and Iudgment against the Plaintiff 8 E 4. 3. 21 E 4 2. Lit. 264. b. 20 E 4. 17. If the Debtee makes the Debtor and others his Executors the Debt is discharged Mich 9 Car. Banco Regis Rot 373. Anne Dorchester Executrix of Anne Row Dorchester and Webb Plaintiff against William Webb in Debt upon an Obligation of five hundred pounds the Defendant demanded Oyer wherby it appears that the Defendant and one John Dorchester were obliged joyntly and severally in the said Obligation The Defendant plead in Bar that the said John Dorchester made the Plaintiff his Executrix who proved the Will and had Goods sufficient in her hands to pay the said Debt The Plaintiff reply that before the death of the said Anne Row the Obligee she had fully Administred all the Goods of the said John Dorchester Demurrer and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in this case it is not shewn that the said Francis and Peter or any of them proved the Will of the said Obligee or that they administred his goods or that they had any goods of the Obligor to administer at the time of the death of the Obligee as it ought to have been shewn And the said Francis Executor of the Obligee and also of the Obligor refused to be Executor to the Obligee and never Administred and never meddled with the Goods of the Obligee and so the Debt is not released in Law as by the said Case and former Iudgment appears This case had been often argued by Serjeant Hedley and of the other part by Serjeant Hitcham and affirmed that once Iudgment was given for the Defendant but it yet depends Trin. 12 Car. MEmorand Vpon Petition exhibited to the King by the Prisoners of quality which were in execution in the Fleet Liberty may not be given to Prisoners by force of a Habeas Corpus Kings Bench and Marshalsey to have liberty in the time of Infection and for preservation of their lives to have liberty by Writs of Habeas Corpus to go into the Country upon security to be given to the Warden and Marshall for their return The King out of his great care of their safety referred their Petition to the Lord Keeper Coventry and that he with the advice of the Iudges should consider by what way it might be done And the eighteenth day of June we attended the Lord Keeper at Durham-house And therupon conference and consideration of a former Resolution which was at Reading in Mich. Term last before the said Lord Keeper where were present all the Iudges besides my self That these abusive Habeas Corpus were not lawfull and that the Warden and Marshall were then called and warned that they should not suffer their Prisoners to go into the Country as they had used to do by colour of such Writs This which followes was subscribed WEE are of Opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is both Ancient and Legall But as the Writ doth not so no Rule can Authorize the Keeper of the Prison to give liberty to his Prisoner by colour of such Writ but the same is an abuse against Law and an Escape in the Keeper if he let the Prisoner go by such Writ We find that neither in the twenty fourth year of Eliz. when the Term was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 34. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 35. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to St. Albans Nor in 1 Jac. in which year the Term was Adjourned to Winchester Nor in the first of King Charles in which year it was Adjourned to Reading In all which years there were great and dangerous Infections of the Plague there was no such course to set Prisoners out of Prison by Habeas Corpus but we find it a Novelty begun of late years But We think that if the danger of Infection shall grow so great as it shall be found necessary to provide for the safety of the Prisoners who may at all times provide for themselves by paying their Debts and yeilding obedience to Justice then a course may be taken that some certaine house may be assigned for the Warden of the Fleet in some good Town remote from the Infection and the like for the Marshall of the Kings Bench in some other Town where they may remove such Prisoners as have been Petitioners to his Majesty and there keep them as Prisoners Sub arcta salva Custodia as they should be kept in their proper Prisons and not to be as House-keepers in their own houses and by this means they will have the like to avoid the Infection as other Subjects have and not make the Infection a cause to abuse their Creditors or delude the course of Justice John Bramsion 1. Richard Hutton 2. George Crooke 3. George Vernon 4. Francis Crawley 5. Humph. Davenport 6. William Jones 7. Thomas Trevor 8. Robert Barkley 9. Richard Weston 10. To Sir John Bramston Knight Lord chief Justice of England My very good Lord I Have acquainted his Majesty with your resolution and your Brethren about Writs of HABEAS CORPUS his Majesty doth exceedingly approve the same And hath commanded me to let you know that his Majesty would not recede from that which you have certified And praies you and the rest of my Lords the Judges to observe it constantly attending to that resolution under your hands Hampton Court 19 June 1636. Your Lordships assured Tho. Coventrey C. S. Mich. 14 Car. MEmorand That 28. Aprilis 14 Car. Iustice Hutton argued in the Exchequer Chamber in the Case Adjourned thither upon a Scâ—re facias by the King against Hampden for Ship-money in which he was of opinion that as well for the matter as for the form upon divers exceptions to the pleading Iudgment should be given against the King Afterwards viz. 4. Maij. Thomas Hanson Batchelor of Divinity and Parson of Creake in Northamp came to the Court of Common Bench Iustice Hutton and Iustice Crawley then being there giving Rules and Orders and said Words against Justice Hutton I accuse Mr. Justice Hutton of high Treason for which he was committed to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet by Iustice Crawley and after by the direction of the King he was indicted in the Kings Bench and convicted and fined to five thousand pounds to the King And Iustice Hutton preferred his Bill against him there and recovered ten thousand pound Dameges Lord Digbies Case MEmorand That in the Parliament holden primo Car. It was resolved by the Iudges upon conference concerning the Lord Digby That when any Peer shall be proceeded against for Treason that ought to be by Indictment and that being done Where tryall of Treason by the Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. shall be and how then the King is to appoint a Peer to be Steward for the time and then to proceed to Arraign him or otherwise to transmit this Indictment by Certiorari to the Parliament and there
Court 12 E. a. granted a Rent-charge of two shillings out therof to John Milleton and Walter Milleton In Replevin one makes Conusance derive his Estate from one as Cosin and Heir and shews not how John Milleton dies and Walter survived and died seised and this Rent descended to one John Milleton of P. as Cosin and Heir to the aforesaid Walter and he was seised in Fee and one John Dinham was seised in Fee of one house and twenty acres of Land in Pensons and by Deed shewn in Court exchanged them with the said John Milleton for the said Rent and Walter de la Therne being seised of the Land out of which the Rent issued attorned and gave Seisin of the Rent to John Dinham wherby he was seised in Fee of the Rent and conveyed the Rent by three discents to this John Dinham for whom the Defendant makes Conuzance for ten shillings for five years arrear And the Plaintiff demurs generally upon the Conuzance And the cause was that it is not shewn how John Milleton is Cosin and Heir to Walter upon the discent First if it be good as this Case is viz. That he claimes not as Cosin and Heir but makes Title under him by conveyance afterwards Also because the Defendant makes Conuzance and is a stranger Secondly if it be but forme And this Case was argued at Bench briefly in Trin. 16. And I was of opinion because that this is the Conuzance of a Bayliff and it is a discent in one blood to which Dinham is a stranger and because that a good Issue might be taken therupon as it is alledged And if it had been a case of Bastardy the Iury might have tryell it therfore it is good by the Common Law and differs from a Formedon for there he which brings it is privy vide 41 Eliz. 13 14 in a Scire facias good without shewing how 33 H. 6. 34. Sir T. C. Case 27 H. 6. 2. 4 E. 3. 43. vide 19 E. 3. Quare impedit 58. And if it were not good by the Common Law yet it was but form and aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz cap. 5. vide in Doctor Leifeilds Case lib 10. fol 94. And Iustice Winch agreed with me but Warburton to the contrary and argued strongly that it was substance and was very materiall and he relied upon the Book in the 38 H 6. 17. and he put the cases of 11 H 6. 43. 8 H 6. 22. 2 H 2. and Wimbish and Talbois case Plowden There is debate and argued two against two and no Iudgment given because that it is not shewn Comment Cosin vide 2 H 5. 