Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	chief_a	george_n	sir_n	2,671	5	6.2590	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38869	An exact account of the trial between Sr. William Pritchard, Kt. and alderman of the city of London, plaintiff, and Thomas Papillon, Esq, defendant in an action upon the case at the sessions of nisi prius holden for the Court of King's Bench at the Guild-Hall in the city of London, on Thursday the 6th of November, 1684, in Michaelmas term, in the 36th year of the reign of King Charles the Second, before Sir George Jefferies, Kt. and Baronet, then Lord Chief Justice of the said Court of King's Bench : to which is added, the matter of fact relating to election of sheriffs, as it was printed in the year 1682.	Pritchard, William, Sir, 1632?-1705, complainant.; Papillon, Thomas, 1623-1702, defendant.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1689 (1689)	Wing E3587; ESTC R12402	61,421	42

AN EXACT ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL BETWEEN Sr. WILLIAM PRITCHARD Kt. And Alderman of the City of London Plaintiff AND THOMAS PAPILLON Esq Defendant In an Action upon the Case At the Sessions of Nisi prius holden for the Court of King's Bench at the Guild-hall in the City of London on Thursday the 6th of November 1684. In Michaelmas Term in the 36th Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second Before Sir GEORGE JEFFERIES Kt. and Baronet then Lord Chief Justice of the said Court of King's Bench. To which is added The MATTER of FACT relating to ELECTION of SHERIFFS as it was printed in the Year 1682. LONDON Printed and sold by Richard Janeway in Queens-head-Court in Pater-Noster-Row MDCLXXXIX Pasche xxxvi to Car. Secundi Reg. London ss WIlhelmus Pritchard Miles nuper Major Civit. praedict quaerit de Thoma Papillon in Custod Marem c. pro eo videlicet quod cum duodecimo die Februaris Anno nostri Domini Caroli Secundi nunc Regis Angliae c. tricessimo quinto ipsem idem Wilhelmus Pritchard ac antea abinde pro separat menses ex tunc prox sequend extitit Major Civitat ' London praedict in Officium Majoratus illius debito modo elect praefect jurat ac secundum Consuetudinem Civitat London praedict a tempore cujus contrar memoria hominum non existit in eadem usitat approbat Officium suum Majoratus illius indies intendere debuit pro assiduam diligent ipsius Wilhelmus in regimine Civitat illius pro ipsum secundum debitum Officii sui praedict exequend performand ad honorem dignitat ad Officium illud spectant pertinen praedictus tamen Thomas existens unus de Commitat Civitat praedict sub regimine dicti Wilhelmi virtute Officii sui praedicti praemissor non ignarus sed machinans false ac malitiose invidens felici statui ipsius Wilhelmi in Officio suo praedict necnon ipsum Wilhelmum in executionem Officii illius minus juste inquietare disturbare praedicto duodecimo die Februarii Anno tricesimo quinto superdicto idem Thomas Papillon pro vexatione praefat Wilhelmo adhibend eodem Thoma ad tunc non habente aliquam legitimam vel probabilem Causam Actionis versus ipsum Wilhelmum false malitiose prosequunt fuit extra cur dicti Domini Reg. coram ipso Rege nunchit scilicet apud Westmon in Com. Middlesex adtunc adhuc tent ' existem quoddam Breve ipsius Dom. Reg. de alias Capias versus ipsum Wilhelmum per nomen Wilhelmi Pritchard Militis adtunc Coronator Civitat ' London praed direct ' per quod quidem Breve idem Dominus Rex nunc eidem tunc Coronatori praecepit quod capet ipsum Wilhelmum Pritchard si invent ' foret in Civitat ' London praed ea salvo custodiret ita quod herent Corpus ejus coram Domino Rege apud Westm die cur ' prox post quindenum Pasche ex tunc prox sequend ac respondend praefat ' Thomae Papillon pre nomen Thomae Papillon Armiger de placito trangres quod idem tunc Coronator haberet ibi tunc breve illud Et praedictus Thomas Papillon ex ulteriori nequitia malitia sua praecogitat ' versus ipsum Wilhelmum postea ante retorn ' Brevis praedicti scilicet vicesimo quarto die Aprilis Anno tricesimo superdicto apud London praed videlicet in Parochia Sanctae Mildredae Virginis in Pulletria in Warda de Cheap London praedicum Breve de alis Capias cuidem Johanni Brome Gent. adtunc Coronator Civit ' London praed existem deliberavit exequend ac adtunc ibidem apud Wilhelmum adtunc Major ' Civitat ' London praed ut praefert ' existem praetextu Brevis illius pro Corpus suum capi arrestari ac in Prisona sub Custod ejusdem tunc Coronator per spatium sex horarum ex tunc prox sequem detineri malitiose minus juste procuravit in vituperator ' derogation ' vilipendium praedici Wilhelmi Officii Majoratus ipsius Wilhelmus praed necnon ad damnum prejudicium gravamen ipsius Wilhelmi manifest ' ubi revera de facto praedictus Thomas Papillon praedico tempore captionis arrestionis detentionis ipsius Wilhelmus in Prisona sit ut praefert ' fact ' non habuit aliquam justam vel probabilem causam Actionis versus ipsum Wilhelmum in Premisis praed unde idem Wilhelmus dic ' quod ipse deteriorat ' est damnum habet ad valent ' decem mille librarum inde produc ' sertam c. Die Jovis 6º Novemb. Anno Dom. 1684. Mich. Ter. 36º Car. 2o. B. R. At the Session of Nisi prius for the City of London held at Guild-hall Pritchard versus Papillon London ss SIR William Pritchard late Lord Mayor of the City of London having in Easter Term last brought an Action upon the Case for falsely maliciously and without probable Cause procured him to be arrested and imprisoned in his Mayoralty against Thomas Papillon Esq The Defendant pleaded not Guilty and thereupon Issue being joyned it came this day to be tried before the Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys and the Jury sworn to try this Cause were these Bartholomew Ferryman Thomas Blackmore Thomas Symonds William Whatton John Green Thomas Amy Jospeh Baggs Daniel Chandler John Reynalds John Allen Joseph Caine and William Withers jun. Mr. Mundy May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of this Jury Sir William Pritchard Knight late Lord Mayor of the City of London is Plaintiff and Thomas Papillon Esq is the Defendant And this Gent. is in a special Action upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff does declare That whereas the 12th of Februaery in the 35th Year of this King and before and after for several Months then next ensuing he was Mayor of the City of London being duly elected and sworn into the Office of Mayoralty of the said City and according to the Custom of the said City time out of mind he ought daily to attend the said Office in the diligent Government of the said City according to the Duty of his said Office which he was to execute to the Honour and Dignity belonging thereunto That the Defendant Thomas Papillon being one of the Commonalty of the said City and under the Government of the Plaintiff by virtue of his Office aforesaid not being ignorant of the Premises but contriving and falsly and maliciously envying the happy Estate of the Plaintiff in his said Office as also unjustly to disturb the Plaintiff in the Execution of his said Office the said 12th day of February in the 35th Year aforesaid the Defendant for vexation to the Plaintiff not having any lawful or probable Cause of Action against the Plaintiff falsly and maliciously did prosecute the King 's Writ of alias Capias out of the Court of King's Bench against the

Have you done Gentlemen or will you call any more Witnesses Mr. At. Gen. We rest it here my Lord till we hear what they say to it L. Ch. Just Come then what have you to say that are for the Desendant Mr. Serj. Maynard May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury I am of Counsel in this Case with the Defendant Mr. Papillon I see Gentlemen it is a Cause of great Expectation and by that means they would make it greater by far than indeed it is in it self But I suppose you who are upon your Oaths to try this Issue will duly weigh and consider what it really is Gentlemen the Record tells you what it is an Action upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant did arrest him being then Lord Mayor without any probable Cause and out of Malice Now as to that Gentlemen I conceive and think I may appeal to my Lord Chief Justice in it for Direction in point of Law that my Lord Mayor if he do mistake in his Office and do not do that which belongs to him to do he is as much subject to the Process of Law and Actions as any private Person in the City of London If he does any Man an Injury or does that which is not right in his Office by which another Person is grieved he is liable to the Prosecution of any particular Subject the King has that is so grieved by him Then they alledge that this particular Action and Arrest thereupon was prosecuted and done out of Malice and without probable Cause Now what have they proved of that They prove the thing done that he was arrested at the Defendant's Suit and that he was kept in Custody six hours But if we can give you any account of a probable Cause for it that is sufficient to justify as from this Action Gentlemen the Question that you are to try is not Whether this Man or that Man were duly chosen into