to Hern the Secondary and put the case to be this Motion for a reference to the Secondary A Scire facias issued forth against Executors and the Sherif returns nulla bona After upon a supposal by a testatum that the Executors had wasted the goods a new scire facias with a fieri facias in the same writ issued out according to the new way used and upon 2 nichils returned a judgement was given against them de bonis propriis and the parties were never summoned or had any notice of the proceedings Audita querela Reference Roll chief Iustice If you be condemned upon 2 nichils returned whereas you were never summoned you may help your selves by an Audita querela But it is not to be helped upon a reference Trin. 1653. Banc. sup A Man brought an Action of the case against one for causing him to be endicted for stealing of a Mare Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case and hath a verdict against the Defendant It was moved in Arrest of judgement that upon preferring of the Bill to the grand Iury they found an Ignoramus and so there is a repugnancy in the Declaration which sets forth that the Plaintif caused him to be endicted and yet says that an Ignoramus was found so that upon the matter it was found no Endictment Wild on the other side said the Declaration is well enough and there is no repugnancy for the words shall be taken according to the common construction Hales There is another Exception viz. That all the proceedings mentioned in the Declaration are expressed to be before the Iudges as Commissioners for the Gaol delivery and not as Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer Roll chief Iustice We will intend that the Endictment was before them as Iustices of Oyer and Terminer Endictment and in truth it is not material before what authority he was endicted and in this case the trouble the party is put unto by reason of this endictment is the cause of his bringing this Action and not his Tryal upon it Cure and therefore the authority is not material nor is it material whether the endictment be good or no and the words here are to be construed according to common intendment viz. That he was endicted though the endictment was not found but an Ignoramus and so by consequence in Law it is no Endictment upon which he could be tryed to come in danger of his life Hales moved that they might amend the Declaration and go to a new Tryal Roll chief Iustice It would be good to do so Amendment for it is doubtfull how we shall take the matter as it stands before us upon the Record Trin. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for an
Attorney of the Common Pleas that was sued in this Court to allow his writ of privilege Motion to allow an Attorneys privilege of the common pleas But Roll chief Iustice bid him plead his privilege for we cannot allow it upon a motion and his shewing of his writ of privilege Whitehead and Buckland Trin. 1653. Banc. sup Hill 1652. rot 121. VVHitehead brought his Action of Trespass against Buckland for taking of his Cattel Demurrer to a replication in Trespass for taking Cattel The Defendant pleads the Stat. of limitations of Actions in Bar the Plaintif replyed that he sued forth an Original within the time limited in the Statute To this replication the Defendant demurs and shews for cause 1. That he saith he hath sued out his Original but doth not say prout pater per Recordum as he ought to do 2ly He doth not plead the continuances upon the Roll Maynard answered that the pleading is good and we cannot take a traverse upon their plea which is surplusage nor is it necessary for us to shew in our plea all the continuances but to plead so much of the Record only as goes in Bar. Plea Roll chief Iustice The plea is plain and it is not necessary to allege the continuances for here is an apparance Postea Sale and Wray Trin. 1653. Banc. sup VVIld moved the Court that the Defendant in an Action of Covenant might be ruled to swear his plea Motion that the Defendant might swea◠his plea. because it is a forein and dilatory plea pleaded to out this Court of its Iurisdiction and to hinder a Tryal for he pleads that he was at Lisbon in Portugal at the day of the payment of the money which he had covenanted to pay Roll chief Iustice you may reply that he was in England Replication and you need not traverse absque hoc that he was in Portugal But the question is whether the plea be forein Traverse and I am of opinion that it is forein and ought to be sworn Howell answered it is not forein for it may be tryed in the County where the Action is brought Plea Roll chief Iustice Let him swear his plea except better matter be shewn Kitchinman Trin. 1653. Banc. sup VPon a Verdict given for the Plaintif in an action of the Case brought for preferring a Bill of Endictment of felony against him Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that it was not laid in the Declaration to be done falsly but that the Attorney of the Plaintif hath interlined the word falsly in the Postea 2ly It is not said that the Endictment preferred was delivered to the grand Iury but to the Court. Roll chief Iustice It is said to be preferred malitiose Endictment and it cannot be malitiose except it be also falsly and here is falsly expressed in the beginning of the Record and it is not necessary to say so through the whole Record for the words subsequent are coupled to the precedent And a Bill of Endictment is to be delivered to the Court and the grand Iury receives it from thence Iohnson Launcelot took another Exception viz. That there is a variance between the Venire and the Distringas for in the Venire one of the Iury is called Cargenter Variance and in the Distringas Carpenter Roll chief Iustice Let it be stayed for this fault And let Williams the Sollicitor be committed for enterlining the Postea Commitment But upon a voluntary confession of the fact and submission the Sollicitor was released and only ordered to pay the charge for the motions in the Cause Amendment and the Postea was ordered to be amended by the Paper book Custodes and Troos. Trin. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to stay Iudgement in an Endictment of perjury found against one for perjury in an evidence given by him in an Action of Trover and Conversion Motion to stay judgement in perjury The Exception taken was that the Oath is not averred to be made concerning the matter in issue in the action so it cannot be such perjury for which an Endictment lies Roll chief Iustice Is the Endictment grounded upon the Statute or is it an Endictment at the Common Law The Councel answered It is an Endictment framed upon the Statute Roll chief Iustice Then it is a material exception but if it had been an Endictment at the Common Law it would have been otherwise for at the Common Law one may be endicted for a false Oath in an Affidavit Endictment Perjury False Oath Therefore let Iudgement stay till the Plaintif move Custodes and Martin and Long Trin. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash two Endictments against Martin and Long Motion to quash two Endictment as Lords of the Manor of Clarkenwell for not repairing the Stocks and Whipping Post and not making of a Pound The Exception was Endictments Stocks Whipping Post that the making the Pound was not a publique thing and therefore an Endictment lies not for not doing it Roll chief Iustice That is true And he took another Exception That the Endictment doth not shew that Martin and Long are Lords of the Leet And if they be but Lords of the Manor and not Lords of the Léet they are not bound of common right to repair the Stocks and Whipping Post and therefore the Endictment must shew how they are bound to do it viz. either as Lords of the Leet or otherwise or else the Parish is bound to do it Custodes and Rickabye Mich. c. 1652. Banc. sup VPon an old rule of this Court made in the beginning of King Charls Arguments and Iudgement whether a pardon for murther was well pleaded The Court was moved to deliver their opinion in the Case of Rickaby that had been endicted for murther and had obtained his pardon whether the pardon was good and to be allowed or that he should be tryed notwithstanding his pardon Roll chief Iustice answered This Case was argued often at the Bar 8 Caroli which was long agoe and before our times therefore let us have books and argue it again for we have yet heard no Arguments in the Case At another day by rule of Court the Case was again moved and argued by Wadham Windham for the Keepers that the pardon was not good nor ought to be allowed because by the pardon murther was not pardoned and in his argument he made these questions viz. 1. Whether the King could pardon murther by the Common Law 2. Whether he might do it by the Law of God 3. Whether he might do it by the Statute 4. Whether the pardon be made good by the non obstante included in it For the first the King ex Officio may pardon Man-slaughter by the Common Law and in some cases he might pardon murther viz. Where there is but only malice implyed in the Murtherer but
wilfull murther he could not pardon because it is against the Law of God and he cited 12 H. 8. f. 5. Brudenell By the Law delivered to Noah Gen. ver 6. shedding of blood was made unpardonable and that is a perpetual Law Stat. 13. R. 2. C. 1. The King may delegate administration of Iustice to his Ministers but not dispensation of mercy By the Statute of 13 R. 2. c. 1. The King was admonished not to pardon murther so generally as he used but enacted That if in his pardons he did not expresse the word Murther the pardon should not be good and the word Murther is not expressed in this pardon and therefore it is not good nor to be allowed 3 Instit 236. 8 H. 6. 20. 9 H. 6. 8. Kel 9 Nor doth the King in this pardon recite the Endictment it self for then it may be it might have altered the Case but only recites the fact generally and though the words in the pardon be general and seem to include murther yet they cannot make the pardon good because it wants the express word it self viz. Murther and although the Charter be not void yet it cannot be allowed for want of that word nor can the general non obstante in the pardon dispence with the Statute of 13 R. 2. for all non obstantes are good only where the King takes notice of the Law wherewith he dispenseth And as to the Statute of 13 R. 2. First By it the just power of the King is made certain and ought to be strictly pursued 2ly That Statute was made of grace and as a boone to the people in which they have a special interest and is not to be abridged 3ly It was made for the more free administration of Iustice with which the King may not dispence Hob. f. 214. Here Lyliars case 11 Rep. f. 88. And although the party here be prosecuted at the sute of the King yet the prosecution is for the benefit of the people and therefore the King cannot pardon him 3 Inst f. 337 and so he prayed the pardon might not be allowed Hales appointed by the Iudges to argue ad informandum conscientiam as Windham also was argued for Rickaby that the pardon was to be allowed for the question now is not whether the pardon be to be granted or no. And 2ly he held that here is a good non obstanâ—e in the pardon to dispence with the Statute and he argued that murther at the Common Law was pardonable by other words as well as by the word murther viz. by the word Felony and by the word Death of a man for murther is but Felony in a high degrée and majus et minus non variant speâ—iem 4. rep Holfords case and the Statute of 13 R. 2. makes this cleer and that Statute is dispensed with by the non obstante For that Statute was not made to disable the King from pardoning murther but to direct and enform the King and with that the King may dispence by a non obstante 16 R. 3. Tit. graunts 34. 5 Iac. in this Court Bakers case And here is a dispensation by the Statute of R. 2. that this may be said a pardon at the Common Law for it appears by the words of the pardon that the King intended thereby to break through the Statute and to pardon the party what ever his offence was for although the non obstante do not expess the word murther yet it is good for there are equivalent words to murther in the pardon for the non obstante to dispence withall As if the King grants a pardon notwithstanding the Statute of Rich. 2. It is necessary to be referred to that clause in the Statute which is to be dispensed withall and so is it here for there is no other end for the King to dispence with the Statute of R. 2. C. 13. but for this clause and besides here is a special non obstante and not a general and for authorityes he cited Stamford 101. pleas of the Crown 236. and for presidents 31 Eliz. 4 Iac. 5 Iac. 6. Iac. and many others and said that he found none against them Roll chief Iustice Were it not for the presidents I hold there would be but little question in the case but some of these questions have been debated in some times although we cannot question the King for granting such pardons yet it is questionable whether he may grant them by the Law of God but the King may do it in some cases Pardon but here is a Statute that sayes he shall not do it if he do not take notice of the fact in his pardon by the name of murther and here is no such expression but the words are general if the King pardon malum â—se with an non obstante it is not good But let us see Presidents and we will advise till the next Term. The next Term Roll chief Iustice in the behalf of himself and the other Iudges delivered the opinion of the Court in this case to this effect We are all of one opinion and my brothers have desired me to deliver the reasons of thâ—irs and my opinion First I will open the Record which in effect is this Rickaby was endicted at Durham for murther and the endictment was removed into this Court by a certiorari and Rickaby brought hither by a habeas corpus and being demanded what he could say for himself why he should not be adjudged to die he pleaded the pardon of the late King which pardons the death of Curtine in very general words but the pardon doth not expresse the word murther and in his plea he mentions not the Statute of 10 Ed. 3 by a non obstante and this is set forth for confirmation of his plea and the Statute of 13 R. 2. is alleged with a non obstante The case in brief is Rickaby and others endicted for killing George Curtine and brought bither pleads his pardon as is before expressed The question is whether the pardon is to be allowed or not This case hath been well argued and the like case with this was never called into question or argued before this and therefore if we shall not allow this pardon now we have better reason to move us to it than others have had to do the contrary and therefore we shall send him into the Country to receive Iustice there for his offence for we are all of one opinion that the pardon is not to be allowed and that for these reasons the question here is not whether the King will pardon murther but Cook saith the King will not pardon it if he know it to be murther but the first question is whether the King can pardon murder without a non obstante 2ly Whether he can do it with a special non obstante 3ly Whether he can pardon it by this non obstante in this Charter of pardon 4ly Whether Rickaby hath pleaded this non obstante so that he may
Statute of 13 R. 2. C. 9. which is a generall Law and ought to be taken notice of but if not yet the Action is well brought for it is brought for the vexation the Plaintiff was put unto by reason of the presentment and the other matter alleged is but by way of inducement to the Action 2. Car. in Deâ—t and Oâ—ifes case in this court so held and though the conservators had no authority yet the Action lies for the malitious prosecution and for unjustly vexing him and so adjudged Trin. 16 Car. in this Court in Damon and Sheremans case Hales on the other side said that this Court is not bound to take notice that the Lord Maior of London hath this jurisdiction of conservatorship for the Statute which gave it him is a particular Law touching him only and so not to be taken notice of without it be shewn and then if he have no such authority all the proceedings against the Plaintiff are void Roll chief Iustice An Action upon the case lies for bringing an appeal against one in the Common Pleas though it be coram non judice Case by reason of the vexation of the party and so it is all one whether here were any jurisdiction or no for the Plaintiff is prejudiced by the vexation and the conservators took upon them to have authority to take the presentment And I hold that an Action upon the case will lye for maliciously bringing an Action against one where he had no probable cause and if such Actions were used to be brought it would deter men from such malitious courses as are to often put in practice Sherecroft and Weekes Trin. 1953. Banc. sup SHerecrost brought an Action upon the case against Weeks Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words for speaking these words of him He meaning the Plaintiff got Mary Nab with Child and the Child is his and I have tryed it with a sieve and a pair of sheeres It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the latter words are insensible and so the Action not maintainable to which it was answered that the first words are Actionable it matters not though the latter words be nonsence because they have no reference to the former words and therefore shall be rejected as sencelesse But Serjeant Barnard on the other side said the latter words do take off the force of the former words as the case is 4. rep f. 19. 2ly It is not said here when he got her with Child Nor 3ly Doth he aver that there was any such person as Mary Nab. Roll chief Iustice Case The Action doth well lye for the former words are positive scandalous words and the subsequent words are not material and if they be then they are in confirmation of the former for it seems he put confidence in the sieve and the sheeres and that made him speak the words and it matters not whether his confidence be true or false Therefore Iudicium nisi pro Querente VVeldon and Strudder Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IT was moved to the Court that the Plaintiff after he had obteyned a verdict and before Iudgement entred dyed Motion to enter the death of the Plaintiff on the Roll. and prayed that this might be entred upon the Roll but the Court denyed it and said it could not be VVhitehead and Buckland Trin. 1653. Banc. sup THe case of Whitehead and Buckland was again spoken unto Demurrer to a replication in Trespass by Original which was this Whitehead brought an Action of Trespasse by original writ for taking his Cattel the Defendant pleaded the Statute of limitations of Actions in Bar the Plaintiff replies that he took forth an original writ against the Defendant for this Trespass within the time limited by the Statute and upon this replication the Defendant demurred and for cause shews that he doth not shew what writ he sued forth as he ought to do otherwise it cannot be known whether he be rightly thereby intituled to his Action or no. 2ly He hath not shewed the continuances upon his proceedings and so it cannot be known whether his Action be discontinued or no that if it be we may take advantage thereof 3ly He doth not say that he hath taken out an Original prout apparet per Recordum as he ought to do for we do not agree the writ that he pleads he hath taken out 4ly He hath concluded his plea so that it amounts to a new assignment and hinders us from objecting against it by way of rejoynder and he joyns an issue of his own head of a matter not alleged before and 5ly The Action is for a Trespass done in 1645. and yet he concludes it to be contra pacem publicam which being in the late Kings time could not be but ought to have been contra coronam et dignitatem nostram Latch on the other side said that both parties agree to the Original and the disagreement is only in the time of the execution thereof and it is not necessary to say prout patet per recordum nor is it necessary to shew the continuances of the process for this would make the Record too long and here is no hinderance but they may rejoyn if they have cause Pâ—â—a Error Roll chief Iustice As to the first Exception it is not necessary to set forth the particulars of the writ and if the writ be not good you may have a writ of Error and for the second exception the plea is good without shewing the continuances and there is no inconvenience by not setting them forth and we will intend that all is rightly done because you have appeared and you are not hindred from replying but may do it if you will and have cause and the Record here shews that you have appeared to this writ but it is not good to conclude the plea super totam materiam as you have done for by this he is hindred from replying and then he hath good cause to demur because you have concluded him and what say you to that Latch The party may strike out the words Et querens similiter Roll chief Iustice He cannot strike out that which belongs not to him Replication Demurrer and you cannot go back and the other is compelled to demur Therefore Nil capiat per Billam nisi c. or waive the Demurrer Postea Trin. 1652. Banc. sup IT was said in the case of Homes and Bingley Who may make a lease to try a title that Tenant at will may make a lease for years to try a title of land and so may a Copy-holder Q. Trin. 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice What plea an Attorney may plead without a special warrant An Attorney who hath warrant to appear for his Clyent may plead for him without warrant But the Clarks in Court said he may plead no other plea without a special warrant but a non sum informatus ideo Q. Peck and Ewre Trin. 1653.