7. a good Issue there is no such Ancestor a generall Demurrer confesse not the matter as in Debt upon a Bill he plead payment and the Plaintiff demur that Demurrer doth not confesse the payment Lord Hobart would not speak of the Common Law but it seemed good to him by the Statute The Title of the Act is An Act for furthering of Justice Definitive Iustice and Interlocutery The Statute takes not away form but the intrappings and snares of form No place where the Obligation is made cannot be tried by them affirmatively Hough and Bamfields case matter and no form and so Dyer 319. But the point of Cousinage which comes by videlicet is form And if the case of Wimbish and Talbois had been at this day it should bee aided and Iudgment for the Defendant Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds IT was argued by the Court that upon an Elegit the Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds and if it be so that the Conuzor be Ioynt-tenant or Tenant in Common then it ought to be so specially alledged and contained in the return Pasch 16 Jac. Drury versus Fitch Case DRury an Attorney of this Court brought an action upon the case against Fitch one of the Serjeants of London for saying I arrest thee for Felony and after not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff was Non-suited Costs upon Non-suit where the Plaintiff hath no cause of action And now it was moved that no costs should be given to the Defendant because that the words will not beare action and therfore Iudgment shall be given Quod nil capiat per billam And they vouched one President in Grewstons case in Ban. Reg. vide that now by the last Statute costs shall be given to the Defendant in all cases where the Plaintiff should have costs if he recover but in such case where the Plaintiff if he recover shall not have costs the Defendant upon the Non-suit of the Plaintiff shall not have costs But it seemed to Lord Hobart that in this case the costs are for vexation and this is more vexation if he had no cause of action vide 29 H 8. fol 32. It is there resolved that an action lies for the costs notwithstanding a Writ of Error brought And the last day of this Term the Court was of opinion that the action lies for the words for it is more then these I charge thee with Felony and if the Action lies not yet the Defendant shall have costs for it was such an Action in which the Plaintiff ought to have costs if he recover Vpon motion in Court by the direction of Iustice Warburton who had caused a Iury to be drawn by reason of the slendernesse of the matter and for avoiding the charge of a speciall Verdict the Case was A Copyholder was a Lunatick and the Lord committed the custody of his Land to one which brought an Action of Trespasse Action brought by the Committee of a Lunatick which is a Copyholder and whether it ought to be brought by him or by the Lunatick was the question And the opinion of the Court was that the Committee was but as Bayliff and hath no Interest but for the profit and benefit of the Lunatick and is as his Servant and it is contrary to the nature of his Authority to have an Action in his own name for the interest and the Estate and all power of Suits is remaining in the Lunatick And it was ruled in this Court that a Lunatick shall have a Quare impedit in his own name vide Beverlies case Coke lib 4. the diversity between a Lunatick and an Ideot and H 8. Dyer fol 25. And though when Guardian in Socage as it was adjudged makes a Lease for years his Lessee shall have an Ejectione firmae yet there the Guardian hath the Interest and is accountable therfore But in this case the Committee hath no Interest but is as a Servant appointed by the Lord to keep the possession for him who is not able to keep it for himself Lord Hobart and the Court also agreed that the Lord of a Mannor hath not power to commit or dispose of the Copyhold of a Lunatick without speciall Custom no more then a man shall be Tenant by the Curtesie c. of a Copyhold
that the Plea is not good Harris argued for the Defendant for three reasons 1. Because by the Lease this was included vide 21 H 6. 61. grant of Conuzance c. gives power to make a Steward tempore E. 1. Fitz. 41. 2 E. 2. Bar 237. grant to fish in a Pond yet he cannot make a Trench 2. The Coles are the Inheritance and the bettering of them is the bettering of the Inheritance 3. For the profit of the Common-wealth 14 H 8. 18. 20 Eliz Dyer 361. Altams case Trench to make a Meadow the better is no wast vide 22 H 6. 6. digging of certain Loads of Gravell for the amending of the Land vide 12 H 4 5. And for telling this ought not to be answered any other way then by justifying of the Imployment and the Plaintiff may reply upon the sale if he will and the case is long debated 5 E 4. 10. vide Dyer 37. Malenders case And the last day of this Term the Lord Hobart declared that we were all of opinion that the Plea is not good for there though the Lease be of Mines and by vertue therof the Lessee might open new Mines as in Sanders case Coke lib 5. fol. 12. there it shall be intended of new Mines which in themselves is wast if it had not been by speciall words And the digging of a Mine is an impairing of the Inheritance and a great benefit to the Lesses and therfore if Lessee for years build a new house if he cut Trees off the same Lands for the making therof it is wast 17 E 2. Fit wast 118. And no more then one may make a Brick Kilne and burn Brick or a Lyme Kilne and burn Lyme with wood growing upon the ground and sell the Brick or Lyme no more may the Defendants in this case cut down wood for the making and supporting of these Mines for Coles which they sell vide 41 E 3. 17. And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Edmonds Case MEmorand That at the Assises holden at Winchester in Lent 15 Jac. one William Edmonds was indicted of Burglary because that he Burglariter and feloniously did break the house of one Richard Heydon in the night at Ramsey Burglary and the Iury gave a speciall Verdict We find that Richard Heydon and Christian his Wife were both in Bed and at rest in an upper Chamber in the Mansion house of the said Richard Heydon and that the said William Edmonds then was and yet is the Servant and Apprentice of the said Richard and that he then lay in another Chamber of the said house remote from the Bed-chamber of his said Master and Dame and that there was a Door with a Latch at the Stairs foot of the said Bed-chamber of the said Heydon but none at the Stair-head being the entrance into the said Bed-chamber of the said Heyedon We find that the said William at the said time in the Indictment drew the Latch of the Stair-foot door and opened the said door being then latched and went up the Stairs and entred into the Bed-chamber of his said Master with an intent to murther the said Heydon and that he did then and there with an Hatchet with an intent to murther his said Master strike and grievously wound him and gave him fifteen wounds on the head and other parts of his body And if upon the whole matter c. And this speciall Verdict was shewn by the Lord chief Baron Tanfield unto all the Iudges of Serjeants Inne in Chancery Lane viz. Iustice Warburton Crook Baron Bromely Iustice Dodderidge Houghton Winch and Hutton And they all besides Winch which doubted agreed that it was Burglary and afterwards in the same Term at a meeting in Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet it was shewn to Mountague Hobart and Denham which concurred Mich 16 Jac. Staffords Case FAlse Imprisonment was brought by Sir John Stafford the Defendant justifie Matter of Record tryed by the Country that Bristoll is an ancient City and that time wherof memory c. there hath been a Court holden there before the Sheriffs c. and justifie that there was a Plaint levied and Iudgment and that the now Plaintiff was taken in execution The Plaintiff replyed Quod non fuit aliqua querela levata according to the custom and requires this Quod inquiratur c. And it was tryed at Bristoll and found for the Plaintiff and damages twenty six pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this being matter of Record viz. the entry of the Plaint in a Court of Record it shall be tryed by the Record and not by the Country And it was adjudged that the tryall was good because that it is not meerly Record but whether it was according to the Custom And Non prosecutus est ullum breve is tryable by the Country Quaere if the King grant by Patent to hold plea under forty shillings if it be a Court of Record Sir Walter Rawleys Case MEmorand that on Friday the 23. of October upon conference between all the Iustices of England whether a privy Seal was sufficient it being directed to the Iustices of the Kings Bench to command them to award execution against Sir Walter Rawley which was attainted of Treason at Winchester Mich. 1 Jacobi How Prisoners which are attainted of Treason set at large shall be brought to execution before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer or how they should proceed before execution be awarded It was resolved by all that he ought to be brought to Bar by Habeas Corpus to the Lieutenant of the Tower and then demanded if he could say any thing why execution should not be awarded for the proceedings against him being before Commissioners they are delivered only into the Court of Kings bench or they might have remained in a Bag or a Chest and no Roll made therof and so long time passing it is not a Legall course that he should be commanded by a privy Seal or great Seal to be executed without being demanded what he hath to say for he might have a pardon or he might say that he is not the same person As if one be Outlawed of Felony and taken he shall not be presently hanged but he shall be brought to Bar and so demanded c. And upon this resolution a privy Seal came to the Iustices of the Kings Bench commanding them to proceed against him according to Law And therupon a Habeas Corpus was awarded and Octob 28. he came to the Bar being brought by the Lievtenant and there he was demanded of whether he had any thing to say why c. and there he shewed that the King had imployed him as Generall of a Voyage and hath given him power De vita membris upon others And whether this did amount to a pardon or no he knew not The Attorney-generall said that the King pardoned no Treasons by any Implication but it ought to be by speciall words Then he said