such an Office but whether there were any probable Cause for the Defendant to contest about the Choice And herein the Case will fall out to be thus There was a difference in the City of London as is very well known to every body about the Choice of Sheriffs for the City wherein the Defendant was one of the Competitors there were upon the Nomination and Election in the Hall a great many more Voices or Suffrages for one than for the other which was certified to the Court of Aldermen and Lord Mayor as is usual but some Contest being a Poll was demanded and granted and upon that Poll my Lord Mayor was pleased to declare the Election on one side against Mr. Papillon who yet was apprehended by the first Choice to be one that had most Suffrages But several Meetings there were and several Common-Halls assembled so that it was a contested matter and as I said there had been a Report made on the Defendant's behalf We insist not upon the Right of Election that has been otherwise determined But when he is put in Nomination by the Electors in the City and has many Suffrages and he conceives himself rightly chosen and they that are the Managers of the Election give such an account that in their Judgment he was chosen that surely was a probable Cause for him to proceed upon it And if there be but a probable Cause to bring this to a Question no doubt he might very well take the course the Defendant took Here is no Arrest without legal Process nay their own Witnesses say there was an offer to take an Appearance without putting it on so far as an Arrest If my Lord Mayor would have but given an Appearance there had been an end but he did not think fit to do that and so the Process of Law was executed upon him Then here is the Case in short A Man thinks himself rightly and duly chosen into an Office and has probable reason so to think for the Judges of the Election think so too and deliver that as their Opinion so that tho he is mistaken as the Event proves yet he is not alone in his Mistake nor without ground of his Apprehension then if it be under favour such a Man has no other Proceedings to take in the World for settling this matter but to appeal to your Lordship and that great Court where your Lordship sits to have a Writ to command the Mayor or other proper Officer to swear such a Man into the Office or shew good cause why he doth not If the Mayor upon the Receipt of the Writ thinks fit to obey it and swears the Man all is well If not he must make a Return of the Writ with the Cause why the Command of the Writ is not obeyed Now the Suggestion of the Writ is that he was duly chosen into such an Office and therefore he had a fair way to put this matter to an end if he would have returned he was chosen or not chosen there had been an end of the business which he ought under favour to have done in Obedience to the King 's Writ What then follows upon his not doing so the Party that is grieved hereby has no other course to take but to bring his Action against the Mayor for it This course the Defendant took by taking out a Writ against the Plaintiff and what was the Effect of that Writ It is indeed charged here by the Counsel on the other side that there was a Design of a discontented Party in it and I know not what and a great deal of stir made that a Coroner of the City of London should arrest my Lord Mayor It may be it was not so reverently done but yet if he thought he had good Cause of Action against him he might do it lawfully Doth this prove to you that this was maliciously and unreasonably done Malice must be to the Person Zeal and Earnestness to have Right done to a Man's self or another in a legal Course of Justice is not Malice nor will make the Prosecution of the Action unreasonable and groundless Have they proved to you Gentlemen any particular Discontent and Malice that was between the Plaintiff and Defendant No truly I think by all the Proof that has been offered the quite contrary does appear The Defendant took out a Mandamus directed to the Plaintiff which was not duly returned What then doth he do next Doth he most violently arrest him that with Submission he might do and no Offence in Law No but he doth not do it but only desired from time to time as we shall prove anon that he would but give an Appearance that would have put a Conclusion to this Dispute There is no Appearance given whereupon he is arrested and detained in Custody six hours If a Man be once in the Officers Hands taken upon legal Process how long soever the Officer keeps him is not at all to be laid upon the Person that brings the