Banc. sup Pasch 1653. rot 116 or 117. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of debt for rent arrear upon two leases for years Error to reverse a judgement in debt for rent viz. upon a lease for 3 years of divers Copyhold Lands and upon a lease for 31 years for other lands Howell assigns for Error 1. That the Declaration is not good because that it is for an entire rent reserved for 2 several terms whereas one of the terms is expired here cannot be made any apportionment of the rent because it appears not which of the lands are Copyhold and which are Free lands Roll chief Iustice He ought to shew how much of the lands are Copyhold and how much Freehold Hales Here is but one entire rent reserved and it shall be paid as well after the expiration of the Copyhold lands as before Roll chief Iustice Discontinuance Then for what term shall the rent be reserved for it doth not appear to us Therefore you were best to discontinue your action otherwise if we give judgement upon the Exception taken you may lose your rent Hill and Dechair Trin. 1653. Banc. sup AN Action of debt was brought for 5 l. for selling of Wine without Licence Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Statute for selling wine without license and a Verdict was found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Action is not well brought because it is not by Original as it ought to be by the Statute of 18 Eliz. Wild on the other side answered that it is not necessary to be by Original for a Bill of debt as this is is in the nature of an Original writ if it should be otherwise the Statute would be repugnant for the debt one by Statute may be recovered in this Court by Information and this is the usual practice of this Court. Twisden took a difference between a penal Action and a popular Action A penal Action he said may be by Bill but not a popular Action 2ly It is not shewed that the party was not licensed to sell Wine 3ly The Verdict finds him guilty for selling of 5 pints of Wine between such a time and such a time Relation Action part where of was before the Information brought and part after the Information brought To the last exception Roll chief Iustice answered The matter shall relate to the filing of the Bail for then the Action beginneth not before But what say you to the other Exception Wild That is mistaken for the Action is upon another branch of the Statute Roll chief Iustice By an original Action it is meant in the Statute that the offence shall not be tryed upon a plaint in an Inferiour Court not to distinguish it from an information for a Writ Bill is all one in this Court Stat. 2 R. 3. A Bill is not an Original writ Writ Bill but an original Action and it is the common practice to sue in this Court in this manner But we will advise At another day the Court was moved for judgement because the Action is well brought though it be not brought by original and the Case urged of Winston against it is not to the purpose for that Case was not upon an information as our Case is but it was brought by the party grieved to recover his treble damages and in that case the party did not pursue the manner of suing for them as the Statute directed but we have here done it and it is the constant practice of this Court. Twisden answered that Winstons case is not answered for that was a popular Action as our case is Roll chief Iustice The question here is whether there be an original Action or not upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. C. 5. And I say it doth not appear whether that Statute meant to out this Court of its Iurisdiction or not but it is left at large in the Statute and me thinks it is an original Action Iurisdiction and Plats Case is that an original Action may be by Bill And I conceive the Statute intended only to exclude inferiour Courts and the constant course is that the party being in Custodia Marescalli he may be proceeded against by Bill and we will not suffer this Court to be excluded from its jurisdiction by obscure words in the Statute Therefore let judgement be for the Plaintif nisi c. Ricott and St. Iohn Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IN Action of Trespass an Ejectment brought by Ricott against St. Iohn Motion that the Defendant may plead as a third person shall direct the Court was moved for a third person that he will save the Defendant harmless and prays that giving him security so to do the Defendant may be ordered by the rule of this Court to plead as he should direct him and that he be not suffered to confesse a judgement Roll chief Iustice It is out of the way for you to give such security for there yet appears no collusion But you shall be made a party to defend the title and then move again Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IN the Case of one Clark it was said by Roll chief Iustice Where a day is taken inclusive where exclusive Arbitrement That if the submission to an Award be that the Award be made six days after the submission the day of the Award is to be taken inclusive and not exclusive so that if the Award be made the same day on which the submission was it is a good Award Ayre and Hauxesworth Trin. 1653. Banc. sup AYre brought an Action of Trespass against Hauxesworth for his Cattels damage feasant in D. the Defendant justifies in another County Whether a Traverse was well taken and traverseth absque hoc that he is guilty in D. or in any other place The question was whether the traverse be well taken or not Roll chief Iust answered he must take a traverse as this case is because the justification is local Traverse Discontinuance Therefore let the Plaintif take nothing by his Bill for he may not discontinue his Action because it is in Trespass Nota. Fletcher and King Trin. 1653. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of debt 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ght upon an assumpsit to save one harmless Error to reverse a Judgement in debt upon an Assumpsit in disposing of certain good â—sâ—ised by an Order of thâ— Commissioners of Haberdashers Hall 〈◊〉 â—â—sendant 〈◊〉 that he had saved him harmess The Plaintif replyed that he was damnified the Defendant rejoyns by protestation that there was no Order of Haberdashers Hall for plea saith non damnificatus and upon this the Plaintif demurred in the Common Pleas and a judgement was given there upon the Demurrer for the Plaintif In the writ of Error here the Error assigned was that the rejoynder is a
departure from the plea and here it doth not appear that Iohn Pitcher named in the replication is the same Iohn Pitcher that is named in the Declaration for it is said quidem Iohannes Pitcher and not the said I. Pitcher Latch said This is not material whether he be the same or no but upon the entire matter it doth appear that he is the same person for there is an averment afterwards that makes it so appear viz. That it is the same person and goods mentioned in the plea and in the condition made upon delivery of the goods and it cannot be otherwise understood and their bar is naught both in matter and in form also for he is to be saved harmless of goods Hale on the other side makes a difference between saying one I. P. and saying I. P. and saying of divers goods and saying of goods generally and the goods mentioned here cannot relate to the goods mentioned in the condition and though the plea be not good it matters not for the replication assigns not a breach Roll chief Iustice If your plea be not good then the Declaration is not answered Traverse Intendment Bar Replication It may be intended the same person yet it is not well expressed to say quidam I. P. for how can a traverse be taken upon an intendment nor doth it appear they are the same goods but by intendment so that the bar is ill and the replication also Affirmetur nisi c. Nota. and Hodges Trin. 1653. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Town of Newbery in an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. brought by an Informer for using a Trade not having served an Apprentiship therein Error to reverse a judgement given in an Action upon the Stature of 5 Eliz. and two Errors were assigned 1. That the Action ought not to be brought in an inferiour Court but must be brought in one of the Courts at Westminster 2ly The Venire is not good for it is only praeceptum est and doth not say per curiam as it ought to be Roll chief Iustice The Action ought not to be brought there but it ought to be brought in some of the Courts here and the second is a good exception also therefore reversetur nisi c. Action Venire Tayler and VVebb Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IT was resolved by the Court that the delivering of a breviat of the Case to the Iury before the verdict and their reading it What Act may make a Verdict void did make the verdict given by them to be void for the Iury ought not to have any other writings given them to peruse than such as are given in evidence for it would be dangerous if it should be otherwise and to confirm this Mich. 31 et 32 Eliz. Metcalfs and Deans case and one Viccary and Farthings case were cited by Roll chief Iustice Ashby and Child Trin. 1653. Banc. sup Mich. 1652. rot 686. VPon a Demurrer in an Action of debt the case was this A man died intestate and a Stranger possesseth himself of the Intestates goods after Letters of Administration were granted to a Creditor of the Intestate who brings an Action of debt against the stranger for the debt due to him by the Intestate as Executor of his own wrong The question was whether the Creditor by taking the Letters of Administration had not suspended his Action for the time he should continue to be Administrator Twisden held that his Action is suspended and cited 8 Rep. St. Iohns case because the goods of the Intestate shall be assets in his hands Hob and Longs case and the Plaintif is at no prejudice for he may recover the goods by an Action of Trover or Trespass 12 H. 4. f. 21. Hales on the other side held that the Action is not suspended for though he may bring Trespass or a Trover and Conversion for the goods yet they are not assets till they are recovered and a Creditor may bring an Action against an Executor de son tort although Letters of Administration be granted to another and the subsequent administration doth not suspend the Action which accrued before and here can be no retainer to satisfie himself because he hath not the goods and it is not the bare Letters of administration that chargeth the Administrator but the Assets also Com. 7. Bassets case An Action of debt is maintainable by an Administrator who hath not assets Roll chief Iustice There is a book against that that the heir is not chargeable Hales prima facie It is a good plea otherwise it would be mischievous for all the goods may be wasted before he hath administration granted him and though he may bring an action of Trespass for the goods yet he may bring his Action to which he was intitled before the administration granted unto him Trover and Conversion Roll chief Iustice It is clear the Administrator may bring a Trover and Conversion for the goods and here is but a right to assets in the Administrator Assets and no assets to charge him withall and it would be mischievous if it should be otherwise and the granting unto him Letters of Administration hinders him not from bringing his Action because the goods were not taken away after the Administration granted but before Trespass Debt and if they had been taken away afterwards he might have had a Trover and Coversion or an Action of Trespass but in the case at the Bar he may have an Action of debt and he cannot sue himself therefore his Action is not suspended Suspension Retainer and he cannot retain the goods to satisfie himself because he hath no goods and he may sue the heir here if he will and he shall not take advantage against him by reason of the administration because he hath no assets to retain or sue himself for and so it is in his election what Action he will bring Election otherwise it would be dangerous and we must support men in their just Actions Ierman Nicholas and Ask ad idem And so judgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Fisher and Ieoffryes Trin. 1653. Banc. sup FIsher brought an Action of debt against Ieoffryes as Executor to another What may not be pleaded after imparlance the Defendant imparis and after imparlance he pleads that he is Administrator cum testamento annexo and not Executor and that he ought to be named so in the writ to this Plea the Plaintif demurred Roll chief Iustice Vpon the matter he pleads a misnosmer after imparlance Plea which he cannot do and therefore let the Plaintif have his judgement nisi Giles and Southward Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IN this case it was said by Roll chief Iustice That if the Defendant doe plead an insufficient bar and the Plaintif do joyn issue upon it Iudgement though the plea in bar not good and obtain a Verdict the Plaintif shall
Corpus came into the Court and produced an Order of the Counsel of State that he should not bring Iohn Lilborn to the Bar upon a Habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court. Norbury of Counsel with the Prisoner prayed for an Alias habeas Corpus to be directed to him Roll chief Iustice Take it for no matter of Record appears before us to hinder it and let it be returned Saturday next which was three days after Norton and Jason Mich. 1653. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 935. IN an Action upon the Case for entring into the Plaintifs house Arrest of Judgement in an action on the Case and making an assault upon his Daughter and getting a Bastard Child upon her the Iury found a special verdict upon which the Case was this Norton sojourned in the house of Jason and during his sojourning there he got his Daughter with Child Four years after Iâ—son brought an action upon the Case against Norton for assaulting his Daughter and getting her with Child per quod servitium amisit The question here was whether because no Action was brought by the Daughter for the wrong done to her within four years and thereby she was barred by the Statute of limitations of Aâ—tions to bring her Action Iason the Father might now bring his Action upon the Case for the damage done to him by the loss of his Daughters service or should be also barred by the Statute Powis argued that he was not barred though the Daughter was because in many cases the Law gives two Actions for one thing and cited 19 H. 6.45 46. a. and Hill 1649. Norburies case adjudged in this Court and said that though the Trespas and the Assault was done to the Daughter yet here is a per quod servitium amisit declared of which doth belong to Iason the Father Roll chief Iustice This Action is an Action brought for the damage done to the Master and though the servant will release the battery yet the Master may have an A Aion for the damage caused to him by the Battery and although the Daughter cannot have an Action her Father may although not for entring into his house because it was with his leave nor for assaulting his Daughter and getting her with child because this is a wrong particularly done to her yet for the loss of her service caused by this he may have an Action but it is a pretty case and fit to be argued therefore bring us books and we will advise upon it At another day the case was again spoken unto by Baldwin of the Inner Temple on the Defendants part and he made the question to be whether this be an Action of Trespass vi et armis or an Action upon the Case which is here brought and he argued that it is a Trespasse vi et armis and not an Action upon the Case which is here brought Case and cited Nat. Brev. 86. 17 Ed. 3. and 12 H. 4. and the 9 Rep. the Earl of Shrewsbury case and said that the matter here alleged is not Causa causans but Causa causata and he agreed that one may be lyable to divers Actions for one Trespass in divers respects but here all the matter is jumbled together and it cannot be an Action upon the Case for the judgement ought to be quod defendens capiatur which is the Iudgement in a Trespass vi et armis and not in a Trespass upon the Case Hob. Rep. Wheatly and Stones Case And although the Action conclude with a per quod servitium amisit yet it sounds more in Trespass than to be an Action upon the case and then he is barred by the Statute of limitations for not bringing it within 4 years and here are â—ntire damages also given for all which ought not to be for the Defendant was a sojourner in the Plaintifs house and had licence to enter into it by consequence is is not guilty of the vi et armis declared of Hob. Andrews and de la hope 22 Eliz. Dyer 369. 20 Iac. Rhetorick and Chapels Case and therefore no dammages ought to have been given for the domum fregit because he entred with License Roll chief Iustice It may be the entire dammages are given by the Iury for the trespasse of which they make doubt and refer to the judgement of the Court and not for the entring with License but if the entire special matter had been found and left to the Court it had been otherwise But if they had not made a doubt they might have found him culpable Dammages and so I doubt that it is not good to find the dammages entire because as to the Trespass for entring vi armis he is not guilty But for the other point the cause of action is per quod servitium amisit and for this he hath brought it within the time limited by the Statute for it is an Action upon the Case although the causa causans is the vi armis which is but inducement to the Action and the causa causats viz. the loss of the service is the ground of the Action Hales è contra said that the dammages shall be applyed to the other matter Roll chief Iustice this is the sole Question whether the dammages refer to all the Trespass or not and upon reading the Record he said that it referred to all Venire Tryal and so is not good The rule was to shew cause why a new Venire should not issue forth to try the matter de novo Mich. 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made for the committing of one Wade and another Surveyours of the High-way To quash an order of Sessions untill they should pay the arrerages of mony collected by them upon the Statute of 2 3. Phil. Mar. C. 8. for amending of High-waies and it was prayed the Prisoners might be bayled These exceptions were taken by Twilden against the Order first to the Mittimus in that the parties were not convicted before the Iustices as they ought to have been 2ly The Mittimus is repugnant in it self for they are committed for not paying of illegal rates levied upon the Parishioners and if they be illegal they are not to be paid Next they are committed for not paying all the mony by them levied whereas they are to deduct 8 d. in the pound out of it for their pains in collecting of it and so they are committed for more than is due Roll chief Iustice The order is not good yet let them on the other side take time to maintain it if they can because it is an order for repairing of the High-way Order of Sessions which is for the good of the Common wealth Henshoe Mich. 1653. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement in an Ejectione firmae it was moved for the Defendant in the Writ of Error Error to reverse a judgement in
an Ejectione firmae that the Record was not yet transcribed and therefore prayed he might amend the judgement by making it recuperet instead of recuperare debet because it was only the fault of the Clark in mis-entring Roll chief Iustice This is a matter of substance and we cannot tell whether the judgement be final or not If it be not final it ought to be recuperare debeat Amendment Iudgement but if it be final it ought to be recuperet Therefore we will make no rule in it Mich. 1653. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Vpon what promise an Action lies Averment If one make a lease for years of land rendring rent and after the Lessee promiseth the Lessor to pay the rent an Action lies upon this promise if the promise was made at the time of the Lease made but in the Action brought this promise must be expresly averred to be so Bocking and Symons Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Commmon Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in the Common Pleas. and the Error assigned was that the Action was brought against 3 persons one of whom was within age and that they all appeared by Attorney whereas he within age ought to have appeared by his Guardian and so the Iudgement was erronious as to him and consequently to the rest because it was a joynt Iudgement Roll chief Iustice Iudgement This is a good exception for it being a joynt judgement if it be naught in part as without doubt it is it is naught in the whole And so it was reversed Hill 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for not repairing a High-way To quash an Endictment for not repairing a High way The Exception taken was that the Endictment did conclude that the party ought to repair it by reason of his tenements which was said to be uncertain and it ought to have said that he and all those whose estate he hath in the Tenements used to repair it And 2ly It should have said that by reason of the tenure of his Tenements he ought to repair and not by reason of his tenements And upon these Exceptions it was quashed Trevilian and Welman Hill 1653. Banc. sup TRevilian brought an Action upon the Case against Welman for speaking of these words of him Arrest of judgement for words viz. He did put in two Horses to Colonel Windham meaning Colonel Windham that was Governour of Bridgewater and as soon as any warrants came for the pressing of men for the service he acquainted the Cavalliers by reason whereof none could be pressed that were fit and he doth hold constant correspondency with the Cavalliers Vpon Issue joyned and a Verdict found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not Actionable because utterly uncertain either when Col. Windham was Colonel and when the Horses were put in and the other words are as incertain as these But it was answered that if all the words be taken together they are certain enough to ground an Action for if they be true the Plaintif thereby will be expresly made a Delinquent and have his estate sequâ—stred for adhering and assisting the King against the Parliament and of this opinion was the Court and thereupon the Plaintif had his judgement Hill 1653. Banc. sup IN the Case of one Page and Crook it was said by the Court Who may be Witnesses That it an Action of Trespass be brought against one with a simul cum with others if nothing be proved against the others they may be examined as witnesses in the cause Whitehead and Buckland Hill 165â— VVHitehead brought an Action of Trespass by Original against Buckland for taking away 400 Sheep and 26 Bullocks Demurrer to a replication in Trespass et armis the Defendant pleads the Statute of 21 Iac. of limitations of actions in Bar the Plaintif replyed that he sued forth and Original writ within 6 years and that the process thereupon was duly cotinued upon this the Defendant demurred and for cause shews that the replication is not good for when the Plaintif says that he sued forth an original he ought to have added prout patet per Recordum which is omitted 2ly He hath not pleaded the continuances of his process upon the Record Maynard answered that the replication is good for we cannot take a traverse upon their plea which is surplusage and we need not plead all the continuances but it is sufficient if we plead as much of the Record as goes in Bar. Roll chief Iustice The plea is plain and it is not necessary to allege the continuances for here is an appearance At another day Maynard said the plea in Bar is not good for he pleads an immaterial thing for it matters not when the original was sued forth but he ought to plead not culpable within six years before the Original sued forth Roll chief Iustice This is the usual way of pleading and it is but to put you to a new assignment Plea and the plea is good for you are not tyed up by it for you are not forced to joyn issue for you may make a new assignment but waive the Demurrer on one part and the pleading of the Statute on the other part and take a new plea and go to a tryal otherwise we must give judgement for the Plaintif But the Court would advise Latch at another day said that the replication is naught for the uncertainty for it doth not appear where the Original was sued forth nor the time when for it is only said he sued forth an Original in Michaelmas Term and part of Michaelmas Term may be within six years and the other part may be after the six years and so it cannot be known whether it was sued forth in due time or no and because no place is shewed there can be no Venue Adjourned to the next term At another day the Case was moved again then the 2 exceptions taken that it was not said prout patet per Recordum and had not shewn the continuances of the process were over ruled by the Court and then another Exception was taken to the replication that it concluded hoc perit quod inquiratur per patriam which is not good for it hinders the other party to rejoyn and he is compelled either to joyn issue or to demur Latch answered That the party may not be admitted to take advantage of this fault now upon a general demurrer and he is not tyed up from rejoyning although an issue be offered him for though the plea be informal yet he may pass over and rejoyn Hob. f. 80. Newman and Stones case Notwithstanding an unnecessary traverse the party may plead over and is not bound to joyn issue and the impertinency of the plea shall remain but only as a blemish in form of the plea and shall not be accompted