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
and diversity of opinion which was between the Lord chief Justice and the Lord Hobart the now Lord Keeper and the Lords by an Order respited this matter as to the Fine of the Plaintiff and gave damages to the Defendant and referred it to the opinion of all the Justices And they all una voce except Iustice Harvey who insisted upon the damages given to the party that they should not be pardoned agreed that the Contempt and Offence for the scandalous Bill exhibited was pardoned and not within the Exception for it cannot be intended that the Plaintiff exhibited a Bill upon which he should not be fined but this exception was of that which was laid to the charge of the Defendant and the Defendant may have his remedy at Common Law and the Contempt which is accidentall to the Offence is pardoned and by consequence the Fine Pasch 2 Car. Crane versus Crampton Case CRane brought an action upon the case sur assumpsit against Crampton and count that in consideration of moneys paid the Defendant did assume to give to the Plaintiff a Ruff-band at the day of his marriage And he alledged in facto that such a day and at such a place he was married Notice and that the Defendant notwithstanding that he was requested such a day and a year after the said marriage had not given to the Plaintiff the said Ruff And upon Non assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not alledged any notice given to the Defendant of his marriage And by the opinion of me and my two Brothers Harvey and Yelverton Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff For the Defendant ought to take notice therof at his perill unlesse he had provided to deliver the Ruff after marriage and after notice therof for if he ought to have notice no place being agreed upon where it shall be given then he should be compelled to enquire and to find him and give notice and paradventure he could never give him notice Also it is agreed if one be obliged to pay to another twenty pounds within three months after he come from Rome there shall no notice be given of his return but the Obligor ought to take notice at his perill And if it were with a Condition that I. S. that is not party to the Obligation shall do such a thing there shall not be notice And this case of an Obligation is more strong for there is a penalty and if it were to pay ten pounds when a Fair shall be at Dale there he ought to take notice And they agreed the case of 8 E 4. fol. _____ an Obligation to perform an Arbitrement there no notice is necessary for it is the act of a third person And if any notice be requisite the Request imply it as it was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Hodges and Baldwin Hodges and Baldwins case But my Brother Crook seemed to be of a contrary opinion for when the duty arise upon the notice there notice ought to be Iudgment pro Querente Laicon versus Barnard Lincoln LAicon Plaintiff against Barnard one of the Attorneys of this Court Case for Trover and Conversion of a hundred Sheep the Defendant said that he brought Debt in the County Court of Lincoln Recovery in trespass for taking of goods is no baâ— to an action upon the case sur trover against one Hacliff for two hundred and eighty pounds upon an Obligation by Iustices and recovered and that these Sheep were delivered to him in Execution as the Sheep of the said Hacliff And that afterwards and before this action the Plaintiff brought an action of Trespasse against the now Defendant for taking of these Sheep Quare caepit abduxit And it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages to two pence And averred that they were the same Sheep and the Plaintiff replyed that the Damages found by the Iury were only for the taking and chasing and not for the value And that this Action was for another Trespasse wherupon the Defendant demurred and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for for any thing that appears which the Defendant hath confessed upon his Demurrer it is not for the same Trespasse Also the Damages of two pence cannot be given for the value of the Sheep Also the Plaintiff when a Trespasse is done to him may retake his Goods and yet he shall have an action of Trespasse for the taking of them And every taking viz. abduxit import a chasing and no man will say that by the recovery in Trespasse when the Plaintiff had his Goods that therby the Defendant shall have the property But it is true that if the Plaintiff recover the value therby he waves the property and by this way the Defendant shall have the property vide 2 R. 3. 14. 4 H 7. 5. 6 H 7. 8. and Iudgment for the Plaintiff Yelverton at first baesitavit but afterwards agreed Pasch 2 Car. Wades Case AN action upon the case was brought by a Feme Case as Administratrir against the Lady Wade Executrix of Sir William Wade Non assumpsit was pleaded the Venire facias was well but the Hab Corp. Nisi pr. was entred the Plaintiff Where the Nisi prius shall be amended c. and the Defendant Executrix of Sir H Wade c. And it was amended by the Court and there was the difference taken that when the Nisi prius is so mistaken that if it should be amended the Iury should be prejudiced viz. that it may falsifie their Verdict then it shall not be amended but in this case it is but the Writ by which the Iury is warned to appear And the authority of the Iustice of Nisi prius is not by that but by the Juras which was well and as it ought to be Also they have their Authority by the Statute of Westm 2. vide Dyet 106. In Wootons Case there the Jurat was well and omitted in the Nisi prius Anthony Coke Also the Issue was between Wooton and Cooke and Temple where Temple had confessed the action vide there that many omissions of the Record of Nisi prius are to be amended Brown was of the contrary opinion to Walsh Weston and Dyer Trin. 2 Car. Farrington versus Arrundell Entred Hil. 22 Jac. Rot. 4462. Debt AN action of Debt was brought by Lionell Farrington Qui tam pro se quam pro Domino Rege Debt upon a penall Statute is not gone by the death of the King c. against Thomas Arrundell upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. for not coming to Church and the Defendant demurred upon the Count And then King James died And if this action be abated or not by the death of the King was the Question Vide the Statute of the 1 E. 6. cap. 7. vide Coke lib 7. fol 30. And concerning this was diversity of opinion in the Common Bench for my Brother
And the proof therof see Coke lib 6. fol 19. Gregories case and Dyer 236. a. Then the principall and sole point will be if this Offence will be by the act of 33 H 8. cap 10. made presentable and punishable by the Iustices of Peace at their six weeks Sessions and it was unanimously agreed that it is not First because the preamble of the act recite that the Offences recited therin escape punishment and for their more speedy and effectuall punishment and repeat the particulars but therin name not Brewers by expresse words and it cannot be intended that the intent of the Statute was to give them at their six weeks Sessions to intermeddle with things not determinable at their generall Sessions And it was objected by Aâ—tho that Lambert and Crompton had put it as an Article of their charge To which it was answered that it was in some respect inquirable at Common Law viz. Misdemeanors in Bear-brewers Conspiracies and agreements to sell at such prises and the making of wholsome Beer Also it might be that they â—ake the Law to be upon the Statute of 23 H 8. that the Sessions being a Court of Record was within this act that saies in any Court of Record And then if it be not suable by Information before the Iusticeâ— of Peace the consequence is plain that the Statute of 21 Jac. cap 4. extends not therto and the Statute of 37 of H 8. makes not any thing in this case but tolls the six weeks Sessions and makes it inquirable at the generall Sessions Ideo Iudgment for the Informer June 19. An. 22. Jac. MEmorand That upon a Conference at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street it was resolved and agreed by the Lord chief Iustice Sir James â—ea the Lord Hobart Baron Bromley Baron Denham Iustice Hutton and Iustice Jones That any one may erect an Inn for lodging of Travellers without any allowance or License Resolutions concerning Innes and who may keep an Inne and how they may be suppressed as well as any one before the Statute of 2 E 6. might have kept a Common Alehouse or as at this day one may set up to keep hackney Horses or Coaches to be hired by such as will use them And all men may convert Barley into Mault untill they be restrained by the act of Parliament made for that purpose And as all men may set up Trades not restrained by the Act of 5 Eliz. which directeth no man that hath not been bound or served as an Apprentice by the space of seven years or by restraint of setting up Trades in Corporations by such as be not free by the like reason all men may use the Trade of Inne-keeping unlesse it could be brought to be within the Statute of 2 E 6. which hath never been taken to be subject to that Statute in point of license And vide that an Hostler is chargable to the party which is his Guest for the restoring of that which is lost in his House and that by the Common Law of the Realm vide 11 H 4. fol 45. see also 11 H 4. fol 47. That in an action upon the case brought by the School-master of Glocester for erecting another School to his prejudice adjudged that no action lies and also it is there said that if I have a Mill and another erect another Mill by which I lose my Custom no action lies unlesse he disturb the water And it