and upon this the Defendant demurred and upon the Demurrer the Case was this A Lease was made for one year the Lessee covenants for him and his Assigns to pay the rent so long as he and they shall have the possession of the thing let the Lessee assigns over his Term the Term expires the Assignee continues the possession after the Term expired and for rent behind by the Assignee after the expiration of the Term the Lessor brings the Action and the question was whether here be such an Assignee that the Action will lie against or not Roll chief Iust held that though here be not an Assignée strictly Assignee Covenant according to the rules of Law yet that he shall be accompted such an Assignee as is to perform the Covenants made between the parties and ruled the Defendant to shew cause why the Plaintif should not have judgement Nota. Wood and Markham Hill 1653. Banc. sup VPon an Ejectione firmae brought For a restitution after an habere facias possessionem executed and a Tryal thereupon had a Verdict was found for the Plaintif but upon an agreement made betwéen the Plaintif and the Defendant the Defendant was to hold the land recovered the remainder of his Term to come and according to this agreement he held it for 2 years but afterwards before his term expired the Plaintif takes out an habere facias possessionem and executes it Serj. Bernard moved for the Defendant upon this matter shewed to the Court That the Defendant might have a rule for restitution But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Restitution but you must have your Action upon the Case against the Plaintif for not performing his agreement Case for the Act seems to be unconscionable Masters and VVallis Hill 1653. Banc. sup Pasch 1652. rot 581. A Writ of Error was brought in this Court to reverse a Iudgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of Trespass quare vi et armis and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in Trespass quare vi et aâ—mis that the Trespass is concluded to be contra pacem c. but doth not say publicam Twisden answered that it is well enough because the Action was comment'd by Original but if it had been by Bill it would have been otherwise Roll chief Iustice It is the use in the Common Pleas to make such short recitals but in the beginning of the Record here it is recited at large and if it were not recited at large it would not be good Recital but for the matter it self it is matter of substance and generally it ought to be concluded to be contra pacem publicam yet it is good here as it is for the reasons before alleged Affirmetur judicium nisi c. Hill 1653. Banc. sup VVIld moved against a Sherif that he may not be admitted to file the retorn of a writ directed to him Against filing a return of a writ because an Action upon the Case is depending against him for not returning this writ and if he should now be admitted to file the return he would thereby abate our Action Roll chief Iustice If the writ be not filed it shall not be filed till the Court be moved but he cannot file it as of this Term though he should file it for the return of the writ as it seems is long since past but if the retorn be already filed you move too late Swan and Fenham Hill 1953. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1072. IN an Action of Trepass and Ejectment a special Vâ—rdict was found Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectment and in it this Custom viz. That the Owners of Houses in the Town of New-Castle in fee simple may devise them by Paroll but not Tenants in tayl and it was further found that the Testator was seised of the Houses in question in fee tayl in possession and of the remainder of them in fee-simple and so seised did devise them by Paroll The question was whether this devise was warranted by the Custom Shafto argued that the Custom did not warrant this devise because Customs are not to be enlarged by construction but are to be taken strictly and according to the letter because they run in abridgement of the Common-law and so are not to be favoured 9 E. 3. f. 38.11 H. 4. f. 33.5 H. 6. f. 51. Next here are immaterial words found in the Verdict for if it be the Custom for Tenant in fee-simple to devise yet this extends not to tenant in tayl 27 H. 6. f. 5.21 E. 4. f. 24. and a devise of rent to be issuing out of these Houses is not good within the Custom although that a rent doth follow the nature of the Land 22 Assis pl. 78.26 H. 8.54 It is true Cook in his Littleton f. 111. saith that one may devise a rent in remainder but I deny this for the authorities of the Books are against him An estate in remainder is not Assets nor can be devised 3 H. 7. f. 23 24. a condition goes to an Estate tayl not to a fée-simple in remainder 6 Rep. f. 33. And here is but a power of an Estate and not an Estate in possession Lit. sect 137. And the finding here that the Tenant in tayl did die without issue is not material for this could not be known at the time of the devise and the devise takes its effect in the time of the Devisor 27 H. 8. Dyer 45.5 Eliz. Dyer Bishops Case 1 Rep. Archers Case f. â—6 2ly Here is no Custom found to intitle the party for a Town cannot have a Custom as it is here found though a Borough may 22 Ass 178 and this is not found to be an antient Vill 7 H. 6. Dyer 22 H. 6. Fitzh praescript 47. Next the Custom is not found that Burgers may devise as it ought to be Turner Iohn on the other side held that some Estate doth pass by the Will and it matters not what Estate passeth and the Owners of Houses in our Case shall be intended to be Tenants in fee-simple and it is not necessary that they be Tenants in fee in possession Perkins devises Plowd 262. Dyer 22.22 Eliz 371. p. 5. and the Custom here found is no more but an ordinary Custom common to other Boroughs and it shall not be intended a special Custom And this case may be resembled to Cases upon the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. for devising of Lands 10 Rep. f. 81. Trin. 34 Eliz. Benefilds Case there cited and 35 Eliz. Howards Case which prove that reversions may be devised Nat. brev 199. a. Perkins Devises Pl. 540. is the very Case in question and the Cases put on the other side come not to our Case Roll chief Iustice It is not necessary in a special Verdict to be so precise as in pleading Special verdict but something may be supplyed and the verdict hath found that he was Owner and that the
Corpus said that he had no more to say than what he had formerly offered only he added that it was a tender and a leading case and therefore to be well advised of Roll chief Iustice For the first part of the return Return I conceive it too general for it doth not appear in what the books are scandalous for the publishing whereof he was committed 2ly I conceive that the Order of Parliament ceaseth with the Parliament Order which is dissolved as an Order of one Session of Parliament ends with the Session Committee and is not like an Act which continues after the Parliament and all Committees made by order of Parliament do cease by dissolving of the Parliament but those which are made by Act of Parliament doe continue afterwards and this individual Parliament being dissolved they can now make no further order Bail and so the prisoner may lie perpetually in prison and he hath already lain long in prison and therefore it is reason he should he bailed The prisoner was admonished to be quiet and not henceforth to disturb the State The prisoner was ordered to bring sureties to be bound in 500 l. for his appearance here the next Term and sic de die in diem until Mr. Attorney will proceed against him if he will proceed at all Hudson and Dickenson Hill 1653. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the behalf of the Plaintif For entry of a Nil capiat per Billam for expedition that a Nil capiat per billam may be entred against him for expedition in an Action of Trespass for taking away his Cattel wherein he had obtained a Verdict because he had declared for taking away 6 Mares and Colts and did not shew how many Mares and how many Colts particularly Roll chief Iustice Let a Nil capiat per Billam be entred Pinchard and Fowke Hill 1653. anc sup PInchard brought an Action upon the Case against Fowke Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon an Assumpsit upon an Assumpsit and declares that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would forbear to protest a Bill of Exchange drawn upon the Defendant that he would pay the moneys when he should next come to London And upon an Issue joyned and a Verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that here is no consideration set forth to ground the promise upon for he doth not shew that he came to London but shews that he dyed at Plymouth and came not to London Roll chief Iustice Consideration Duty The coming to London is alleged to no purpose for the payment of the money was a duty and the monies to be paid were received beyond Sea and so is a duty and made a good consideration therefore let the Plaintif take his Iudgement Pasc 1654. Banc. sup IT was said by the Court that when an Informer hath attached his Action in a Court another Informer cannot inform for the same thing A good plea against an Informer and it he do it is a good plea in Bar to the second Informer that an information is depending against him for the same thing Note Trin. 1654. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice A Bailif of a liberty hath return of writs How a rescous is to be expressed Bailif and therefore a rescous made from him must be expressed to be out of his hands but a rescous made from the Sherifs Bailif must be expressed to be out of the hands of the Sherifs Bailif for the Bailif is but the Sherifs servant Patnell and Brooke Trin. 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved upon an Affidavit to stay Execution upon a judgement given for an Administrator To stay execution upon a judgement Audita querela because the Letters of administration were repealed before the judgement entred Roll chief Iustice The matter comes not legally in question before us you must bring your audita querela yet let Hern the Secondary examine it Trin. 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a writ of Distringas against the Inhabitants of a Town in Huntingtonshire For a Distringas against Inhabitants of a Town Plea for throwing in of banks of the Earl of Bedfords in his drained lands Roll chief Iustice Take it but at the return of the writ the Inhabitants may plead to you notwithstanding Noy the late Kings Atturney would not have suffered it Note and the Sherifs of London Trin. 1654. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Case was brought against the Sherifs of London for not returning a fieti facias The Defendants plead not guilty Moved that the Defendants might plead specially and a Iury was returned to try the issue and after the Defendants filed the return of the Scire facias Wadham Windham moved that the Defendants might waive their general plea of not guilty and might plead specially viz. That they had executed the writ Roll chief Iustice Amendment You have pleaded already and it is in our power whether we will suffer you to alter your plea or not and we will not doe it without the Plaintif will consent therefore make the best of that plea you have pleaded upon your tryal Oyles and Marshall Trin. 1654. Banc. sup VVIld upon a rule to shew cause why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Court of Policy of assurance in London Against granting a Prohibition to the Court of Policy of assurance shews for cause that the Defendant had pleaded there and the Plaintiff had replyed and that the cause was ready for Tryal and that the principal matter was fit to be tryed there and they had authority to try it Roll chief Iustice If they have Iurisdiction of the principal matter they have also Iurisdiction of all matters incident thereunto Iurisdiction Tryal and they may try them according to the course of their Law so that it be not contrary to the Common-law Therefore discharge the former rule Trin. 1654. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who of common right are to repair a Sea-wall If no particular person by Custom be bound to repair a Sea-wall wherein a breach is made the whole Level are bound to do it Trin. 1654. Banc. sup VPon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar between Sir Iohn Bridges How a Will may be revoked and my Lord Chandois it was said by Roll chief Iustice that one may revoke a Will in writing by Paroll and may revive it again by Paroll Trin. 1654 Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a Habeas Corpus for one out-lawed in felony For a Habeas Corpus because he cannot be tryed there where the felony was done untill the Outlawry be reversed But it was prayed for the Protector that a Habeas Corpus may not be granted because the Prisoner stands committed for divers felonies and rapes Roll chief Iustice He shall be brought hither by a Habeas Corpus to reverse the Outlawry but we
estate may pass by Attorney and so although here be but a bare power given yet it is well executed notwithstanding his death that gave it 2ly This Letter of Attorney was not countermandable by the Copyholder himself during his life and therefore it shall not be countermanded by his death and though it had been countermandable during his life yet it being not countermanded by him in his life his death shall not countermand it and the custom doth strengthen this power Next this custom is not contradictory for here is no Attorney made but a writing made in the nature of a Letter of Attorney and a power to surrender given by it and it is no more than for one Copyholder to surrender for another which is usual and in Cooks 9 Rep. f. 76. A Copyholder is called an Attorney also Copyhold estates are made by customs and therefore such customs which are to confirm estates are to be favoured in Law although they do differ from conveyances of estates at the Common Law and this custom is not only reasonable but convenient also for the passing of Copyhold estates And this custom enlarges the power of alienations and such customs have generally been admitted good though different from the Common Law And when a custom is become a Law it is very dangerous to alter it and the doing of it would overthrow many estates Ellis Sollicitor General on the other side argued That the custom is not good because it is against the rule of Law That an authority given should survive the party that gave it and a custom cannot strengthen it for a custom ought to be reasonable and agreeing to the nature of the thing which it concerns otherwise it cannot be good for Ratio est formalis causa consuetudinis Dalisons Rep. 32. 1 Instit f. 59. And this cause cannot be reasonable because it cannot give an authority to another to do such a thing for him after his death which he could not do during his life And this custom doth purely destroy the nature of the Common Law and therefore cannot be good And it is against the very nature of an authority to survive and so consequently it is against the nature of the thing Dyer 357. 10 E. 3. f. 5. 18 Rep. Vnyers case The party in his life time might have revoked this authority and therefore his death doth revoke it and by the death of the Copyholder the Copyhold is descended and cannot be surrendred by a dead man and here was no incoation of the estate of the party that is dead and I hold there is a difference betwixt a will and an authority And also here the Letter of Attorney is not pursuant to the custom and therefore it is a void Letter of Attorney 16 Iac. rot 530. Greenwood and Onslaes case Customs are to be taken strictly Copyhold and to be so pursued and it is not so here for here is an addition to the custom and this makes all void Roll chief Iustice Copyholds are much led by the customs of the Manor and me thinks here is little difference betwixtt surrendring into the hands of another Copyholder to make a surrender for him and this case and the variances are not so considerable as to make it void here The Court would advise At another day the case was again put Custom and the Court delivered their opinion that the custom was good and Roll chief Iustice said that the death of the party doth not revoke this writing made in the nature of a Letter of Attorney Revocation for it is strengthned by the custom and it is not like an ordinary Letter of Attorney which becoms void by the death of him that made it Authority Executor for this custom is a Law and the authority here survives as an Executor may sell the Testators lands it he be impowered to do it by the will and therefore the Custom is good and let the Plaintif have judgement nisi c. Child Trin. 1654. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. was brought for using a Trade not having served an Apprentiship in it That the Defendant might not plead to the Action Serjeant Fletcher moved that the Defendant might not be compelled to plead because he ought not to be sued out of the County where he useth the Trade Roll chief Iustice proceed according to Law and plead this matter or move it in arrest of Iudgement Rule for we will make no rule Trin. 1654. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Where an Action on the Case lies and where not an Action upon the case doth not lie against one for causing another to be endicted for a Trespass but for causing one to be endicted for a thing which deserves corporal punishment or a thing which sounds in scandal of the party endicted an Action upon the case will lie Nota. Stevens against Ask. Mich. 1654. Banc. sup STephens brought an Action upon the case against Ask for these words Action on the Case for words Arrest of judgement Adjective words Thou art a common Bastard-bearing Whore and hadst two Bastards by a Butcher and I will prove it Vpon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif Twisden moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the first words viz. Thou art a common Bastard-bearing Whore are not actionable because they are adjective words and are not positive And for the other words they are not actionable because they were spoken of a Feme Covert who cannot have a Bastard Vpon this the judgement was arrested till the next Term and then Wild moved for judgement for that he conceived that the words taken together are actionable and cited Owen levons case adjudged in this Court to prove it Roll chief Iustice If she were married at the time of the words spoken she could not have a Bastard but yet why should not the words be actionable for the words purport that she was not maried when she had the Bastards and the Iury hath found for the Plaintif Therefore let her take her judgement nisi Barker and Weston Mich. 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that the bail to an Action might be discharged To discharge Bail because they had now brought in the principal and it was but one day after the return of the writ But Roll chief Iustice answered that it may not be because they come in upon the return of the second Scire facias Harvey and Mountney Mich. 1654. anc sup IN this Case the Action being a Trespass and Ejectment and the title concerning Hugh Audley of the Inner Temple the Defendant was by rule of Court at the tryal which was to be at the bar to appear and confess the lease entry and ouster and to stand upon the title only Plaintif non-sute and yet judgement for him yet at the tryal he would not appear upon which the Plaintif was non-sute and yet the judgement was for the Plaintif upon
Tryal at the Bar between one Mathew and the Hundred of Godalming in Surrey Hacker and Newborn a Sussex Cause Mich. 1654. Banc. sup IF a Man make his Will in his Sickness What shall be a Will by compulsion by the over-importuning of his Wife to the end he may be quiet this shall be said to be a Will made by constraint and shall not be a good Will By Roll chief Iustice In a Tryal at the Bar in the Case of one Hacker and Newborn Mich. 1654. Bronge and More Mich. 1654. Banc. sup MAster Sollicitor general moved in arrest of judgement in a replevin Arrest of judgement in a Replevin and took these exceptions-to the avowry 1. That the party did avow the taking of the Cattel dammage-feasant in a Common where he had Common and doth not shew that he hath Common for his Cattel levant and couchant 2ly He doth not shew that he was dampnified by the Cattel that were distreyned dammage-feasant and it may be there was common enough for him notwithstanding the other Cattel distreyned were there What distress lawfull without averment of dammages and so he was not dampnified by their being there Roll chief Iustice answered if one who hath no right to Common do put his Cattel upon the Common he who is a Commoner may take the Cattel dammage-feasant upon the Common and it is not necessary for him to aver that he hath dammage by them for he hath an interest which doth authorise him to remove the nusance Interest but he must make a Title to the Common and if he have made it here but by implication it is well enough for it is now helped by the verdict Title by implication and you have passed over your advantage by not demurring to him Mich. 1654. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice A Deed good in part and fraudulent in part A Deed may be fraudulent in part and good in part and so he said it had been adjudged in the Case of one Lydal of the Middle-Temple Banks and Pratt Trin. 1654. Banc. sup Hill 1653. rot 603. PRatt brought an Action upon the Case against Banks upon an Aumpsit Error in an action of the Case by an Attorney so fees and solliciting to pay him such fees as should be due unto him as his Attorney in prosecuting a sute for him in the Common-pleas and such monies as he should lay out in solliciting a sute for him in the Chancery and upon non-assumpsit pleaded a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff and a judgement thereupon The Defendant brought a Writ of error in this Court and assigns for error that the Plaintiff did not shew particularly what sums of mony he had laid out for him nor to whom he had paid it as he ought to do and Tooke and Sir Thomas Walsinghams case in this Court was cited to prove it 2ly The Assumpsit was that he should pay him his fees so long as he should continue to be his Attorny it appears not that he continued to be his Attorny in the sute wherein he supposeth he prosecuted for him But for the first exception Roll chief Iustice said A general Declaration good that it is not necessary to set down particularly the several sums of mony he had laid out for this might make the Declaration tedious and if the Plaintiff should as it is objected he may bring another Action for some part of the monies recovered in this sute you may plead this recovery generally in bar of such Action And as to the 2d exception it shall be intended that he did continue to be his Attorney if it appears as it doth Intention that he prosecuted for him The case was moved again the next Term and the former exceptions only insisted upon Iudgement affirmed But Roll chief Iustice over-ruled the exceptions and affirmed the Iudgement Antea Mich. 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved To change the Bayl. that two that were bayl for one in an Action might be discharged and two others accepted of because the party was to examine them as Witnesses in the Cause which was granted upon consent of the parties VVise and Jeffryes Hill 1654. Banc. sup Mich. 1654. rot Q. VVIse a Corn-Merchant and a Baker in London brought an Action up-upon the Case against Ieffryes for speaking these words of him Action for words brought by a Corn-Merchant Adjective words viz. Thou art a broken fellow and hast cheated me of 200 l. Vpon a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the words are not actionable because the words are adjectively spoken and are not positive words nor of a certain signification for they may be meant that he was broken in his body and not in his estate But VVild answered that 1. The words are spoken of a Tradesman which may be a Bankrupt and 2ly Here is an averment that the words were meant to signifie that the Plaintif was a Bankrupt and besides here is a verdict for the Plaintif Green replyed that it doth not appear that the words were spoken of him in relation to his Trade or Profession and to say that thou hast cheated me were adjudged not actionable in Hills case 2 Car. and in one Iohnsons case Roll chief Iustice I do not agree the Case of 2 Car. cited but to the Case in question take all the words together as they are laid they imply he is broken in his Trade and the word cheated enforceth this sense and the words are very scandalous and the averment Iudgement and the verdict makes it more strong Therefore judicium pro querente nisi c. Fowkes and Copsye Hill 1654. IT was said in this Case that if there be divers breaches of an Award One breach of an Award assignable you may assign but one of them in an Action brought for breach of the Award Michill and Hepworth Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 717. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common-pleas in an Action of Trespass for an Assault Error in Iudgement in Trespass and taking away of the Plaintifs Goods and amongst other for taking away of Writings and two Errors were assigned 1. That the Declaration was with a quod cum A quod cum not good in in Trespass Otherwise in Trespass on the case which was said is not good in an Action of Trespass 2. That the Plaintif did not set forth what the writings were which were taken away but the first exception was only relyed upon and to that Roll chief Iustice answered That if the Action were an Action of Trespass upon the case though it were with a vi et armis it might be good with a quod cum but the Action here is a meer Action of Trespass vi et armis Therefore shew cause why the Iudgement shall not be reversed Kirk and Lucas Hill 1654. Banc. sup Hill 1653. rot 579.