was said by the chief Iustice that it was so resolved before by the Iudges and that Iustice Doderidge Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of the same opinion and so now was my Brother Crew the Kings Serjeant who went the Circuit of Surrey Kent and Essex but the chief Baron Tanfield was of a contrary opinion And it seemed to him that Innes were licensed at first and Originally by the Iustices in Eire but nothing could be shewne to that purpose But all the Iustices were of a contrary opinion and said that that was the ground that begot the Patent and Commission to Mounperson viz. That the King might licence them if the Iudges might And it was said by the Lord chief Iustice that there was not any such thing in the Eires but because that strangers which were aliens were abused and evilly intreated in the Inns it was upon complaint therof provided that they should be well lodged and Inns were assigned to them by the Iustices in Eire The second question was if an Inn be erected in a remote and inconvenient place so that it is dangerous to Travellers and there harbour men of bad same which are apt to commit Robbery whether that might be suppressed And as to that all agreed that it is a common Nusance and may be suppressed and that to be by Indictment and presentment to which the party may have his Traverse The third question was whether when one which had erected an Inn be a man of bad behaviour and such a person as is not fit to keep an Inn how it should be aided and helped And it was agreed by all that upon Indictment or presentment therof he may have his Traverse and if he be convicted then to be suppressed viz. that he which had so misdemeaned himself should not keep it as an Inn nor use it But that it being an Inn it may be used afterwards by another Fourthly how and by what way or means the multitude of Inns might be prevented by being suppressed or redressed upon complaint or how the number might be stinted This Point seemed to be difficult and to contradict the resolution upon the first question And therfore it was agreed that they should advise concerning it and the best way is that they be strictly inforced to keep the Assise and not to suffer any to tipple in their Inns and by this way they would desist from their Trade Mich. 4 Car. Mackerney versus Ewrin RIchard Mackerney brought an action upon the case against Jeffrey Ewrin and count Case That whereaâ— one I. S. was indebted to the Plaintiff in seven pounds four shillings for pasture feeding and Oates for an Horse kept in the Stable of the Plaintiff Consideration in an Assumpsit The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would deliver the Horse to him to the use of the said John S. promised to pay the said seven pounds four shillings And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Callis moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no good consideration for the Plaintiff had not any property in the Horse and he is not is do any other thing then the Law injoyn him to do As if I lose my goods and another find them and in consideration that he will deliver them to me I promise to pay him two hundred pounds that is not sufficient matter to ground an Assumpsit therupon But if a Taylor had made a Sute of Apparell for I. S. and I. D. request him to deliver it
use of the said Robert and Isaac and their Heirs for ever by force therof and of the Statute 27 H 8. they were seised of the said Rent in Fee and after the said Robert died and Isaac survived and is yet seised Per jus Accrescendi and for Rent arrear c. and for the said forfeiture of forty shillings they avow wherupon the Plaintiff demur And upon Conference between the Iudges they all agreed that by this Fine which granted to Brook and Jermy and the Heirs of Brook to the use of Brook and Jermy and their Heirs that they were in by the Statute of 27 H 8. and were Ioyn-tenants of the Rent for otherwise there would be such a Fraction of the Estato that Brook should be in by the Common Law and Jermy by the Statute and that is not according to the Statute And it appears that the use was limited by the Fine it self and not by any Indenture And the principall reason is upon the Statute of 27 H 8. which is where two or three are seised to the use of one or two of them Cestui que uâ—e shall be adjudged to have such Estate in possession as they have in use Iudgment pro Defendent Memorand That in this Term a motion was made for the filing of a Writ of Entry in a Common Recovery suffered by Sir John Smith upon a Purchase and all was well done and the Writ made and sealed Filing of a Writ of Entry many Termes after but by the negligence of the Attorney it was not filed and it was Unanimo assensu resolved that it should be filed and that after the death of Sir John Smith for it is but to perfect a Common Recovery which is a Common Conveyance And this was denied in the case of one Allonson for there Error was brought and Diminution alledged and a Certificate that there was no Writ by the Custos brevium And it is ordinary to file these Writs at any time within a year without motion Mich. 8 Car. Harbert versus Angell CHarles Harbert Plaintiff against Angell Case Words in an action upon the case of words which were Thou art a Theef and hast cousened my Cosin Baldwin of his Land And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words would not maintain action And at the first Iustice Crawley and Iustice Vernon were of opinion that the former part of the words were actionable and that they were not extenuated by the subsequent words but they agreed if it had been for thou hast robbed c. it would be otherwise And the Lord Heath and Iustice Hutton were of a contrary opinion and that the words And and For are in this case to have one effect and declare what Theef he intended And they relyed on Birtridges case Coke lib 4. And upon this diversity of opinion the Lord Heath conferred with the Iustices of Serjeants Inn in Fleetstreet and we with the Lord Richardson and they all agreed that the subsequent words explained his intent and meaning viz. the Robbery and cousening of the Land And Verba sunt accipienda in mitiori sensu As to say Thou hast stoln my Corn it shall be intended Com growing so in Arrowes case Arrowes case 19 Jac. Thou art a Theef and hast stoln ten Cart-loads of my Furzes adjudged not actionable for it shall be intended of Furzes growing Quaerens nil capiat per breve Ram versus Lamley Norff. RAm brought an action upon the case against Lamley and declared That wheras he was Bonus legalis homo and free a suspitione feloniae the Defendant maliciously want to the Major of Linn and requested a Warrant of him being a Iustice of Peace against the Plaintiff for stealing his Ropes The Major said to him Be advised and look what you do the Defendant said to the Major Sir Words I will charge him with flat Felony for stealing my Ropes from my Shop Quorum quidem verborum c. And after Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Hitcham moved in Arrest of Iudgment And the Court unanimously resolved that these words being spoken to the Iustice of Peace when he came for his Warrant which was lawfull would not maintain an action for if they should no other would come to a Iustice to make complaint and to inform him of any Felony Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Lamb versus West Trin. 8 Car. Rot. 333. SIr John Lamb Knight brought Replevin against Thomas West and count Replevin that the Defendant took his Beasts at Blisworth in quodam loco vocat Thorny Close The Defendant avowed as Bayliff to Sir William Sheapherd and derived Title by a Lease to Michael West for ninety years if he and Thomas West the Defendant Demand of Rent and one Hutton West should so long live And the said Michael 19. Aprilis An 20 Jac. granted a Rent-charge of ten pounds per annum to the said William Shepheard and his Executors out of the place in which c. for the residue of his Tearm to be paid at the house of Thomas West in S. And the said Mich. granted that if the Rent he arrear by eight and twenty daies being lawfully demanded at the said house he should forfeit twenty shillings for every day that it should he arrear and if it be arrear by six months being lawfully demanded at the said house then he might distrain for that and the Nomine poenae And for Rent arrear by a year after demand due c. he makes Conuzance And therupon the Plaintiff demurred generalls And after many Arguments at Bar the Iustices delivered shortly their opinions severally and all argued that it is a Rent-charge and then a Distresse is incident to a Rent-charge which is in its creation a Rent-charge as well as if one makes a Lease for life or years rendring Rent and if it be lawfully demanded then it shall be lawfull to distrain for it None will deny but that he may distrain for this Rent without any demand And the diversity is between a Penalty and a Rent for if the Avowry had been for any part of the Nomine poenae then without actuall demand at the day he could not have distrained therfore vide Maunds case Coke lib 7. fol 28. And all agreed that when a Distresse is for Homage if it be once tendred and refused he cannot distrain without demand vide Litt 34. 21 E 4. 6. 16 17. 7. E 4. 4. That where a Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to pay it yet that alters not the nature of the Rent 22 H 6. a good case Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to perform Covenants that extends not to the Rent reserved but if it be to pay the Rent then it shall be demanded there it is said that if Rent be tendred and refused the Lord or Lessor may distrain without demand It was agreed that