Iustice answered Denied It appears not to us but that the Parliament was sitting at the time and peradventure it will be made appear at the tryal Therefore plead and go to tryal and then move in Arrest of judgement if you have any thing to move Page and Parr Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1654. rot 1687. PAge brought an Action of Covenant upon a Covenant conteined in an Indenture of a demise for years Covenant upon an Indenture for the not paying the rent reserved by the Indenture according to the Covenant The Defendant pleads in bar that the Plaintif entred into part of the land demised before the rent due for which the Action was brought and so had suspended his rent The Plaintif replyed the Defendant did re-enter and so was possessed as in his former estate Suspension of ren and to this replication the Defendant demurred and for cause he shewed that here was no confession and avoidance or traverse of the plea in bar Roll chief Iustice Have you shewed that he continued in possession until the rent grew due for you ought to shew that he entred and was possessed untill after the rent-day but here you have only said that he was possessed in his former right Nil capiar per Billam Therefore nil capiat per Billam nisi Hill 1654. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court Not to plead till costs paid assessed in a former Action that 20 l. costs were taxed upon a non-sute in an Action of Trespass and Ejectment brought to the Bar and that the Plaintif had not payed them nor was to be found and yet had brought another Action for the same land The Court was moved that the Defendant might not be ruled to plead to this second Action until the Plaintif had paid the costs taxed upon the former non sute and that another Plaintif might be named or that security might be given to pay the costs if the Plaintif should be non-sute again Shew cause The rule was to shew cause why it should not be so Hill 1654. Banc. sup DArcy moved that an Endictment of Michaelmas Term last might be amended in the Caption But Roll chief Iustice answered To amend an Endictment of a former Term denied It cannot be if it be of the last Term but had it been an endictment of this Term it might have been amended Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment for entring forcibly upon a Tenant for years against the Statute of 21 Iacobi To quash an Endictment and the Exception was that the Endictment doth not say that he entred manu forti Roll chief Iustice answered The Statute is only that if one enter by force and the words manu forti are not expressed in the Act Therefore move it again if you will Hill 1654. Banc. sup A Habeas Corpus cum causa was granted for Elizabeth Bayne To discharge a prisoner turned over to the Mareschal For a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the intent to charge her with an Action and upon the return thereof she was committed to the Mareschal Wild moved that she might be discharged because the return of the Habeas Corpus is erronious But Roll chief Iustice answered It could not be whereupon he moved for another Habeas Corpus for her ad subjiciendum to be directed to the Mareschal which was granted Hill 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment preferred against one for practising Phisick not being skilfull in the profession To quash an Endictment for practising Phisick without licence and not having a License to practice from the College of Phisicians The Exceptions were 1. That no Endictment at the Common Law lies for the offence supposed to be committed for it is not an offence against the Common Law and 2ly an Endictment upon the Statute lies not and so no Endictment lies And upon these Exceptions it was quashed The Protector and Hart. Hill 1654. Banc. sup ONe Hart committed to the Gatehouse appeared in Court upon the return of a Habeas Corpus granted for him To remand a prisoner appearing upon a Habeas Corpus and turned over Denied and upon the prayer of his Councel the return was filed upon which it was moved on his behalf that he might be remanded to the Keeper of the Gatehouse and not turned over to the Mareschal to the intent to save his fees but the Court said it could not be because upon filing of the return there ought to be entred upon it a Committitur to the Mareschal whereby he becomes his prisoner Torret and Frampton Hill 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 178. VPon a special Verdict the Case was this Special verdict upon a Devise A man deviseth his lands to his wife for her life the remaindar to A. B. and C. and their heirs respectively for ever The question was whether A. B. and C. were joynt tenants or tenants in common Serjeant Twisden held that they were joynt renants Whether joynt tenancy or a tenancy in common and that this case differs from Radcliffs case and cited Wilds case in the 6 Rep. that a Will must be clear and conspicuous but so it is not here and here is no enforcement by these words respectively and they do relate to the persons and not to the lands bequeathed and a Covenant made by three respectively is a joynt Covenant and not a several Covenant and the word respectively hath relation to the survivorship which may happen betwixt the parties and a devise to one and his heir is a fee-simple Latch For the Defendant held that here is a tenancy in Common and not a joynt tenancy for the Estate ought to be whole out either a tenancy in Common or whole out a joynt tenancy and this of necessity for there cannot be a joynt tenancy for life and several inheritantes in the remainder and Littletons ground proves this to be so And 2ly It is against all construction to be otherwise as the word respectively is here placed and Ratclifs case which is not so strong a case as this case proves it to be so and although the word respectively may sometimes make a distribution of heirship as hath been objected viz. of several heirships yet here the placing of the word respectively shews it cannot be so Distribution of heirship and this using of the word is not operative but idle if here should be a joynt tenancy for the law says as much though the word respectively were left out and the word would be the more idle in explicating a thing so obvious to common understanding and no ways doubtfull and therefore we cannot think but that these extraordinary words do enforce an extraordinary construction and not a common one and an idle application and this comes not within the rule objected for the certainty for this word hath a proper meaning to make a several distribution
an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Scot Debt upon an Obligation and a special verdict the Defendant pleaded non est factum Vpon this a special verdict was found wherein the question was whether it was his Deed or no because the Obligation was that he was bound in centem libris instead of centum libris Green for the Plaintif held it a good Bond notwithstanding this mistake False Orthography because centem doth sound like centum and he cited many Cases to prove that mis-writing of words in an Obligation shall not hurt it as Hob. 34. Trigintat for triginti and sessanti for sexcenti and Osborns case sewenteen for seventeen 9 H. 6. f. 7. and Pinder and Tugges case in this Court and 2 Car. Davis his Case and the Iury in our case have found that the Defendant did seal and deliver the bond as his Act and Déed Roll chief Iustice The condition of the bond doth set it forth to be 100 l. wherein the Defendant became bound therefore shew cause the next Term why the Plaintif should not have judgement Judgement Cooks and Chambers Hill 1654. Banc. sup COoks moved for a Prohibition to the Prerogative Court for proceeding against him there by way of attachment for not obeying the Decree of that Court For a Prohibition to the Prerogative Court The Case was this Cooks and Chambers being in sute in the Prerogative Court for Letters of administration of the Goods and Chattels of one that dyed intestate at last they agreed by consent that Cooks upon putting in bond to perform the decree of the Prerogative Court touching the distribution of the Intestates estate should have the administration granted unto him whereupon he did enter into bond and had the Letters of administration granted unto him and afterwards the Court made an order or decree that he should distribute the estate in such and such manner and for not-performing of this decree Chambers proceeds against him in the Prerogative Court by way of Attachment It was urged against the Prohibition that this Court is now absolute by the late Statute and that there is no appeal from it and that the decree made was made by consent of the parties and therefore it was no reason to grant a Prohibition to hinder that Court from forcing the party to perform the decree Sergeant Twisden answered that the consent of the parties cannot give a Iuridiction to that Court which they had not before Roll chief Iustice That is true but by consent peradventure it may be as it is here but they cannot compell them to consent and they have no authority given them by the late Statute but they have only their old authority and it would be dangerous to out the old and here is a decree made by consent of both parties Administration by consent but bring us Presidents where a Prohibition hath been granted after an administration granted by consent as this is At another day Latch moved again for the Prohibition and said that the attachment was granted beyond the Condition of the Bond given in Court and they have no power to award it notwithstanding the distribution of the estate be not made according to the bond for the Ordinance of Paliament gives them no such authority 2ly They cannot order such a distribution of the estate notwithstanding our consent for our consent was that the clear estate only should be distributed and not the whole estate and we have six presidents here to prove that they ought to proceed upon the Bond and not as they have done we could have brought a hundred to the same purpose if we had thought it needfull And their giving of us the administration upon the bond given doth abridge them from making any order to distribute the estate or to procéed by attachment and Slaynyes case Hob. f. 85. and Tucker and Loans case Hob. 191. were cited Wild on the other side agreed the books cited but said here is the consent of the parties that the administration should be as it is here and that agreement was before the administration granted Roll chief Iustice Will you consent to bring an Action upon the Bond and waive the prohibition Answer to this to morrow No Attachment At another day it was moved again and then Roll chief Iustice answered Proceed upon the Bond for they cannot grant an attachment for not performing the decree although it was made by consent Wild replyed This being a Decree made by consent they have submitted to it and the attachment is granted for disobedience to the Court who made the decree and the late Ordinance doth give them power to commit such as shall disobey the decrees and orders of the Court. Roll chief Iustice appear and plead to it and try their power that way I believe that if parties will consent that administration shall be granted in trust it may be so granted although it be not in the usual way Prohibition granted and as the Statute doth direct but the taking of the Obligation ties them up to that remedy and they cannot proceed by way of attachment Therefore take a prohibition as to the attachment and appear to it and try the matter Boyle and Scarborough Hill 1655. Banc. sup Hill 52. r. 296. SCarborough brought an Action upon the case in the Common pleas against Boyle Action upon the Case upon a promise and judgement upon a Demurrer and writ of Error to reverse it upon a promise that whereas his son William did owe unto Scarborough 500 l. and Scarborough did intend to sue a ne exeat regnum against him to hinder him from going out of England till he might recover his debt Boyle the Defendant did promise that if he would forbear to sue out an ne exeat regnum against his son William he would pay the debt Vpon this Action the Plaintif obtains a judgement upon a demurrer Whereupon Boyle brings a writ of Error to reverse this judgement The pleading in the Common pleas was thus the Defendant in the Action in the Common pleas was sued by the name of of Robert Boyle Esq who appears and pleads the Statute of limitations of Actions of 21 Iac. The Plaintif replies that he took out an Original against him within 6 years out of the Chancery by the name of Robert Boyle Esq and outlawed him upon that Original and that afterwards the Defendant Boyle came in and reversed the Outlawry the Defendant rejoyns and says protestando that he took not out such an original within 6 years for plea says that he was a Knight at the time of the Original sued forth the Plaintif sur-rejoyns that he came in and reversed the Outlawry upon that Original for want of proclamation by the name of Robert Boyle Esquire The Defendant by way of Rebutter says that he was a Knight at the time of the Outlawry reversed the Plaintif by way of sur-rebuttter says he reversed the outlawry by
Record let it be tead upon the reading it he said that he relies not on the conclusion and so the Estople is relyed upon Sergeant Twisden In our Sur-rebutter we rely upon the Estople although we do it not in our rejoynder and so it is good Sergeant Glyn But you do not conclude upon the Record to wit whether you shall be received against the Record as you ought to do 22 H. 6. f. 26. Roll chief Iustice It is in effect said so though it be not in expresse words Finch Henage on the other side argued in affirmance of the judgement and said the question is whether his comming in by the name of Esquire to reverse the Outlawry shall not be an Estople to him to say afterwards that he was a Knight and I conceive it is Estople because he that comes in gratis to reverse an Outlawry shall not plead Misnosmer Misnosmer 6 E. 4. f. 9. he who comes in gratis is not prejudiced if he be not allowed this plea but it is otherwise if he come in upon process to reverse it 2ly It is lesse mischievous to deny the plea of Misnosmer than to allow it where it is not allowable the pleading of the Misnosmer if it be not true may invegle the Court 10 E. 4.12 12 E. 4. f. 6.19 H. 6. f. 8. There are 4 kinds of Misnosmer 4 Misnosmer to wit misnosmer of the Christian name 2ly Of the Sirname 3ly Of addition of Profession 4ly Of addition of place and in none of them shall misnosmer be pleaded where the party comes in gratis Br. Misnosmer 48. 3 E. 4.5 27 H. 8. f. 1.15 H. 6. Statham pl. Error Dyer 192.21 E. 4. f. 8. Fitzh tit Misnosmer 8.39 H. 6.1 E. 4. and as the case here is he is estopped to plead misnosmer by reversing of the Outlawry which is a matter of Record Estople and by it he hath confirmed his name to be so 19 H. 6. f. 1.7 Ed. 4. f. 1. Although he might plead Misnosmer if he came in by a Cepi yet there he may also plead another way specially if he will and it will be good also 19 H. 6. f. 1. Nor hath he here relyed upon his Plea of Misnosmer but upon the want of Proclamation and he reversed the Outlawry by the name of Esquire and yet now he will say that he was a Knight which is unreasonable 34 H. 6. Fitzh Protest 7. and this is an allegation contra factum suum proprium Here is a second original Original and that is a good Original within the Statute and it appears that this second Original is against the same party and so he acknowledgeth by the Record by which the Court may be ascertained that he was the same person and his Addition mis-named shall do no hurt And the second Original is good as the Court hath agreed upon opening of the Case Roll chief Iustice he reverseth the Outlawry as an Esquire and afterwards sayes he is a Knight He may come in without Proces to reverse the Outlawry Outlawry where his person or estate is endangered by it 39 E. 3. in Debt 38 E. 3. but he cannot plead Misnosmer yet he may protest that he is a Knight and save himself in another sute which may be brought against him If he have pleaded right you agree that he is not estopped here and it appears that he is the same person and comes in gratis by this name Original yet it is no estople And the second Original is good for it appears that he is the same person and that by the Statute notwithstanding the variance and he may come in gratis without proces and take advantage of the error But argue again to the point whether he may bring a second Original by the Statute At another day it was argued again but I could not hear but 33 H. 6. f. 19. 50. was cited that there ought to be a mutual Estople Mutual Estople viz. on the part of the Plaintif and of the part of the Defendant Roll chief Iustice It appears to be one and the same party and we must maintain Actions against the Statute of Limitations because by that Statute the benefit of the Law is taken away in part Iudgement affirmed Therefore let the Iudgement be affirmed Hill 1654 Banc. sup MEmorandum the two Sherifs of London appeared in Court To shew cause why execution not done Retorn of the Sheriff in their proper persons upon a rule of Court to shew cause why they did not grant out execution upon a judgement given in their Court or else to make a sufficient retorn of a Certiorari directed to them because they had made three insufficient retorns Upon this their retorn now made was read the effect whereof was that there is no such judgement as the Writ mentioneth to make out execution upon View of the Record Roll chief Iustice This is a good retorn as it now is and if the tetorn be false you may take your remedy against them for making a false retorn Upon this the Councel prayed that the party might have a Copy of the Iudgement out of the Sherifs Office Roll chief Iustice You may have a sight of the Record and if they will not suffer you to have it you may have your remedy against them The rule was that the party should have a Copy of the Record Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a motion for a new Tryal grounded upon an Affidavit For a new Tryal Tryal of an Issue Order of Chancery Venire de novo Roll chief Iustice said That if there be a Tryal and a verdict given upon it The same issue cannot be tryed again by the same Iury although the Chancery do order such a Tryal but if there be a mistryal the party must move the Court where the Action was commenced for a Venire de novo to summon a new Iury. Nota. The Protector and Bruster Pasc 1655. Banc. sup CArew upon a rule to shew cause why an attachment should not issue forth against Commissioners of Sewers in Suffolk for setting a Fine upon one for not obeying their orders Cause why no Attachment after a Certiorari was delivered unto them to remove the orders made against the party in contempt of this Court shewed for cause that the Fine set was for disobeying a new Order of theirs made against the party after the Certiorari was retorned Certiorari and not for disobeying the Orders removed by the Certiorari and so it was no contempt to this Court. Roll chief Iustice The Certiorari doth not remove the Commission of Sewers and therefore they may proceed upon the Commission notwithstanding the Certiorari Therefore let no Attachment issue against them Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash a retorn of rescous Return of a Writ of restitution the rescouser being in Court Vpon this exception viz. that the Endictment sets forth
insufficient neither doth his contracting with him for money to execute the place for him any ways concern the corporation nor is it malum in se but is only punishable by the Statute of 5 Ed. 6. and as to the not trying of the issues joyned in that Court at the days they were to he tried upon this is no cause to deprive him of his place which is a freehold Freehold for few Stewards of Corporations do otherwise than he hath done for they usually stay till they have a competent number of causes to try before they will sit to try them and there appears to be but 5 causes untryed which is no great number neither doth it appear that be had any notice that these five were ready for tryal Notice and so here cannot be so great an offence as is supposed and he cited Semaigns case Rep. â—3 nor doth it appear that any tryal was disappointed by his absence for it appears not that any issue was ioyned in any of the causes or any warning given for tryal during the time that is surmised for him to neglect to fit in Court And besides though these were sufficient crimes for to deprive him of his place yet they have not proceeded against him in a legal way Illegal proceeding Defence for he was never called to answer the crimes objected against him but is deprived without hearing his defence which is illegal as Sir Iames Baggs case is Roll chief Iustice he ought to be heard what he could say for himself else how could it be known whether there were just cause to remove him or no and it is very hard to deprive one of his freehold without hearing him At another day Serjeant Twisden moved the Court for their opinion whether Bernardiston ought to be restored or no and answered the exceptions formerly taken much to the effect as Latch had done Whereupon Roll chief Iustice said you ought to have convented him before you put him out to hear what excuse he could make for his absence otherwise how could you know whether he had just cause or not for his absence Restored nisi c. Therefore let him be restored except cause be shewed to the contrary Saturday next Postea Edwards and Stiff Pasch 1655. Banc sup MEmorandum Tryal in Trespass and Ejectment Jury suffered to drink at the Bar. Vpon a tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment between Edwards Plaintif and Stiff Defendant the evidence being long and the Weathet hot the Jury desired they might have drink which the Court granted but said they should have it at the Bar whereupon drink was sent for for them and they drunk it there before they went out to consider of the evidence Roll chief Iustice did then reprove the Attorneys and Sollicitors for the great charges they used to put their Clyents to in feasting the Jury Feasting of Iuries and ordered that thenceforth no more thon 3 s. 4 d. should be allowed to any Iuryman to pay for his dinner Nota. Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon an Affidavit read in Court For a new tryal Death of a Witness that a material witnesse in the cause that was served with a subpoena to give his testimony at the tryal and dyed before the tryal The Court was moved on the Defendants part for a new tryal but the Plaintif opposed it much insisting upon this that there was no miscarriage on his part Whereupon Roll chief Iustice answered here is the Act of God in the Case Act of God which cannot be resisted and this tryal is final to the Defendant Therefore if the Plaintif will not consent to take his costs New tryal paying costs and goe to a new tryal we will not be hasty to give judgement but will advise upon it The Protector and Gunter Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash two Endictments for continuing of purprestines in the high way To quash two Endictments and it was urged by the Councel that there were 4 Endictments preferred against his Clyent two for erecting the purprestures and the other two for the continuing of them and upon a tryal we were found not guilty of the erecting them and therefore we cannot be guilty of the continuing of them and he took this exception to the caption of the Endictments viz. That it is said that the Endictments were preferred at the Sessions held at East Grinsteed in the County of Sussex where it ought to have been at the Sessions of the Peace held at East-Grinsteed for the County of Sussex Roll chief Iustice answered You may be guilty for continuing of that which another did erect and not you but if the erecting and continuance be mentioned in one and the same Endictment you cannot be guilty Denied But plead to them for no such thing appears in the Record but only that you kept the Highway stopped but says not who stopped it Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment grounded upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. preferred against one for using the Trade of a Draper To quash an Endictment not having served as an Apprentise in that Trade according to the Statute upon these 2 Exceptions 1. It is said he used the Trade in the year 1653. and doth not say the year of our Lord. 2ly It is not said that the Iury was returned nor whence they were and both exceptions were held good by Roll chief Iustice and the Endictment was thereupon quashed Quashed Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment against one Peers To quash an Endictment upon the Ordinance against Duels for speaking provoking language to one contrary to the late Ordinance of the Lord Protector and his Councel upon these Exceptions 1. It is said the Endictment was at the Sessions held at A. and doth not say in what County 2ly It is said by an Ordinance of the Protector made such a day and doth not say in that case provided Quashed And upon these Exceptions it was quashed Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a tales to a Northumberland Iury returnable this Term because but 8 of the panel returned did appear For a tales But Roll chief Iustice answered Take it returnable in Michaelmas Term next Return of a tales but this Term you cannot have it VValdron and VVard Pasch 1654. Banc sup IN a tryal at the bar between Waldron Plaintif and Ward Defendant Tryal at Bar. A Counceller at the Bar examined as a witnesse One Mr. Conye a Counceller at the Bar was examined upon his Oath to prove the death of Sir Thomas Conye Whereupon Serjeant Maynard urged to have him examined on the other part as a witness in some matters whereof he had béen made privy as of Counsel in the cause But Roll chief Iustice answered He is not bound to make answer for things which may disclose the
the day it was offered for cause that there ought to be no prohibition because where an administration is granted to one unto whom the Ordinary is not bound by the Statute to grant it as it is in this case there the Ordinary may take a bond of the party with condition to make an equal distribution of the goods but otherwise it is where Letters of administration are granted to one to whom by the Statute they ought to be granted and one Sharp and Sympsons case 14 Iac. was cited Ordinary and Hob. 191. On the other side it was urged that the Ordinary hath no authority to take such a bond for the equal distribution of the goods and the difference put on the other side was denied and it was said that when the Ordinary hath once committed the Letters of Administration to the party Power determined Administration upon condition his power is then determined and he cannot grant Letters of Admistration upon Condition Glyn chief Iustice The taking of the Bond is against the Statute for the wife ought to be preferred before the next of the Kin notwithstanding the Statute and so is the common practice except there be a special cause for the contrary as where the wife hath had a former provision made for her by her husband Prohibition granted c. Therefore let there be a prohibition nisi Trin. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the behalf of an Infant to discharge a Guardian assigned by the Court To discharge a Guardian with an intent to make Richard Somers Attorney of this Court Guardian in his room and that the former inspection may be discharged Inspection and that the infant may by now inspected again because when the former inspection was and the Guardian assigned there was no action depending in Court against the Infant Glyn chief Iustice Let it be so for the cause you have alleged and give notice of it to the former Guardian Sherlock Trin. 1655. Banc. sup rot 1320 or 1315. ONe Sherelock a Widow of the Parish of Earth in Sussex Error by an Infant to reverse a fine an Infant brought writ of Error to reverse a fine levied by her of her lands whilst she was a Covert Baron and the Court was moved that she might have a Guardian assigned her to prosecute for her and that she might be inspected by the Court Inspection and that the inspection might be recorded and there was an Affidavit made by one in Court that he knew the Infant who was there present and the time of her birth and baptising and swore the times precisely the Church book was also produced in Court and proved by Oath wherein the time of her baptising was entred and that she was the same person upon which she had by her own election Aâ—twood an Attorney of this Court assigned for her Guardian Guardian assigned Entry and the Affidavits were ordered by the Court to be recorded and the inspection to be entred and a scire facias awarded against the heir The Protector and Craford Trin. 1655. Banc. sup VPon a return of a Mandamus directed to the Master and Fellows of Gonvile and Cayus Colledge in Cambridge A Mandamus to restore one to an Ushers place in a Free-school and the return and exceptions to 〈◊〉 Au hority Notice Action at Law Extraordinary course to restore one to an Ushers place of a Free-school in Cambridge of which they are visiters It was excepted against it that they had not shewed that they had any authority to deprive the party of his place And 2ly It doth not appear that they gave him any notice of their proceedings against him whereby he might prepare to defend himself Serjeant Twisden made question whether a Mandamus did lie in this case because a School masters place is a temporal Office and an Action at the Law lies for the party to recover it and therefore it seems a Mandamus which is an extraordinary course ought not to be granted and he rited 8 Ass and Sir Iames Bags case and Dyer 200. and said it is not like an Office without see Latch on the other side answered The Mandamus is allowed already and the legality of it is not now to be disputed and Sir Iames Bags case is not repugnant to this case for this is a publique office and not a private and tends much to the publique good Office publique private and is like to the case of an Alderman or Freeman of a Corporation or a Fellow of a College Glyn chief Iustice A Mandamus to restore one to a Churchwardens place hath been adjudged good It is true that for a private office a writ of restitution doth not lie but if the publique be concerned in the office it doth lie and though it be an office with a fee belonging to it that makes no difference for a Recorders place is an office with a fee and yet a writ of restitution lies for it But it appears here that the Schoolmaster hath much abused himself and therefore we will advise Writ of restitution Office with and without a Fee Mandamus Freehold At another day this case was moved again and then Glyn chief Iustice said I doubt whether a Mandamus doth lie in this case for it lies not for every taking away of a mans freebold as in the cases of a Keeper of a Park or a Stewardship of a Court Baron Wild questioned to whom the Mandamus could be here directed for he said that the Master and Fellows are no Corporation and he cited Boremans case of the Middle Temple Corporation Innes of Court voluntary societies who prayed a Mandamus to be restored to that society where it was held that the Innes of Court are not Corporations but only voluntary societies Latch on the other side said that it was very proper to have a Mandamus in this case for it is a publique office and not a private as a Keepers place of a Park or a Stewards place of a Manor are Iurisdiction and a Steward of a Court Leet is a publique Officer And this Court hath jurisdiction to reform all grievantes of this nature and to keep other jurisdictions in good order that they do not intrench one upon another here is no Visiter to whom the party may appeal and it were very unreasonable to leave him without remedy and Mandamusses have been granted for places of less consequence than this as in Pasch 2 Car. a Mandamus was granted to restore one to the place of Town Clark which is a private office and 19 Iac. a Mandamus was granted to restore one to a common Clarks place of a Will and 5 Car. and 18 Car. to restore the parties to Parish Clarks places And if the place be publique this Court will not leave the party to seek his remedy at Law and Alderman Estwicks case is well known who was restored to the place of a
the Case against Mackallye Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the case upon a promise and declared That whereas he had an intent to enter an Action against the Defendant and to arrest him at such a time the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would forbear to arrest him at that time did promise that he would put in bail to him at any time after when he shall enter his action against him and for breach of this promise he brings his Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Artest rest of judgement That it is not said how long the Plaintif should forbear to arrest the Defendant Consideration Declaration Reasonable construction Judgement and it may be for so little time that it will not be a good consideration to ground the promise But it was answered that it is well enough for the declaration pursues the words of the agreement between the parties and cannot be better expressed Glyn chief Iustice It is a good consideration and we must make reasonable construction of words Therefore let the Plaintif have his judgement Abbott and Vaughan Trin. 1655. Banc. sup Pasch 1655. rot 557. ABbott brought an Action upon the case against Vaughan and his wife for words spoken of the Plaintif by the Defendants wife Error upon a Judgement in an Action upon the case for words and upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif and a judgement thereupon given upon a writ of Error brought this Exception was taken that the verdict found the wife only guilty and yet the judgement was given against Baron and Feme which was urged to be Error but 9 E. 4. was cited on the other side that the judgement is well given Glyn chief Iustice The Iury have found the wife guilty and so the Declaration is true and therefore just cause of Action and the judgement well given Williams and Probe Trin. 1655. Banc. sup VVilliams brought an Action upon the case for speaking these words of her Arrest of judgement in an Action for words viz. Thou art a Whore and I will prove thee a Whore and thou hast made my house a Bawdy house After a verdict it was moved in Arrest of judgement that the words are not actionable because they do not imply that she had played the whore her self though she had made the Plaintifs house a Bawdy house But Glyn chief Iustice answered If we take all the words together as they are laid they are actionable for they are particular applicable words Particular applicable words Iudgement relating to the parties playing the whore Therefore let her have her judgement Bacon and Ramsey Trin. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for Bacon a Barrester of Grays Inne that he might have his privilege to lay an Action transitory in Middlesex For a Barrester for his privilege to lay his Action in Middlesex whereas it was laid in Northumberland and Franklin and Sir William Butlers case and Bere and Iones his case of the Middle Temple were cited to prove that a Barrester ought to have this privilege that where any transitory Action is brought against him he may have it laid in Middlesex wheresoever the cause of Action was The Court advised and desired to sée the presidents cited At another day it was moved again and upon the presidents produced Granted It was ordered to lay the venue in Middlesex accordingly The Protector and Blackwell Trin. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a melius inquirendum to be directed to the Coroner of Middlesex to enquire of what goods one Tooms that hanged himself did die possessed of For a melius inquirendum because the Inquisition returned did only find his goods he was possessed of in London Glyn chief Iustice You may have a melius inquirendum it being for the Protector if the practice of the Court will allow it but it must be directed to the Sherif Sherif Coroner because the Coroner hath done his office already and hath nothing now to do with it Eston and Manley Trin. 1655. Banc. sup IT was moved in Arrest of judgement in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation that the Obligation upon which the Action was brought was for the payment of 100 l. and the Plaintif declares for 80 l and so the Declaration varies from the bond 2ly It is said that the Action was entred in the same Counter whereas there was no mention of any Counter before neither doth it appear that the Counter is a Court. Glyn chief Iustice answered the first exception is to no purpose and for the second it is but an exception to a surplusage which might have been left out of the Declaration and it is also after a verdict Surplusage Iudgement Therefore let the Plaintif have his judgement Thomas and Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe case was this one promised to the Father Arrest of judgement in an Action upon a promise that in consideration that he would surrender a Copyhold to the Defendant that the Defendant would give unto his two daughters 20 l. a piece and after a Verdict in an Action upon the case brought by one of his daughters for breach of this promise It was moved in Arrest of judgement that the Plaintif had declared upon a joynt promise made which concerned another with the Plaintif and yet the Action is brought but by one of them Joynt promise whereas they ought to have joyned in the Action But Glyn chief Iustice answered that the parties have distinct interests and so any one of them may bring an Action Turner replyed The Declaration mentions the promise to be a joynt promise Distinct interests Glyn chief Iustice But the Law doth distinguish the interest though the Declaration be general Serjeant Bernard Here ought to be a several Action Distinction of Law Iudgement and so hath it been lately adjudged in the Common pleas But it was answered that the Action is brought but for one twenty pound due to one of the Daughters and so judgement for the Plaintif nisi c. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at Bar in an Action upon the case for words between Wood Plaintif No Action for scandalous words and Gunston Defendant It was said by Glyn chief Iustice That if a Counceller speak scandalous words against one in defending his Clyents cause an Action doth not lie against him for so doing for it is his duty to speak for his Clyent and it shall be intended to be spoken according to his Clyents instructions Hether and Bowman Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a tryal at Bar between Hether and Bowman in Trespass and Ejectment it was said by the Court Instrument in Law Copyholder Admission That the Lord of a Copyhoyld is but an Instrument to admit the Copyholder and ought to admit him according