if Rent he reserved at the time of the Distresse and it be refused and a Distresse taken that is Tortious 30 Ass 36. 20 H 6. 31. 48 E 3. 9. 2 H 6. 4. And in this case it was said that Reddenda singula singulis that the demand shall be used when the Penalty of the Rent comes in question and not for the Rent And though it be reserved payable at another place thal changeth not the Rent but it is issuable out of the Land and distrainable upon the Lands And lastly it hath been divers times adjudged that the Rent is payable upon the Land 1 Jac Rot 1818. Nich and Langford Skinner and Amery Borman and Bower In Replevin between Nich and Langford Trin 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Between Skinner and Amery vide before between Crawley and Kingswell Trin 3 Car Rot 2865. Rent reserved payable out of the Land And although that the Iudgment is by confession after demurrer yet it was for the reason afore recited Iudgment for the Defendant The Lord Audley's Case Wilts JUratores pro Domino rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Aegideus Broadway de Fountell Gifford praedict in Comitatu praedicto generosus timorem Dei prae oculis suis non habentes Indictment for Rape sed Instigatione Diabolica moti seducti vicessimo die Junii Anno regni Domini nostri Caroli dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae fidei defensoris sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedict Comitatu praedicto vi armis c. in super Annam Dominam Audley Uxorem praefati Domini Martini Audley in pace Dei dicti Domini Regis ibidem Existent insult fecerunt Et praedictus Aegidius Br. praedictam Annam Dominam Audley vi armis contra voluntatem ipsius Annae ad tunc ibidem violenter felonicae rapuit ac ipsam Annam ad tunc ibidem contra voluntatem suam violenter felonice carnaliter cognovit contra pacem Domini Regis nunc coron dignitat suas contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis Et ultim Juratores praedicti dicunt super sacramentum suum praedict Quod praedictus Martinus Dominus Audley praedicto vicesimo die Junii An. sexto supradicto Apud Fountell Glifford praedictam in Comitatu praedicto felonice fuit presens auxilians Confortans abettans procurans â—adjuvans manutenens praedictum Egidium Br. ad feloniam praedictum in forma praedicta felonice faciend perpetrand contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suas ac contra formam statuti praedicti Wilts IUratores pro Domino Rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Deum prae oculis non habens nec naturae ordinem respiciens Indictment for Buggery sed instigatione Diabolica motus seductus primo die Junii An. Regni Domini nostri Caroli c. sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedictam in dicto Comitatu Wilts in domo Mansionali ejusdem Martini Domini Audley ibidem vi armis in quendam Florence Fitz-Patrick Yeoman insult fecit cum eodem Florente F. ad tunc ibidem nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam rem veneream habuit ipsumque F. ad tunc ibidem carnaliter cognovit peccatumque illud Sodomiticum detestabile abominandum Anglice vocat Buggery inter Christianos non nominandum ad tunc ibidem cum eodem Florence F. nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam Commisit perpetravit in magnam Dei Omnipotentis displicentiam ac totius humani generis dedecus ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suâ—s contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis The like Indictment for the same Offence with the same person 10 June the same year at new Sarum in the Mansion house of the said Martin c. Memorand That these Indictments were sound 6 April An. 7 Car. at new Sarum by vertue of a Commission before Edward Lord Georges Nich. Hide Knight chief Iustice ad placita c. Thomas Richardson chief Iustice de Banco John Denham Knight one of the Barons c. Edward Hungerford Knight Walter Vaughan Knight Laurence Hide Knight Thomas Fanshaw Knight by Letters Patents Ipsius Domini Regis pro eis quibuscunque tribus vel pluribus eorum inde Confect ad Inquirendum c. Memorand That the 25. day of April An. 7 Car. A Commission was made for the Arraignment of the said Lord Audley upon the said severall Indictments by his Peers in which the Lord Coventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was made high Steward And the Peers were in number twenty seven And he pleaded Not guilty And one question was propounded to the Iudges which did attend viz. The Lord chief Iustice of the Kings Bench the Lord chief Iustice of the Common Pleas the Lord chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Jones Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey and Iustice Crook If the Wife might be produced as a Witnesse against her Husband Where a Wife may give Evidence against her Huâ—band And it was resolved that in case of a common person between party and party she could not according to the opinion in Cokes first Institutes fol 6. but between the King and the party upon an Indictment she may although it concerns the Feme her self as she may have the Peace against her Husband Buggary sans Penetration Also it was reported to the Lords by the Lord chief Iustice when they were demanded whether this matter of Fact being as it was proved that Pollution and using of a man upon his Belly Sodomitically without penetration was Buggery by the Statute of 25 H 8. the Lord Richardson was of a contrary opinion upon the Conference yet his opinion was involved in the generall But as he said to me their opinions we delivered only upon this case and upon these examinations if the Lords gave credit to the matter in fact that it was Buggery but they gave not a generall opinion that may be a rule in other cases but upon the foulnesse and abominablenesse of this Fact And afterwards the Lords were not unanimously resolved that it was Buggery but this Point was resolved that they ought to believe and give credit to the Law as the Iudges had declared it And it seems that they could not give a speciall Verdict upon this tryall for it never was seen Also the Commission determines after Iudgment given And the Staff of the high Steward shall be broken And after long debate they seriatim laying their hands upon their hearts as the Mannor is said that he was guilty of Rape beside the Lord North. And for the Buggaries twelve of the Lords acquitted him and fifteen found him guilty and so he had Iudgment And at
was that none should use the Art of Weaving within the said Burrough or should have any Loom in his house or possession to have any benefit therby unlesse he had been an Apprentice to the said Art within the said Burrough for the space and term of seven years or had used the said Art within the said Burrough for five years before the making of the said Ordinance or shall be admitted therto by the Wardens and Society upon pain of forfeiture for every month twenty shillings And they further shew that after the said Ordinance made and confirmed the Defendant such a day before his inhabiting in the said Burrough and after such a day that one William Godwin being then Warden of the Weavers gave notice to the Defendant of the said Ordinance and that he afterwards c. during five months continued using the said Trade there and that he had two Looms in his possession where he had not been an Apprentice nor used the said Art for five years as before c. by which he forfeited to them five pounds viz for every month twenty shillings The Defendant pleaded Nil debet and after Verdict for the Plaintiffs it was moved by Arrest of Iudgment that this Ordinance was not reasonable and upon Arguments and Conference without arguments at the Bench it was agreed that the Ordinance was against Law and Iudgment against the Plaintiffs And Lord Hobart in Hil 15 Jac declared that we were all of opinion that Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiffs And he repeated the Case and the reasons of this Iudgment because the Ordinance was that none should use the Trade of Weaver nor have any Loom in the Town unlesse he had served c. before the making of this Ordinance so that all Apprentices which serve after shall be excluded unlesse they shall be admitted by them which is unreasonable And the Plaintiffs do not convey to themselves any good Title to be Wardens but as to the principall point of making such a restraining Ordinance the Court did not deliver any opinion Mich. 15 Jac. Rot. 2327. Dorrell versus Andrews SUsan Dorrell brought an action of Debt against Sir Eusebius Andrews London Debt The Visn of a Town within a Parish and John Cope for eighty five pounds and count upon a Lease made by her to the Defendants by Indenture by which she demised one Capitall Messuage Mannor or House called Causton within the Parish of Dunchurch in the County of Warwick and all the Stables c. in Causton aforesaid The Defendant protesting that the Rent was not behind for Plea saies that before any Rend arrear the Plaintiff entred into severall parts of the house and him dispossessed and upon that they were at issue and the Venice facias was de vicineto de Causton within the Parish of Dunchurch And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Venire facias should be of the Parish only and not of Causton for Causton is not alledged as a Town but the name of a house And the Court resolved that the Ven. fac was good for Causton is alledged as a Town in the Parish of Dunchurch and that by the addition and generall words in the Demise in which also there was an exception of part of the House as Mannor-house at Causton aforesaid so that the house is alledged to be in Causton in the Parish of Dunchurch if all be considered And if it appear that Causton is a Town or Village in the Parish of Dunchurch it will be without any doubt good And my Lord Hobart said that it had been divers times adjudged that on the Allegation of a thing done at the Town of Dale in the Parish of Sale that the Ven. fac of the Parish is good for though the Parish may contain more Towns yet it is not to be presumed but that it is of one Continent if the contrary appear not by the Record vide for that Pasch 9 Jac. between the Lord Candish and Sir George Savill c. There was another exception taken to the pleading Candish and Savill which I have not transcribed Trin. 14 Jac. Rot. 755 Swaine versus Holman RIchard Swaine Plaintiff Brownlow Dors. Wast against Thomas Holman and Elizabeth his Wife brought Wast and declared of a Lease made Anno the 8. of Eliz by the Queen under the Exchequer Seal to William Jolliff Thomas Jolliff and Elizabeth Jolliff for three lives and that William and Thomas were dead and convey the remainder to the King that now is and from him to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant Elizabeth took H. to Husband which did wast c. The Defendants confesse the Lease death and marriage as above c and say that the said Holman and Elizabeth his wife 2. Feb 40 Eliz. surrendred as well all their Estate of the said Elizabeth as the Letters Patents to the intent that the Queen should make a new Lease to the said Elizabeth and to Humphrey Holman and to Roger Holman for their lives successively which surrender the Queen accepted and the third of Febr next made such Demise and this they are ready to aver c. The Plaintiff replies and joyns Issue upon the Surrender and Demise in manner and form and the Issue was tried by a Venue which came from Westminster and the Iury found this speciall Verdict viz. the new Lease made the third of Felic in which it is recited that she had surrendred the Estate and the Letters Patents and the Queen as well in consideration of the surrender of the Letters Patents as in consideration of the payment of twenty Nobles made by the new Lease and the Iury found that the Demise made the third of Febr was with the consent of the said Thomas Holman and that the said Thomas Holman and Elizabeth his wife agreed therto and held in claiming by the said Demise And it was adjudged by the Lord Hobart and others the Iustices that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment First the consideration which procured the new Lease is the Surrender and the Surrender is not absolute but defeisable if the wife survive or if the Husband will disagree and therfore the Lord Hobart said that if Feme Lesses for years takes Husband and after the Feme takes a new Lease of the Queen for life this extinguisheth the term but if the Husband disagree then the Lease for yeers is revived And as in Barwicks Case the surrender of all the Estate where he had made a Lease for years before or where the Lease which he surrendred was void the new Lease made 〈◊〉 consideration therof is vein for the Surrender which is the consideration ought to be a good surrender of the former Estate And therfore if Lessee for life of the Blemise of the King surrender conditionally and the King reciting that he had surrendred all his Estate makes a new Lease this shall be intended an absolute Estate for a conditionall surrender within three years of
be after the title devolved unto the Metropolitan And it seems also reason that he ought to admit though that the Title by Laps be accrued to the King for he claims it as supream Ordinary vide Dyer 277. quaere But in this case the Bishop which is the Defendant is bound by the Iudgement and the Writ is notwithstanding the claim of the Bishop that he admit the Clerk and the Bishop is but Servant and ought to execute the processe of the Court It was urged by Serjeant Henden one Canon Linwood fol. That if the Church be vacant when the Writ comes to the Bishop that he is bound to execute the Writ but if it be full then he certifies the Iustices And the Arch-bishop is sworn to the Canons and he vouched 22 H 6. 45. Coke lib 6. 49. and 52 Dyer 260. F.N.B. 47. Dyer 364. 14 H 7. 22. 34. H 6. 41. 9 E 3. Quare non admisit 18 E 4. 7. Trin. 16 Jac. Rot. 1999. Eire versus Bannester JOhn Eire brought an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir Edward Kinaston against Andrew Bannester and Thomas Wenlock for Land in Norwood Challenge and after Not guilty the Plaintiff made surmiss of Kindred to the Sheriff Sir Thomas Owen to the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads that the Sheriff Non est de consanguinitate of the Plaintiff as he by his challenge supposed And because the Defendant denied the said Challenge John Eire calumnia illa non obstant prec est quod ven fac c. And at the Nisi prius the Defendants challenge the Array for consanguinity between the Sheriff and the Lessor viz. Sir Edward Kinaston and make this Averment that the Sheriff had Issue by Susan which was the Daughter of Judith the Wife of Sir Edward Kinaston and conclude it is a principall Challenge and therupon the Plaintiff demurred And it was returned upon the Postea and it seems that the Sheriff being admitted and allowed to be indifferent by the Defendants in the same Plea they which allow cannot have a Challenge to the Sheriff for the Defendants might by confession of the surmise of the Plaintiff to be true have had a Writ directed to the Coroners and although the entry is Calumnia illa non obstant that is the form of the Award and if he should be allowed otherwise afterwards to challenge the Array then it would be infinite As a man ought to alledge but one principall Challenge though he hath many so it shall be peremptory to the Defendant and when he allows the Sheriff indifferent that shall be taken to be for all causes precedent unlesse it be of latter time And so is the opinion of 20 E 4. 2. And if there be many Defendants if one challenge the Array that shall be peremptory for the others as it seems for the others ought when they challenge the Tales to shew cause presently of the Challenge for if it be quashed that shall also be against them vide Dyer 201. in Attaint vide 36 H. 6. 21. that where one challenge the Array which is affirmed the other Defendants after may challenge the Array of the Tales The second point is if it be a principall challenge or no by reason that the Lessor is not party to the Action vide 10 E 4. 12. 15 E. 4. 18. and 21 E. 4. 61. there it seems that where the Defendant justifies as Servant to I.S. and that the Land is his Free-hold it is a principall challenge that a Iuror is within the Distresse of John S. for the Title is to be tryed And now it was found by common experience that the Lessâ—e is but Servant common recoveries at this day are but as other common Conveyances But it seems that the Law is contrary and it is not averred that this is a Lease for trying the Title and as Iudges we take no notice therof but vide 3 H 7. 2. contrary to the 10 and 15 E 4. where the Challenge is to the Array because that the Sheriff was of Kindred to him whose Free-hold was in Issue and vide 9 H 7. 22. Cognizance as Bayliff to the Abbot of Ramsey Challenge to the Array because the Sheriff was within the Distresse of the Abbot and that was not a principall Challenge by Fineux Brian and Vavasor because that he was not party to the Writ vide this very Case Dyer 300. And upon argument at the Bar the Court was of opinion that it was no principall Challenge but ought to have concluded with the favour All agreed that a Surmise which is for prevention of delay ought to contain matter which is a principall Challenge for no triall shal be of such suggestion but by the deniall of the Defendant or Confession And by the opinion of Lord Hobart and Iustice Winch cest dedire n'est peremptory to the Defendant for his time of challenge is not till the Iury come to be sworn but I hold the contrary because that he might have confessed the Surmise and so have had time And I rely upon 20 E 4. 2. there in the end of the Case it is said that the Defendant by his deniall where he saies that the Sheriff is not favourable but indifferent there he shall never have a challenge for favour unlesse he shews cause of later time As to the second Point it is no principall Challenge because it might be that the Lessor had granted over the Reversion or that the Defendant might be found Not guilty And a principall Challenge ought to contain such matter which being so the Law adjudge favourable and in this very case two Presidents scil Iudgments more strong then this case Bedforne and Dandy Hil 44 Eliz Rot 1208. Bedforne against Dandy in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir John Digby after Not guilty pleaded a Surmise made of consanguinity between the Lessor and the Sheriff c. confessed and therupon a Venire facias to the Coroners and after the Challenge was adjudged insufficient and a Venire facias likewise to the Sheriff was ruled Craddock and Wenlock Trin 14 Jac. Rot. 2284. Craddock against Wenlock in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir Robert Cotton such Challenge and Award to the Coroners and tryed and adjudged a mis-tryall and a Venire facias awarded to the Sheriff and the mis-tryall is not aided by the Statute vide Coke lib 5. Bainhams case And so by the Iudgment of the Court this Challenge was insufficient and Warburton being then sick was of the same opinion as he told me vide 8 Eliz Dyer 281. Austen and Baker in Attaint vide 33 H. 6. 21. 3. Defendants one challenge the Array of the Principall and that being affirmed the other Defendants challenge the Tales Mich. 16 Jac. Easington versus Boucher Debt Severall Defendants in Debt upon a joynt Contract may plead severall pleaâ— EAsington brought an action of Debt upon a joynt Contract against Sir John