to the surrender or otherwise the admittance is not good Thurle and Madison Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar between Thurle and Madison Enrolment of a Deed. It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if divers persons do seal a Deed and but one of them acknowledge the Déed and the Déed is thereupon enrolled this is a good enrollment within the Statute and may be given in evidence as a Deed enrolled Evidence at a Tryal It was then also said that if a deed express a consideration of money upon the purchase made by the Deed yet this is no proof upon a tryal Consideration that the monies expressed were paid but it must be proved by witnesses MEorandum Copy proved That upon the same Tryal an Act of Parliament produced in point for the selling of Delinquents estates was sworn to have been examined by the Parliament Roll and that it was a true Copy before it was read in evidence Nota. VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. VPon a motion for a new tryal between Wood and Gunston Memorandum New tryal for miscarriage of the Iury. upon a supposition of excessive damages given by the Iury in an Action upon the case tryed at the Bar for words viz. Calling the Plaintif Traytor c. 1500 l. being the damages given It was said by Glyn chief Iustice that if the Court do believe that the Iury gave their verdict against their direction given unto them the Court may grant a new Tryal And a new Tryal was gronted in this Case after a full debate had by Councell on both sides Culliar and Iermin Mich. 1655. Banc. sup CUlliar brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declared Arrest of judgement upon a promise that the Testator of the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would mary such a Woman did promise that he would leave him half his Estate at his death and thereupon he did mary the party and yet he did not leave him half his estate at his death Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of judgement that the Declaration was not good for whereas the promise was that the Defendant should leave him half of all his estate which might be intended both of his real and also of his personal Estate and of any estate in reversion as well as of an estate in possession the Plaintif only says that the Testator died worth 3000 l. in possession and that he did not leave him half of that estate and it may be he left him part of his real estate or estate in reversion to the full value of half his whole estate But Glyn chief Iustice disallowed the exception and gave judgement for the Plaintif Iudgement Lance and Blackmore Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 191. LAnce an Executor brought an Action upon the Case against Blackmore Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a pro and declared that in consideration that the Testator would suffer the Defendant to enjoy such a Close of land the Defendant did assume and promise to pay 53 s. a year for the rent thereof for so long time as he should enjoy it and for so much rent due for it for so long time in the Testators life time and for so much rent due since his death he brings the Action Vpon non assumpsit pleaded a verdict was found for the Plaintif and entire dammages given It was moved in arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie it being for the non-payment of rent which follows the nature of the land and doth sound in the realty for which a personal Action lies not 2ly Here doth not appear by the Daclaration Personal act on Consideration to the any consideration to ground the promise upon for the Declaration is that if the Testator in her life time would permit the Defendant to enjoy the Close then c. and it is not averred Averment that the Testator did in her life time suffer the Defendant to enjoy the Close Glyn chief Iustice If a promise be made to the Testator the Executor may have an Action Executor and it is a good consideration as to him for the executor is representative of the Testator And 2ly An Action upon the Case will not lie for rent upon a promise in law but upon a special promise of the party to pay it Promise in Law Special as our Case is it will lie Ingram and Fawset Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN this Case it was said by Glyn chief Iustice Administratâ—r must shew how Administrator That if an Administrator bring an Action against an Administrator it is not necessary for the Plaintif to shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted unto the Defendant but he must shew by whom the letters of Administration were granted to himself to entitle himself to the Action for if it appear not to the Court that he is Administrator he cannot sue by that name Mich. 1635. Banc. sup IT was said by Wild and agreed by Whitwick one of the Masters of the Vpper Bench office How far special bayl is lyable for the principal that if an Attorny do appear for one in the Vpper Bench special bayl is entred for his Clyent to that Action that that Bayl is not bound to stand Bayl to all other Actions that shall be declared in against the party upon the by but the Attorny for him is bound to appear for him in all such Actions and to put in Common bayl Wagstaff and Tempest Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Glyn chief Iustice upon evidence given in a Tryal at the Bar Dispensation with a forfeiture of an Estate bayl between VVagstaff and Tempest that if tenant for life do levy a Fine of the Lands he is so seised of whereby he should forfeit his estate yet if he in the remainder will joyn with the Tenant for life in declaring the uses this is a dispensation with the forfeiture and Le Gay Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed For a time to accompt before Auditors that in an Action of Accompt brought there was a verdict that the Defendant should accompt before Auditors and that Auditors were assigned and the parties were now before the Auditors and thereupon it was moved on the Defendants part that this Court would grant him time to accompt for the reasons alleged But Wild answered that it was not proper to move here for the Auditors are now Iudges of the matter Auditors Iudges by the Statute and may give time if they see cause To which Glyn chief Iustice agreed and said the Auditors are Iudges by the Statute and therefore move before them and trouble not us with it Sergeant Bradshaw and Procter Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of Sergeant Bradshaw and Mr. Procter of Grays Inne Challenge to an array no part of
the Record It was said that a challenge to the array is no part of the Record but ought to be determined whether it be good or not by the Iudge before whom the tryal of the Cause should have been By whom to be determined Demurrer to a challenge if the challenge had not been taken and so hath it been ruled upon serious advise in the Common-pleas and it was then likewise said if there be a demurrer to a challenge at the Assises the Iudge of Assise may determine it there or over-rule it or adjourn it to be heard at another time Somes and Sir John Lenthall Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was enformed that an Action of Debt was formerly brought against Sir Iohn Lenthall and that there was Iudgement For Sir Iohn Lenthall the Mareschall to appear that he might be in execution and an execution thereupon taken out against him but that he abâ—conded himself that be could not be taken and therefore it was prayed in regard he was an Officer of this Court that the Court would order him to appear here that he may be committed in execution to the Sherif of Middlesex But Glyn chief Iustice answered if Sir Iohn Lenthall do appear here and you pray him in execution we can commit him to no other prison but the Marshalsea for that is the prison of this Court and to commit him to that prison of which he is the Kéeper without securing the Prisoners there before we do it will be an escape in Law of all the Prisoners Therefore let Sir Iohn shew cause why he should not pay the Debt for it is neither for his own credit nor the honor of this Court that he should not satisfie his Debts Fardres and Prowd Mich. 1655. Banc. sup HArdres brought an Action upon the Case against Prowd Arrest of judgement in an action upon the Case upon a promise and declared that whereas he at the instance and request of the Defendant had taken pains to reconcile differences betwixt the Defendant and I. S. and others the Defendant did assume and promise unto the Plaintif to pay unto him 100 l. at a certain day and for not paying the mony accordingly he brings his Action And upon non-assumpsit pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement 1. That here is no consideration set forth in the Declaration to ground the promise upon for it is only said that in consideration that the Plaintif had taken pains c. Consideration executed he did promise c. and this is a consideration executed and not sufficient to ground a promise upon and one Hunt and Dier case was cited for proof 2ly He doth not shew what pains he hath taken and so it cannot be known whether his pains were sufficient to ground the promise upon 3ly He sayes that he took pains to reconcile differences betwixt the Defendant and I. S. and others and doth not shew who these others were The two last exceptions were over-ruled without speaking to and to the first VVild answered that here was a continuing consideration Continuing consideration though the pains taken were past for it is said he took the pains at the instance and request of the Plaintif Glyn chief Iustice It is as you say Voluntary curtesie for here is more than a voluntary Curtesie upon which no consideration for a promise can be grounded for the pains here were undertaken at the instance of the Plaintif Iudicium nisi c. Mich. 1655. Banc. sup BY Glyn chief Iustice Where one may appear by Attorney where not If one come in upon the Eâ—igent he may appear by his Attorny but if he come in upon the Outlawry he must appear in his proper person and not by his Attorny and so is the constant practice of the Common-pleas and of this Court also Nota. London and VVilcocks Mich. 1655. Banc sup LOndon brought an Action of Trespass against VVilcocks inter alia Arrest of judgement in Trespass for taking and carrying away 40 loads of Corn in the Straw Vpon a verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Declaration was uncertain for the Plaintif had declared for 40 loads of Corn in the Straw and it doth not appear whether they be Horse-loads or Cart-loads or what other loads of Corn they are But Glyn chief Iustice answered that it is well enough expressed for it being of Corn in the Straw it shall be intended Cart-loads and therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement Judgement Q. If the Action had been laid in the County of Cornwell where it is usual to carry Corn in the Straw upon Horses whether the Declaration would have been good VVood and Gunston Mich. 1655. Banc. sup WOod brought an Action upon the Case against Gunston for speaking of scandalous words against For a new tryal in an action of Trespass for 〈◊〉 words and amongst other words for calling him Traytor and obteyns a verdict against him at the Bar wherein the Iury gave 1500 l. dammages Vpon the supposition that the dammages were excessive and that the Iury did favour the Plaintif the Defendant moved for a new tryal But Sergeant Maynard opposed it and said that after a verdict the partiality of the Iury ought not to be questioned nor is there any Presidents for it in our Books of the Law and it would be of dangerous consequence if it should be suffered and the greatness of the dammages given can be no cause for a new tryal but if it were the dammages are not here excessive if the words spoken be well considered for they tend to take away the Plaintifs estate and his life VVindham on the other side pressed for a new tryal and said it was a packed business else there could not have been so great dammages and the Court hath power in extraordinary cases such as this is to grant a new tryal Glyn chief Justice Discretion of the Court. Discretion Judicial Arbitrary The Court not to be intended partial It is in the discretion of the Court in some cases to grant a new tryal but this must be a judicial and not an arbitrary discretion and it is frequent in our Books for the Court to take notice of miscariages of Iuries and to grant new tryals upon them and it is for the peoples benefit that it should be so for a Iury may sometimes by indirect dealings be moved to side with one party and not to be indifferent betwixt them but it cannot be so intended of the Court wherefore let there be a new tryal the next Term and the Defendant shall pay full Costs and judgement to be upon this Verdict to stand for security to pay what shall be recovered upon the next verdict Granted The Protector and Buckner Mich. 1655. Banc. sup BUckner was endicted upon the Statute of 1. Iac. Special verdict upon an endictment upon the
make a ditch or raise up a bank to hinder my way to my Common I may justifie the throwing of it down and the filling of it up Mich. 1655. BY Glyn chief Iustice Damages in Dower If a Feme bring a writ of dower and recover and the Defendant die the feme shall have her damages against the Terr-Tenants Mich. 1655. A Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet is when a writ of Error is brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common pleas Error quod coram vobis residet what it is or other Court where the Record was formerly removed into the Court of the Vpper Bench and by reason of the death of the party or for some other cause rests undetermined by reason of the abatement of the former writ of Error Le pool and Tryan Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VVIld moved for a prohibition to the Court of Admiralty to stay a tryal there in a Trover and Conversion For a prohibition to the admiralty in which they procéed upon a pretence that the goods in question were taken upon the High Sea and that by the late Act they have exclusive power in all such cases which is not so Glyn chief Justice It was resolved in Cremers and Cokelyes case so adjudged that they have no such power Therefore take a prohibition nisi c. Morden and Hart. Mich. 1655. Banc. sup MOrden brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award against Hart. Vpon nil debet pleaded Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of judgement and the exception taken was that the Award was made but of one part and so not binding to all the parties submitting The case was this One Stephens and Body on one part also Hart on the other part submitted to stand to the Award The Arbitrators awarded that Body should pay a certain sum of money unto Hart in satisfaction for the differences betwixt Body and Stephens on the one part and Hart on the other part which was objected could not be good for the money paid by one could not be in satisfaction for another and so the Award is not made to conclude all the parties submitting for Stephens was not concerned in it and the Award is with an Ita quod which ought to be a general Award and include all parties and therefore if it be void in part it is void in all But Green on the other side answered though the Award should be naught in part yet it may be good as to Body that paid the money and the moneys ought to be received as they are paid and that is for Body and Stephens and may be well in satisfaction for both of them It was also urged by Howell on the same side that it appears that Body and Stephens are partners and this will make an end of the matter for then the money paid by one of them may satisfie for the other Award in part Glyn chief Iustice Here is a good Award betwéen two of the parties that submitted but there appears nothing to be awarded as to Stephens the third party for it doth not appear that he can take any benefit by the Award of the money to be paid by Body or that it can be any satisfaction for him but only for Body Iudgement for the Defendant Iudgement for the Defendant nisi c. Busfield and Norden Mich. 1655. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought by Busfield against Nordon to reverse a judgement given in the Court Military of Rippon in an action upon an indebitatus assumpsit for wares sold Error to reverse a judgement upon an indebitatus assumpsit by the Bail wherein there being a judgement given against the principal a scire facias issued out against the Ball and a judgement was thereupon and against him the bail thereupon brings a writ of Error to reverse both these judgements and assigns for Error that there was no issue joyned in the first judgement and that being erronious Bail cannot reverse the principal judgement The writ abaed and being the ground upon which the scire facias did issue forth whereupon the second judgement was given the second judgement cannot be good Glyn chief Iustice But the principal judgement ought to be reversed by the principal and not by the bail and therefore the writ of Error is not well brought by the bail therefore let it abate Vidian and Fletcher Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VPon view of an Infant brought into Court of to be inspected Scire facias for an Infant to â—everse a fine levâ—ed ouâ—ing Covertuâ—e who had during coverture joyned with her husband in levying a fine of her lands she was by the Court adjudged within age whereupon a scire facias issued out to the Terr-tenants who came in and pleaded that she was of full age at the time of the fine levied upon which plea issue was joyned and a tryal was had at the Assizes and a Verdict for the Plaintif who now came in Court and prayed for judgement upon the Verdict Glyn chief Iustice The Court is to judge of the Infancy Iury not to try Infancy and not the Iury and therefore you have not proceeded duly but the proceedings do no hurt for we judge she was within age Fine reversed Therefore let the fine be reversed nisi c. Nota. and the hundred of Crondon Mich. 1655. Banc. sup AN Action of Trespass upon the case was brought against the Hundred of Crondon in Hampshire upon the Stat. of Winchester Arrest of Judgement in an Action upon the Statute of Huc and Câ—yes Case Statute by one that was robbed within the hundred upon the tryal a verdict passed for the Plaintif It was moved on the behalf of the Hundred in Arrest of judgement 1. That the Plaintif had mistaken his Action for whereas he hath brought a general Action of Trespass upon the case he ought to have brought an Action upon the Statute 2ly He declares that he took his Oath before I. S. a Iustice of Peace in the County Whereas it should be for the County 3ly He hath not expressed that he took his Oath before a Iustice assigned to keep the Peace 4ly There is no issue joyned 5ly He saith that he took his Oath 20 days but doth not say next before as the Statute directs Windham on the other side answered to the first Exception that it is usual of latter times to declare in an Action upon the Case generally To the second he said it is no exception for a Iustice of Peace is not an Officer affâ—red to a place Serjeant Twisden But it doth not appear that you took your Oath 20 days before your Original sued out Glyn chief Iustice That appears well enough upon the Record Variation But the writ here is in an Action upon the case
Action cannot lye for a false retorn 2ly He sayes that the old Sherifs delivered the writ thus endorsed to the new but doth not say that they did deliver it to be retorned viz. by Indenture Indenture as the use is 3ly It doth not appear whether there were any retorn of the writ made either by the old Sherifs or the new 4ly The Action is brought in a wrong County Venue for it is not brought in the County where the endorsement and delivery over of the writ was Latch of councel on the other side answered that the Action was brought for delivering the goods back again to the Defendant after they had taken them by vertue of a Fieri facias and not for the endorsement made upon the writ The rule was to reverse the judgement except cause shewed to the contrary At another day the Court was moved to affirm the judgement and the councel on the other side insisted upon the former exceptions to reverse the judgement Glyn chief Iustice caused the Record to be read and upon Oyer thereof said I conceive it is well and according to the course in that kind for the old Sherifs to make the retorn and to deliver the writ over by Indenture to the new Sherifs and here is also a verdict in the Case and a retorn is not properly a retorn untill it be filed here yet it is the retorn of the Sherif in the County where he is Sherif Shew cause upon notice why the judgement ought not to be reversed Antea Q. Denton Mich. 1655. Banc. sup AN order of the publique Sessions made against one Denton for the kéeping of a Bastard child was removed into this Court by a Certiorari To quash a retorn of an order of Sessions and the party also who was committed to Ailsbury gaol for disobeying the order was brought into Court upon a Habeas Corpus granted unto him and upon the reading of the retorn of the Habeas Corpus this exception was taken to the retorn that it appears by the retorn that the order made for Denton to kéep the Bastard-child was made by the Iustices at the Quarter Sessions and that for not obeying this order he was committed to the Gaol by two Iustices at a private Sessions of the peace whereas the Iustices of the Quarter Sessions had no authority by the Statute to make such an order for it ought to have béen made by the next two Iustices of peace to the place where the Bastard was born And to this Glyn chief Iustice agréed but would not release the Prisoner till he was bound over with good bayl to the next Quarter Sessions for the County of Buckingham to appear there and to answer the fact Att Lee and the Lady Baltinglas Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the Defendants behalf To discharge a feme covert upon common bayl that there was an Action upon the Case brought against Baron and Feme and the Feme had appeared but the Baron would not and that the Plaintifs Attorney stood to have special bayl for her which she could not procure and therefore it was prayed that she might be delivered upon common bayl But Glyn chief Iustice answered Denied if there be cause to have special bayl the wife must lye in Prison untill the Husband appear and put in bayl for her for she cannot put in bayl for herself being Covert Baron Elmes and Martyn Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved For time to demur to a plea. for the Plaintif that in respect that the Defendant had put in a special plea and pleaded a very long Award which made the plea very long that therefore he might have time granted unto him by the Court to demur to this plea. But Glyn chief Iustice answered you need not have time to demur to the Plea for you may do that presently Denied Rejoynder but if you desire time to rejoyn in respect of the length of the Ples you shall have it Plummer and Sir Iohn Lenthall Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THe Plaintif shewed to the Court by his Councel that he had brought an Action of escape against Sir Iohn Lenthall the Mareschall of the Marshalsea of this Court To put Sir Iohn Lenthall out of his Office and had thereupon a judgement and an execution on against him but that Sir Iohn though as being Marshall he ought as an Officer of this Court daily to attend the Court did yet nevertheless absent himself so that the Plaintif could not take him upon the execution and that if he were present he doubted whether he might take him for fear it would be an escape of the Prisoners committed to him and therefore prayed that Sir John Lenthall might be put out of his place of Marescall that so he might take him in execution Glyn chief Iustice This is very mischievous Cause let Sir Iohn shew cause Friday next why he should not pay the monies Le Gross and Hall Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a writ of Error brought in this Court to reverse a judgement given in an Action of debt The Defendants Councel in the writ of Error moved To reverse a judgement for expedition that the Court would reverse the judgement because they conceived it was erroneons for their own expedition that they might bring a new Action Glyn chief Iustice You have not yet confessed the error upon the Record neither have you pleaded in nullo est erratum as you ought to do Denied for moving o◠soon and therefore you move too soon to have the Iudgement reversed Hamond and Thornhill Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN the Case of one Hamond and Thornhill in a trespass and ejectment tryed at the Bar Whether Gavelkind-lands held by chivalry he deviseable upon the evidence given it was affirmed by Sergeant Twisden that Gavelkind-lands though they be held by Knight-service tenure might be all devised by Will by the custom of Kent Q. for other Councel doubted of it Arnold and Floyd Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THis Case formerly spoken unto and after a Nil capiat per billam nisi c. ordere◠to be entred against the Plaintif was again spoken unto and the Case put and the exception formerly taken that the Plaintif had declared of a general receiving of mony of such and such Customers and had not accompted for them whereas the Articles for breach of which the Action is brought do express that he should accompt for such monies as he should receive of the Customers which were in his charge only But Green answered that though it was not so expressed yet it should be intended that he had not accompted for all such monies as he had received of the Customers in his charge and as to another exception which was also formerly taken viz. that the Plaintif had not shewed what monies he had received for which the Defendant had not accompted and so he knew not what answer to