inclosing Woods but suffering them to lye open after cutting by the space of one month he alledged the cutting the tenth of April and the lying open untill the second of May which was not a month And upon Not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was awarded that the Defendant eat inde sine die and no costs And the Lord Hobart said that this Statute was made for the ease of the Subject and for avoiding and preventing of vexations and therfore did enumerate all the cases in which the Informer could not prevail and had many words that the Statute of 23 of H. 8. or any other Statute doth not give expresly costs upon demurrer and this is not within 23 H. 8. if upon discontinuance And now the matter passe against the informer be it by Verdict or Iudgment all is one for the makers of this Statute intended to curb all vexatious Informers And if it shall be suffered that Informers may inform upon Statutes not in force and pay no costs that would open a Window to the great vexation of the Subjects And for Presidents not inflicted upon they are of little esteem And I concurred and though Verdict be found for the Informer yet there being no Statute there can be no Offence and it is in Law as not guilty And this case is within the meaning and Letter of the Statute for the Statute intend costs where the cause passe against the Informer be it by default of matter or form Winch doubted of this speciall case because the matter is found for the Informer but he agreeh if it were upon Iudgment upon demurrer or speciall Verdict costs should be given And Iustice Warburton was of opinion that there should be no costs in this case for he is not capable to sue where the Statute is discontinued And so if the Venue be misawarded and he said that he had conference with the Lord chief Baron who also held that there should be no costs in this case And so the matter rests Blackburnes Case Norff. Debt AN action of Debt was brought by I. S. against Blackburne upon a Lease for a year and so from year to year And upon Nil debet pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict to this effect A Devise to a Feme of a term upon condition Wells seised of Land in Fee devised them to his Daughter and her Heirs when she come to the age of eighteen years and that his Wife should take the profits of the Land to her use without any account to be made untill the Daughter come to the age of eighteen years And made his Wife his Executor and died And it was provided that the Wife should pay the old Rent and find the Daughter at School untill she could read and write English the Feme enters and proves the Will takes Husband and dies the Husband assign this term to the Lessor who brought this Action And it was found that all the Conditions were performed and that the Daughter was within the said age of eighteen viz. thirteen years And the sole question was whether it be a term for years in the Wife and whether when she takes Husband he shall have it after the death of his Wife and it was ruled clearly that it is and it being by Will it is a good Lease Another question was if this trust of Education be Quasi a Limitation personall and with intent that the Lease shall not be to the Wife any longer then she may educate her Daughter And it was agreed that it was not for any one may educate her and find her at School and there it is without any default in the Wife for it is the act of God and therfore Judgment for the Plaintiff Trin. 17 Jac. Whittingtons Case IVdgment in Debt against Ferdinand Earl of Derby Scire facias Sci. fac by the Baron and Feme the death of one of them shall abate it at the Suit of I. Whittington and his Wife she being Administrator to her Husband who had the Iudgment who brought a Sci. fac upon the Iudgment against 30. Ter-tenants they appear and all besides 3. plead that at the time of the Iudgment Ferdinand the Earl was seised in tail c. And the Plaintiff had Iudgment against the three with a cesset executio and afterwards Whittington the Husband died and this is surmised and entred vpon Record viz. the death of the Baron after the Darrein continuance and whether the Writ shall abate or no was the question And per totam Curiam the Writ shall abate for the Wife there cannot recover as a Feme sole and though this Writ be judiciall yet it is in nature of an Originall for she might have had an action of debt upon the Iudgment and ought to have that action solely after the year untill the Statute of Westminster 2. which give Scire facias and to this Writ they may plead But in Writs Iudiciall which are only Writs for the doing of execution there the death of one shall not abate it vide 19 Ass 10. 25 E 3. and vide Reads case Coke lib 10. fol. 134. Ruggles Case IN Ruggles Case upon the motion of Serjeant Arthure upon the Statute of 1 Jacobi cap. 15. concerning Bankrupts How the distribution of the Estate of a Bankrupt shall be a Commission was sued out by some of the Creditors and they pursued it and the Land was sold and it being opposed they defended their severall Suits and prevailed by a tryall at Bar And after other Creditors which before would neither partake nor aid them came and prayed to be joyned with them And the Commissioners doubted upon the Statute whether they might allow them to be joyned and the words of the Statute are That it shall be lawfull for any of the Creditors of the Bankrupt within four months after the Commission sued forth and till distribution shall be made by the said Commissioners for the payment of the Bankrupts Debts as in such case hath been used to partake and joyn with other Creditors that shall sue out the said Commission the said Creditors so joyning to contribute to the charges of the said Commission and if the Creditors came not in within four months then the Commissioners to have power to distribute It was resolved that the Commissioners may sell and prepare for distribution presently upon the execution of the Commission but untill the four months are passed they may not proceed to distribution for the Creditors which inhabite in the remote part of the Realm peradventure cannot have notice and it may be carried so secretly that if they might distribute presently that they which sued out the Commission should be only satisfied when indeed there was no default in the others Also it was resolved that the offer of Creditors to be joyned and before they be partakers is not an affectuall offer without offering to be contributory
in a Garden then minutae decimae And it was agreed by the Court that it might have been so found that it should be Majores decimae and prâ—â—diall as if all the Profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are minutae may become majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therin As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hops there they are great Tithes and so it may be of Wholl and Lambs Beddingfields Case Pasch 3 Jac. in the Kings Bench Beddingfeilds case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the small Tithes And a Feild was planted with Saffron which contain forty acres And it was adjudged that the Tithes therof belong to the Vicar Potmans case There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the question was for Hops in Kent and adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were resolved to belong to the Vicar as Minutae decimae There was a Case in this Court for tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produce Weild And that was a speciall Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Iudgment And if Tobacco he planted here yet the tithes therof are Minutae decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Wood c. if it doth not appear by materiall circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae decimae And so this case was adjudged for the Defendant Hil. 1 Car. Townley versus Steele FRancis Townley and three others the Executors of William Peacock brought a Writ of Ravishment of Ward against Richard Steele and Anne his Wife for the Ravishment of the body of Ralph Smith Cosin and Heir of Ralph Smith In Ravishment of Ward brought by Executors are Non-suited whether they shall pay costs and count of the Tenure by Knights-service in Ralph Smith of William Peacock and that Ralph Smith died the said Ralph his Cosin and Heir being within age and that William Peacock the Testator seised of the body and died possessed therof and made them his Executors and they being possessed of the said Ward the Marriage of whom belong to them the Defendants Rapuere illum abduxere And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury was at Bar and the Plaintiffs after Evidence were Non-suited And whether the Defendants shall have costs in this case was the question upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 15. or by the Statute of 4 Jac. cap. 3. And it being argued by Davenport and Attho the Court this Term the chief Iustice being absent gave their opinions And Iustice Crook argued that they should not have costs and put many cases when Executors bring actions they shall not pay costs and so is Common Experience after the Statutes which is the best Interpreter of the Law And if it should be otherwise Executors would be discouraged to bring actions for the debts of their Testator And Iustice Harvy was of the same opinion but Iustice Yelverton and Hutton to the contrary And they agreed that in all actions brought by Executors upon Contracts Obligations or other things made to the Testator there shall be no costs for that is not within the Statute viz. Contracts or Specialties made to the Plaintiff or if an action be De bonis asportatis in