give Green answered that the Plaintif is not bound to shew it precisely for he cannot tell what the Defendant had received and what not but the Defendant doth know it well enough Glyn chief Iustice I doubt of that for the Plaintif must know that the Defendant hath received some monies which he hath not accompted for otherwise there is no cause of Action and though it be not necessary for you to shew all the particular sums the Defendant hath received and not accompted for yet you must express some sum with which to charge him withall and therefore as to this exception I think it material and the Declaration is too general to charge the Defendant by for what issue can be joyned upon this for here doth not appear to be any breath of the Articles but only by implication that he hath received some monies unaccounted for and an issue cannot be tryed upon a presumption Issue Presumption Green prayed leave to discontinue the Action But Wild on the other side said it ought not to be because the Action is brought against a Surety only that was bound for the Defendant that he should perform Articles Glyn chief Iustice If he do discontinue the Action Discontinuance he hath no further remedy against the Defendant But shew cause why he should not appear upon the Articles and to pay so much as it shall be found that he is dampnified by breach of them and then he shall discontinue Devereux and Jackson Mich. 1655. Banc. sup Hill 1654. rot 835. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of Debt and the exception taken was Error to reverse a judgement in debt that the Plaintif had brought his Action for 14 l. and he declares of a Debt due to him for wares sold by him unto the Defendant which by his own shewing come but to twelve pound Glyn chief Iustice I conceive it is not good for the variance and therefore let the Iudgement be reversed Variance Reversed nisi c. Pooly and Markham Mich 16â—5 Banc. sup THe Court was moved that the Secondary might retorn a Iury upon Affidavit that the Plaintif in a former tryal between the parties had feasted four of the Iury For the Secondary to reâ—orn a Iury. and had allo feasted some of the Iury that are retorned upon this tryal Glyn chief Iustice Let the Freeholders book be brought to the Secondary and let him retorn a Iury. Granted The Protector and the Town of Kingston upon Thames Yates his Case and others Mich. 1655. Banc. sup YAtes and four or five other persons Upon the retorn of a writ of Restitution to Freement places in Kingston upon Thames Freemen of the Town of Kingston upon Thames being disfranchised by the Baylifs c. of that Corporation moved for a writ of restitution to be restored to their freedoms and places in that Town and had it granted which writ was accordingly directed to the Bailifs c. of that Corporation who thereupon do make retorn of the writ and therein set forth at large there Charter and privileges of the Town and the cause of the disfranchisement of Yates and the others and reasons why they were not to be restored And by the retorn the matter of fact for which they were disfranchised appeared to be in substance this viz. that there was a difference amongst those of the Corporation about making an Attorny of their Court at a Court held for the Town that there was like to be a tumult and uproar about this matter whereupon the Baylifs that held the Court did adjourn the Court and commanded all persons there to depart and then they with the rest that were of their party went away But the other parties on the contrary side whereof Yates and the rest that were disfranchised were a part stayed still in the Town-Hall and said the Court was not dissolved and did affirm they were a Court and did therupon make divers orders or acts of Court and caused them to be entred in the Court book where all the orders used to be entred To this retorn many exceptions were taken and first by Sergeant Twisden 1. That here was no sufficient matter of fact retorned to be done by Yates and the others to cause them to be disfranchised 2ly That the retorn did not shew that the Customs of their Corporation did warrant them to disfranchise any for such offences or did shew that any person had at any time been disfranchised for such offences 3ly The retorn mentions that the persons disfranchised had broken their oaths as Freemen of the Town but doth not set forth this oath at large as it ought to be 4ly They do not shew in the retorn that they had any authority to hold that Court which they dissolved nor before whom it was held 5ly It is not shewed in the retorn that Yates and the others were at all convented to answer their offences and so they are condemned without hearing of them which is illegal To these exceptions Green of Councel to maintain the retorn made this answer for the first he said there doth appear a sufficient fact to be done by Yates and the rest to cause them to be disfranchised viz. their tumultuous going into the Court and staying there after it was dissolved and making of orders and entring them into the Book and cited Sir Iames Bags case that this their fact was a corrupting the orders of the Town For the second the retorn doth sufficiently express that by their Customs they may remove persons from their places in the Corporation for such offences for the retorn saith Removeable that persons have been from time to time removeable which is all one as if it had said they have been removed 3ly It is not necessary to set forth the whole oath of a Freeman and here is as much of the oath mentioned as is needfull to shew that the oath was broken by them 4ly It is shewed in the retorn that the Court was held according to their Customes and so it shall be intended to be a good Court and rightly held and it needs not to be expressed before whom it was held 5ly It is expressed that they were convented and that they had also notice of the dissolution of the Court Mr. Attorney General on the same side said Here is cause to disfranchise the parties for here appears by their fact to be a setting up of government against government Opposition of government and this is corrupting of government and done by knowing persons that well understand the Custome of the Town which makes their crimes the greater and it is better retorned that such persons are removeable than to say they have been removed and here is more than an opinion of one of the parties against the opinon of the others for they have reduced their opinion into an Act to disturb the government Mr. Recorder of London on
for the acquittance and the bond Ask I have not a book but I think the case is as it hath béen put and here is no Covenant that the Defendant should receive the 110 l. at the day Nil caplat per Billam Glyn chief Iustice Nil capiat per Billam nisi c. Clark and Fitzwilliams AN Action of Trover and Conversion was brought by Clark against Fitzwilliams for divers goods and houshold stuff and amongst the rest the Plaintif declared of a Trover and Coversion of 6 Tuns Arrest of Iudgement in a Trover and Coversion After a Verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Declaration was uncertain for it cannot be known what is meant by 6 Tuns and upon this the judgement was stayed till the Plaintif should move Whereupon Serjeant Twisden at another day moved for judgement and said the Declaration was good enough for it is known that the 6 Tuns are Brewers Vessels or else they signifie nothing and then no damages are given for them according to Osborns case and the case where the Action was pro viginti ulnis instead of ulmis Windham on the other side said that a Tun is a measure and well known so to be and you ought to shew certainly of what you doe demand the quantity of six Tuns and it cannot be said that the six Tuns shall signifie nothing as Serjeant Twisden supposeth for here the words are substantive and signifie by themselves and not adjective and Osborns case cited was adjudged upon another reason for fulcrum lecti signifies a Bedstead and the Anglice which was added viz. Curtains and Valence were a meer addition and no part of the Declaration and besides they were in English which ought not to have been Glyn chief Iustice The Court hath delivered their opinion already That it is incertain what the Plaintif doth mean by the words 6 Tuns for this case is not like the cases put where a thing is mentioned which doth signifie nothing for there damages cannot be given for such a thing for the word Tun doth signifie divers things but it is incertain what it doth signifie here Nil capiat nisi and therefore Nil capiat per billam Ask Iustice ad idem Fox and Swann Mich. 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment betwixt Fox Plaintif and Swann Defendant exception was taken against a witness that was produced to prove the lease of ejectment Exception against a wâ—â—nesse because he had the inheritance in the lands let but it was urged by the Councel on the Plaintifs side that the Defendant did claim under the same person that the Plaintif did and thereupon the witness was admitted to be sworn and in this case it was also said that if Lessée for years do covenant with the Lessor not to assign over his Term without the Lessors consent in writing A Devise is not an assignment and do afterwards without such consent devise the Term to J. S. this is not a breach of the Covenant for a devise is not a lease It was also said that if a lease for years be forfeited and the rent for the land let be afterwards received by the Lessor or by his assent the lease is made good again by this Act of the Lessor Lease forfeited revived and the forfeiture is dispensed withall Nota. Mich. 1655. Banc. sup VPon Articles exhibited in this Court against one Alwin an Attorney of this Court for false practice and Barratry Attorney convicted upon Articles turned over the Bar. and proved against him by divers Affidavits read in Court Iudgement was pronounced against him by the Court that he should be put out of the Roll of the Attorneys and be fined 50 l. and turned over the Bar and stand committed He was turned over the Bar accordingly at the West end of the Bar by the Tip-staffs of the Court. Martyn and Miller Mich. 1655. Banc. sup THere were two several causes tryed betwixt Martyn Plaintif Arrest of Judgement upon an Error of a Clark and Miller Defendant and thereupon there were two venires and two Distringasses taken out and by the mistake of the Sherif a wrong Distringas was filed to the Venire viz. that which should have been filed to the Venire in the first cause was filed to the Venire in the second cause and this was moved in Arrest of Iudgement Glyn chief Iustice This is as if there was no Distringas and is therefore helped by the Statutes of Ieofails but if it were an erronious Distringas it could not be helped and here was a good issue joyned and a good tryal of that issue and it was but the mistake of the Sherif and may be amended by taking off the wrong Distringas from the Venire and fixing the right Distringas in the room of it No Rule and therefore this is no cause to arrest judgement FINIS An Alphabetical TABLE OF THE SEVERAL HEADS Contained in the following TABLE A ABatement 1 Abreviation 2 Action 3 Accessory vid. Principal 4 Accompt 5 Acquittance 6 Addition 7 Adjournment 8 Administration and Administrators 9 Admission 10 Admiralty 11 Affidavit 12 Alien 13 Amendment 14 Amercement 15 Amoveas manum 16 Annuity 17 Apparance 18 Appeal 19 Appendant and Appurtenant 20 Arraignment 21 Arbitrator 22 Arbitrary 23 Arrest 24 Arrest of Iudgements vid. Iudgements 25 Assets 26 Assise 27 Assignment 28 Assumpsit vid. Promise 29 Attachment 30 Attaint 31 Attorney and Attornment 32 Audita querela 33 Auditor vid. Arbitrator 34 Averment 35 Authority 36 Antient demesne 37 Award or Arbitration 38 B BAnkrupt 1 Baron and Feme 2 Bargain and Sale 3 Bastard 4 Beggar vid. Vagrant 5 Bayl 6 Bailif 7 Breach vid. Promise 8 Byâ—law vid. Law 9 C CApias 1 Case 2 Certificate 3 Certainty and Incertainty 4 Certiorari 5 Cestuy que use 6 Champerty 7 Challenge 8 Chancery 9 Chappel 10 Charges 11 Chattel 12 Clergy 13 Common and Commoner 14 Commissions and Commissioners 15 Commitment vid. Imprisonment 16 Common right vid. right 17 Consession 18 Condition 19 Confession 20 Consent 21 Consideration 22 Conspiracy 23 Construction 24 Contempt 25 Continuance 26 Contract 27 Copyhold and Copyholder 28 Copy 29 Corporation 30 Costs 31 Covenant 32 Courts 33 Custom 34 D DAmages 1 Date vid Tyme 2 Declaration 3 Decree 4 Deed 5 Delivery vid. Deed 6 Demand 7 Demurrer 8 Denison and Denisation 9 Departure 10 Depopulation 11 Devastavit 12 Devise 13 Debt 14 Descent 15 Discharge 16 Discontinuance 17 Discretion 18 Discription 19 Disfranchisement 20 Dispensation 21 Disseisor and Disseisin 16 Distress 22 Distringas 23 Destruction vid. Extinguishment 24 Donative 25 Dower 26 E EIectione firmae 1 Election 2 Elegit 3 Endictment 4 Engagement 5 Engrossing 6 Enquiry 7 Enrollment 8 Equity 9 Error 10 Escape 11 Estople 12 Estreate 13 Evidence 14 Examination 15 Executor 16 Execution 17 Exposition vid. Interpretation 18 Extent 19
Verdict he doubted whether it could be helped now in this Court though it might have been helped in the inferior Court where the Action was brought by examination of it and therefore ruled to shew cause why Iudgement shall not be reversed on Friday next It was this Term reversed at the Defendants motion for his own expedition Brooke and Brook Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 580. BRooke brings an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Brook the condition was Demurrer to a plea in debt upon an Obligation that the Obligor should make an Estate of inheritance to the Obligee in such lands at such a day and place and for not doing it he brings his Action The Defendant pleads that he was ready at the day and place to make the Plainiff an estate of inheritance in the lands The Plaintiff demurs to the plea Notice and for cause shews that the Defendant doth not shew that he gave notice to the Plaintiff of his being there To this Roll Iustice said it is not necessary to give notice of the day or place A second exception was that he had not shewed that he gave the Plaintiff notice what estate of inheritance he would make him To this Roll Iustice said he ought to have shewn Time Place that he gave notice what estate he would make him and therefore let the Defendant shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement Kale and Iocelyne Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1282. KAle brings an Action of Debt against Iocelyne an Executor Demurrer to a plea by an Executor in Debt for reâ— brought against him Plea Executor VVaiver Covenant and declares for rent grown due since the death of the Testator by virtue of a lease for years made of certain lands by the Plaintiff unto the Testator which yet continues and declares that the Executor debet detinet c. The Defendant pleads fully administred the Plaintiff demurs upon the plea For pleading in the debet and the detinet Bacon Iustice said it was good and so had been adjudged To which Roll Iustice answered it had been adjudged pro con to be good and to be bad and he said that an Executor cannot waive a Term let to the Testator for he is bound by Covenant to hold it and said that the Declaration was good in the debet and detinet prima facie for it shall be intended that the land let to the Testator is worth as much by the year as the rent that is paid for it till the contrary be shewn and then it is reason that the Executor be charged Bacon Iustice said that the Executor may waive the possession if he find that the rent is more than the land is worth otherwise it may be mischievous to him Roll. Iustice said that the Declaration must be in the detinet and debet otherwise it will be mischievous to the Plaintiff and said that a specialty shall be satisfied before a rent reserved upon a lease by deed Allets which Bacon denied and it was said that a lease for years shall be assets in the hands of an Executor although the rent reserved be the full value of the Lands let by the lease The Defendant was ordered to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Baker against Edmonds Mich. 23 Car. B. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 222. BAker brings an Action upon the Case against Edmonds Special verdict in an Action upon the Case whether a verdict maintains the issue joyned and declares that whereas I. S. was indebted unto the Plaintiff in a certain sum of mony and afterwards being so indebted became a Banckrupt and that a Comission upon the Statute of Bankrupt was taken out by him and other creditors against him and that it was found that the Defendant was indebted to the Banckrupt the Commissioners of the said Commission did assign over the Debt of the Defendant mentioned in a certain schedule amounting to such a sum unto the Plaintiff in part of satisfaction of the Debt owing unto him by the Banckrupt by virtue whereof he demands the said Debt of the Defendant who did assume promise to pay the same and for not performing his promise he brings his Action the Defendant pleads non Assumpsit and thereupon an issue was joyned and a speciall verdict was found to the effect as the Plaintiff had declared but they further find that the Debts mentioned in the schedule and assigned over to the Plaintiff amounted to such a sum whereas they find that the Defendant did not owe unto the Banckrupt so much as that Debt assigned is but a lesse sum And upon this verdict the question was Verdict Issue Assignment whether the verdict did maintain the issue which was non Assumpsit if it did then they find for the Defendant if not then for the Plaintiff In the breaking of the Case it was moved whether the Assignment were good or no in regard that the Commissioners had mistaken the Debt for the Debt assigned by them was greater than the Debt found by the Iury and so might be another Debt But to this Roll Iustice said that the assignment was not judicially before them in question for if it were it would be judged an ill assignment but here it comes not in issue but only whether the Defendant did assume and promise or no and the speciall verdict concludes not upon the assignment but whether the speciall matter found do maintain the issue or no therfore he was of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgment Bacon Iustice differed in opinion said that it is dangerous for Commissioners of Bankrupt to assign Debts particularly Commissioners The rule then was to argue it the next Term At which time Ward of Councel for the Defendant argued that the verdict was for the Defendant for this reason viz. Because the Debt laid in the Declaration and the Debt found by the verdict are not the same and so the Defendant did not assume and promise that which is laid in the Declaration for there is no such Debt found and if he should be charged with that he might be doubly charged Averment for he may be again charged for the debt found by the verdict and circumstances of quantity time and place are averred in a Declaration to make things certain and if they fall the Declaration is not good 18 E. 3. fol. 25. 1. rep 74. Palmers Case 2ly The Declaration is insufficient for it expresseth not what the sum is but saith a sum mentioned in a schedule of Debts which is incertain Roll Iustice interrupted Ward and said all that you have argued is out of dores but the last matter touching the Declaration and to that Hales of Councell with the Plaintiff said the Declaration is good and certain enough for there appears no other sum in the schedule than is mentioned in the Declaration Bacon Iustice The
the jurisdiction of this Court which cannot be and we are not now to examine the jurisdiction but the pleading Therefore shew cause Monday next why you shall not plead in Chief Griffith against Thomas Trin. 1652. Banc sup Mich. 1651. rot 340. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Error to reverse a judgement in deb in the C. B. and the Errors assigned were 1. That whereas the Award was to pay a certain sum of money at or before the 25 day of December the breach assigned is that he paid it not at the 25 day 2ly Whereas there are 2 parties of one side and one on the other side that submitted to the Award The Award is that one party shall not prosecute the other 3ly The Condition is that the Award shall be made the 20 day of such a month and it is set forth that the Award was made before the 20 day and doth not say what day it was made But the Councel relyed upon the 1 Exception And to that Latch on the other side answered Award That if it be paid before the 25 day it is then payed at the 25 day 2ly The Condition requires the award to be made under their hands the subsequent averment is to no purpose And as to the 3. the words Alter partium extends to all parties and besides the breach is not assigned upon that Roll chief Iustice If it be paid before the day it is paid at the day and so that is certain enough 9 H. 7. Another exception was taken that the condition was that the Arbitrement should be put in writing by the Arbitrators and it is not so here expressed but only generally that it was put in writing Roll chief Iust It is not to be necessarily understood that it must be put in writing by the Arbitrators themselves Another Exception was taken that here is an Outlawry after judgement there is a fault in the Outlawry for in the Writ to the Sherif it is praecipipimus vobis instead of praecipimus vobis the year of our Lord is in Figures And 2ly it is secundum consuetudinem regni Angliae whereas it was in the time of the Kéepers of the Liberty of England Roll chief Iustice If the word be praecipipimus then there is no command to the Sherif for that word signifies nothing Therefore let the Outlawry be reversed and judgement affirmed Trin. 1652. Banc. sup IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintif declared Demurrer to an evidence that in such a High-way the Defendant digged a hole and that by reason of that hole as he was travelling in the way with his Gelding his Gelding did fall and hurt himself to his damage c. Vpon not guilty pleaded and issue joyned at the Tryal this evidence was given to the jury namely That the Plaintifs Servant was driving his Masters Gelding in the way being loaden with Lead and that by reason of the hole he fell c. To this evidence it was demurred and for cause it was shewed That by the evidence it neither is proved that there was such a way nor what person digged the hole both which are part of the issue to be tryed and so the evidence proves it not and therefore is not good to find the Verdict for the Plaintif as the Iury have done Roll chief Iustice This evidence is no more than a special Verdict and it ought to find the way and the hole digged and all the matter conducing to the issue and therefore it is not good as it is Verdict Venire Therefore let the Verdict be quashed and a new Venire awarded Heard against Read Trin. 1652. Banc. sup IN an Action upon the Case for words the Case was this Arrest of judgement in an Action for words the Defendant being brought before a Iustice of Peace to answer a crime objected against him the Plaintif appeared as a witness to testiffe against him whereupon the Defendant to weaken his Testimony did speak these words of the Plaintif before the Iustice of Peace Thou hast been a contentious man this 30 years and a Breeder of strife and hast taken a false Oath against my Brother and Sister in a matter of incontinency and hast taken 20 s. for it and I will shew it upon Record Vpon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because it is not said that he is perjured in any Court of Record but that he will shew if upon Record And 15 Car. Morton and Clapams case was cited but on the other side it was said that take all the words together they are actionable and Trin. 22 Car. Osborn and Brookes case was cited Roll chief Iustice The words are said to be spoken falso malitiose and it is not said in the Record that the party spoke them in his own defence and it may be they were spoken by the by and not in the judicial proceedings but it appeared upon reading of the Record Case that they were spoken to disable the Plaintifs testimony Whereupon Roll chief Iustice said That the Action did as well lie in this case as it doth lie for endicting one falso et malitiose for Endictments are more avoured in the Law than private matters between parties Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement nisi Custodes against Howell Gwinn Trin. 1652. Banc. sup HOwell Gwinn was endicted of perjury Arrest of Iudgement in an Endictment for perjury for taking of a false Oath in an Affidavit made before a Master of the Chancery and was found guilty It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement 1. That it doth not appear by the Record that the Oath made was any thing material to the sute depending in that Court and so it is but an extrajudicial Oath and is not perjury either by the Common Law or by the Statute 2ly It doth not appear that the party took a false Oath for it appears not whether the Master of the Chancery had any power to take this Oath and if he had not then it cannot be perjury Latch enforced the 2 Exception and said That a Master of the Chancery hath not power ex Officio to take an Oath and therefore the party ought to shew that he had power to take this Oath but if he hath power he ought not to take it upon the holy Evangelists as it is here expressed but it ought to be upon the holy Evangely for the form is super sacro sancto Evangelio and not Evangelistis Maynard on the other side prayed judgement and that the party may be fined and answered that it doth well appear that the Oath was made touching the cause in question and the Endictment is here laid at the Common Law and not upon the Statute Next it is not necessary to
fining the party after a Certiorari was delivered unto him to remove the Endictment into this Court and thereupon it was prayed that it might be granted and Sir Tho. Styles and Sir Iohn Sidleys case 8 Caroli was urged where an Attachment was granted in the like case Wild on the other side prayed it might not be granted because the parties endicted did not tender sureties to proceed to a Tryal upon the Endictment as the Statute directs and because the fine was set upon the parties before the Certiorari was delivered and it is in the election of the Iustice to set a fine upon the party Fine Traverse Plea and refuse to admit the party to his traverse as some do hold Roll chief Iustice Vpon view of the force the Iustice may set a fine upon the party and refuse to admit the party to his traverse or plea at his pleasure but the case is not so here and in 15 Car it was resolved that if a Certiorari be brought to the Sessions to remove an Endictment of forcible Entry preferred against divers persons if some of them come in and find sureties for the damages it is good for them all to remove the Endictment for the rest else it would be mischievous for them that find the sureties And he said that if any thing be done at a private Sessions of Peace it ought to be returned to a Quarter Sessions or into this Court Vpon view of the force the Iustices of Peace are Iudges Error and may set a fine and if there be Error a writ of Error may be brought The rule was that Staples be examined upon interrogatories and make a return of the Certiorari Monday next and that he restore the fine to the party Wood and Mountney Mich. 1652. Banc. sup IN the Case of VVood and Mountney Bail not discharged by the death of the Principal Bail Roll chief Iustice said That if the Plaintif in a writ of Error die before the matter be determined yet his Bail are not thereby discharged Webb and Washborn Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Action was an Action of Trover and Conversion for divers goods Arrest of judgement in a Trover and Conversion The Defendant pleaded not guilty and upon issue joyned a Verdict was found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintif amongst other things had declared for a Trunk with writings which is uncertain Wadham Windham for the Defendant said the Declaration is certain enough and cited a Case where an Action was brought for two Trunks of Cloathes and doth not say what Cloaths and yet adjudged good Another Exception was taken That the Plaintif declares for a great Beam Scales and Weights which is also incertain To this Windham answered It was certain enough because they all make but one thing by reason of the relation they have one to the other And in the old Book of Entries we find that an Action of Trespass was brought pro Caruca cum apparatu and adjudged good Latch on the other side as to the last Exception said It is not answered for the words are very incertain and it is not like the case of the Trespass cited de Caruca cum apparatu for the Weights go not to the perfecting of the Beam as the apparatus doth of the Plow and it is as uncertain as to bring an Action for five Locks and Keys which is not good Hales answered it is certain enough for it is all one as if he had said A Beam Scales and Weights which is as certain as to say a Ship with Anchors and Cables Roll chief Iustice How can we reduce the Weights to any certainty as the Declaration is laid and if the word and had been added it would not have helped for they may be a hundred Weights or a thousand Another Exception was taken that the Plaintiff in another Action had declared for four pair of Hangings which is uncertain But Roll chief Iustice said That that might be well enough understood Green at another day insisted that four pair of hangings is very uncertain but if it had been said four sutes it had been well Besides the very word hangings is a doubtfull word for it shews not whether the hangings were Silk or Stuff or what else they were made of as it ought to be He also took an Exception that the Plaintiff had only shewed that here was a denyal and refusal to restore the goods but no conversion of them is shewed To this Hales answered That the Action being an Action upon the Case It is not necessary to shew the Conversion and for the four pair of hangings it is well enough for a pair is a couple when the word is used of dead things and not like a pair of tongues which make but one thing nor is it material to expresse of what the hangings are made as it is not in an Action brought for divers pair of stockings material to say whether they were of thread silk wosted or wollen as hath been adjudged and the word hangings is certain for any one will conceive them to be meant of hangings of a room Roll chief Iustice The Action is an Action upon the case and it is not necessary to shew a conversion for the Action is not brought for the conversion and if it were so if a demand and a denyal be proved doth not this prove a conversion Case Trover and Conveision As an Action of the case lyes for keeping one out of possession although the party doth enter afterwards and the four pair of hangings is certain enough and it is not like as where Latin words are mingled with English in a Declaration and the words being taken in the English construction shall be understood to be eight hangings Nor is it material to expresse of what the hangings are made But the great doubt is whether the words be meant of hangings for a room or not and I suppose they cannot be meant of other hangings the words being in English and not in Latin with an Anglice and I believe you cannot shew me any thing else that the words can by common intendment signifie Iudicium nisi The case was again moved at another day by Latch who urged that four pair of hangings are words incertain but if it had been four suits it had béen well so that here is a misaplication of words to expresse the thing meant and he might as properly have said a suit of Shoes or a suit of Conies If one say he hath lost a hanging this is incertain of it self for it is the predicament of situs and not of substance for a hanging is a posture and the word pair makes it more incertain than it was without it Hales answered that it is certain enough for the word hanging is used here substantively and not as a participle and the common use of the word is only applicable to the hangings of a room and the four pair shall
will remand him to be tryed where he is Trin. 1654. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for one brought out of Wales by a Habeas Corpus That one might be bayled Quo warranteâ— that he may be bayled because they have no Gaol-delivery there Roll chief Iustice It were good a Quo warranto were brought against them for not using their privileges duly Let the Prisoner be bound to answer his offence at the next Assises The Protector and Baxter Trin. 1654. Banc. sup ONe Baxter endicted upon suspition of Robbery was out lawed upon the Endictment Error to reverse an Outlawry in felony and prayed to be allowed and taken upon the Outlawry and committed to Finsbury Gaol afterwards he brings a Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry and obtains a Habeas Corpus to be brought hither to prosecute his Writ of Error and upon the retorn thereof was brought to the Bar and prayes to have his Writ of Error allowed and to have Counsel assigned him and that he may have a Copy of the Record and that he may be bayled and he took two exceptions to the Outlawry 1. That he was in Prison at the time he was out-lawed and knew nothing of the Outlawry 2ly That the charge against him is too general and there is no body prosecutes against him and prayed he may go with his Keeper to his Counsell Roll chief Iustice You cannot be bailed nor have a Copy of the Record Bail Copy but you shall have Counsell assigned you but you must be remanded Iles and VVindsor Trin. 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 360. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given by default in the Common-Pleas in an Action of Trover and Conversion Error to reverse a judgement in Trover given by default and the error assigned was that the Plaintiff had declared for two pieces of Cloath and did not express whether they were linnen or wollen cloath But the exception was over-ruled and the judgement affirmed nisi Bunniworth and Gibbs Trin. 1654. Banc. sup Mich. 1653. rot 50. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Court at Peterborough in an Action upon the Case upon a promise Error to reverse a judgement in an action upon an Assumpsit wherein the Plaintiff declared that in consideration that the Defendant had received 5 l. which was due by the Plaintiff unto the Defendant upon an accompt made up betwixt them at such a time the Defendant did assume and promise to the Plaintiff to pay unto him a certain sum of mony when the Defendant shall set up an Apothecaries shop in Peterborough if the Plaintiff be then living there The error assigned was that here is no consideration laid in the Declaration to ground the promise upon for the consideration is the receipt of five pounds which was his own mony for it was due to him upon the accompt and this can be no good consideration But Roll chief Iustice answered to this that a little consideration will serve to ground a promise upon Consideration and it may be the Plaintiff would not have acknowledged so much as 5 l. to have been due upon the Accompt if the Defendant would not have made this promise A second exception was taken that the Plaintiff doth not aver Averment that when the Defendant set up the Apothecaries shop in Peterborough that he was living there Roll chief Iustice This is a good exception for the intent of the Plaintiff appears to be that he would not have another of his own Trade in the Town to lessen his trading Therefore let the Iudgement be reversed nisi Lord and Michell Trin. 1654. Banc. sup Trin. 1653. rot 358. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given upon a Nihil dicit in the Common-pleas in an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit Error to reverse a judgement by a Nihil dicit in an action upon an Assumpsit the consideration was laid that if the Plaintiff would forbear to sue the Defendant that then the Defendant would pay such a sum of mony Two errors were assigned to reverse the judgement 1. That whereas the consideration is laid generally that if the Plaintiff should forbear to sue the Defendant he would pay the mony the Plaintiff hath not averred this consideration but saith in facto that he did forbear to sue till Iune which cannot be the same consideration 2ly The Writ of Enquiry is said to be enquired of by twelve lawfull men in the County whereas it should be of the County for the Iurors for ought appears may be of another County and then it cannot be well Averment Roll chief Iustice This is but an inquest of Office but you have not averred the consideration as you ought to have done and this is error Therefore let the Indgement be reversed nisi c. Phillips and Phillips Trin. 1654. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Court at Newport in an Action upon the Case for these words Error to reverse a judgement in an action for words Thou art a whoreson Bankrupt-Rogue and they were laid to be spoken of a Farmer The errors assigned were 1. That it doth not appear by the Declaration that the Plaintiff gets his living by buying and selling And 2ly It appears not that the words were spoken of him in relation to his profession And upon these Exceptions the judgement was reversed Bancks and Prat. Trin. 1654 Banc. sup Hill 1653. rot 603. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common-pleas for an Attorny in an Action upon the Case Error to reverse a judgement in an action upon Promise grounded upon a promise that the Defendant would pay him such fees as should grow due to him as an Attorny in prosecuting such a Sute for him in the Common pleas and for prosecuting another sute for him in Chancery as his Sollicitor The Errors assigned were 1. That he doth not shew particularly how he hath laid out the mony but only expresseth it generallly that he had expended and there was due unto him such a sum of mony 2ly The Promise is that the Defendant would pay him the fees so long as he should continue to be his Attorny and to prosecute for him and it doth not appear that he continued to be his Attorny and to prosecute for him during the sute and to make the first exception good Took and Sir Tho. Walsinghams Case lately adjudged was urged But as to that exception Roll chief Iustice answered it is not necessary to shew particularly how the mony became due and was expended for this would make the Declaration too long and though the Plaintiff as hath been objected should bring another Action for the same thing yet you may plead this recovery in bar generally against him Plea in bat Intendment And as to the second exception