the life of the Testator or upon any Tort supposed to be done not immediatly to the Plaintiff there shall be no costs because that the Statute gives not costs in these cases 20 Mariae Debt upon a Demise for years if the Plaintiff shall be Non-suited there shall be costs for it is upon Contract though in some sort reall But in this case though the Plaintiffs are named Executors and their Title is derived from their Testator yet the action is brought upon an immediate Tort done to themselves and it is within the very words of the Statute and this Statute which is to prevent Vexatious Suits shall be taken favourably If Executors have a Lease for years and they demise it rendring rent and for Rent arrear they bring an action it shall be in the Debet and Detinet and they shall pay cost if they be Non-suited and yet their Title is as Executors but it is founded upon their own Contract so if they bring an action of Trespasse for the taking of Goods which came to their possession which Goods were in truth tortiously taken by the Testator and he died possessed therof and they being Non-suited they shall pay costs And Executors in actions brought against them shall pay costs and if they have no Goods of the Testator it shall be De bonis propriis And vide that upon Contracts made by them or Rent arrear in their time the action shall be in the Debet and Detinet vide Coke lib 5 Hergraves case But when Debt in brought by Executors and recovery had and after a recovery an escape and Debt upon this escape this shall be in the Deticet only according to the first cause of action And this Ravishment of Ward is an action within the Statute of 23 H 8. and the Statute of Westminster â— gives no Damages and therfore costs by the Statute of Glocester cap 1. and the Statute of 4 Jac. inlarge the actions and not the persons Hil. 1 Car. Beverley versus Power VPon an Assembly this Term of all the Iustices at Serjeants Inne by vertue of an Order of the Star-chamber made the last Term at reading the Case was Iames Beverley was Plaintiff against Robert Power Pardon and Mary Beverley and others which Bill was exhibited Hil 16 Iac. and the Bill was for scandalous matter not examinable in this Court and for other matter which was examinable and Witnesses examined and published And then the 19. of Febr. 21 Iac. the generall Pardon is made by Parliament by which all Offences Contempts and Misdemeanors del 20. Decemb. before except such Offences contempts c whereof or for which any Suite or Bill within eight years before was exhibited into the Star-chamber and there remaining to be prosecuted this last day of this present Parliament And afterwards viz. Mich. 1 Caroli the Cause came to hearing at the Suit of the Defendant and upon the hearing Power was fined two hundred pounds and for the abuse and contempt to the Court for exhibiting the scandalous matter the Plaintiff was fined five hundred pounds and for damage to the Defendant five hundred marks And yet because of the difficulty
pleaded Not guilty absque hoc that the said suit and tryall was for the said Common And Issue being joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages to twenty pounds And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that now it appears that it was not for the maintenance of the Title of Common that it could not be for the tryall therof because he did not plead the Title of Common which had been the proper apt way for the tryall therof And when the Iury find that which is contrary and repugnant to Law that is repugnant and not good And this case was strongly argued by Serjeant Davenport in Arrest of Iudgment and by Attho for the having of Iudgment And first he said That although there was a Parlance and Communication concerning the Common yet the promise is to defend this action brought by Palmer and is pro defentione of the Common not generally but against Palmer and the promise is to pay the Moyety of the Charges if he prosecute the said Suit untill the determination therof so that if it had been found against the now Plaintiff the now Defendant ought to have paid the Moyety of the said charges And it is not agreed that he shall plead title by Prescription for the Common but that he should prosecute it untill the determination of the Suit for the maintenance of the Common And the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff for it might be for the maintenance of their Common against Palmer for if he had not the Soil therof but had inclosed it as part of his Wasts the Plaintiff could not plead the Title to Common without admitting the Soil and Free-hold to be in Palmer And if one had been of councell and to advise a Plea if he had not discovered that Palmer had no Title he would have advised him to have pleaded Not guilty for if the said Palmer had no Title to the Soil which the now Plaintiff could not know it should be found against him and so this Plea might have been in maintenance of Common And the Lord Richardson who at first doubted now concurred and sayd that he was fully satisfied Trin 3. Car. Chapman versus Chapman Debt REbecca Chapman brought an action of Debt against Henry Chapman upon an Obligation with Condition to perform the Covenants contained in certain Indentures The Defendant pleaded a generall performance the Plaintiff replyed and shewed that she made a Lease to the Defendant of certain Cole-pits rendring eighty pounds Rent and that the Defendant did not pay the Rent at the day Obligation conditioned for the payment of Rent demand is not necessary to be alledged after generall performance pleaded wherupon the Defendant demurred And it was adjudged upon Argument for the Plaintiff but the matter upon which the Defendant justified came not in question viz. If the Plaintiff ought to have demanded the Rent And that the Obligation had not altered the nature of the Rent it being generall to perform all Covenants and the reason is apparent for when the Defendant plead performance of all the payments that is intended an actuall payment for he cannot now rejoyn that he made tender for that shall be a departure from his Plea And that was the reason of the Iudgment which was Pasch 43 Eliz. between John Specot Plaintiff Specot and Shere and Emanuel Shere Defendant upon the like case in debt upon an Obligation wheras the Defendant had granted an Annuity or Rent of six and twenty shillings eight pence to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years the Condition was that if the said Shere perform all the Covenants c. conteined in the said Writing so that the Plaintiff may enjoy the Rent according to the intent therof then c. the Defendant recited the Deed and pleaded performance the Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant had not paid the said eight and twenty shillings eight pence upon such a Feast wherupon the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff And the Lord Coke in his private Book as the Lord chief Baron said had shewn this reason If the Defendant had pleaded specially That he was upon the Land and ready to pay and to make tender but the Plaintiff did not come to demand it then the Plaintiff ought to shew that he did demand it which seems to be agreed 14 E 4. 4. 2 H. 6. 57. 11 E 4. 10. 21 E 4 42. but Brook 6 E 6. Tender makes this diversity when the Condition is expressed to pay the Rent that alters the nature of the Rent But otherwise when it is to perform Covenants And the Iudgment given in the Kings Bench was affirmed Trin. 3 Car. Stephens versus Oldsworth IN a Quare Impedit brought by Stephens and Cross against Oldsworth and Holmes for the Church of Lechamseed the Incumbent pleaded Quare Impedit Tenure that he was Parson Imparsonee to the Church of the presentation of the King and confessed the Seisin of Sir Anthony Greenwood under whom by the grant of the next avoidance the Plaintiffs claim but said that the said Sir Anthony held the said Mannor of the King per redditum ac wardam Castri Dower to be paid yearly 8 s. 1 d. ob q. And among other matters which I omit it was resolved that it was Socage Tenure for a Rent for Castleguard is Socage vide Littleton 26. Coke lib 4. fol 6. 5 E 4. fol. 128. F.N.B. 256. a Mich. 3 Car. Young versus Young Formedon in Descender Act of Court shall be amended IN a Formedon in the Descender brought by Young against Young the Demandant was within age and was admitted to prosecute by his Guardians and that appears by a generall admittance before Iustice Jones And this admittance was first entred in the remembrance of Gulstons Office and afterwards in the Plea Roll And the Demandant which is admitted by the Court viz. per Guardianos ad hoc per Curiam admissus and there the Concessit per Curiam quod prosequatur per Gardianos is entred and so is the Roll upon the View And in the Philizers Roll the recitall is That the Demandant per Gardianos admissus obtulit se And in this Roll the Concessit per curiam of admitting the Demandant to prosecute by his Guardian is not entred And after Verdict and Iudgment for the Demandant a Writ of Error was brought and that assigned for Error And it was moved that it might be entred upon the Philizers Roll. And it was resolved by all the Court that it should be supplyed and entred upon the Philizers Roll and the principall reason was because that this admittance by his Guardians is the act of the Court and not like to the entry of the Warrant of Attorney nor to the Essoin Roll vide Dyer 330. otherwise it is of Admission by Prochein ami Where an Infant ought to appeare by Gardian and where by Prochein amy vide Rawlins case Coke lib. 4. fol 53. The
Defendants disturbed her The said Bishop died and the Defendant plead that he is parsona imparsonata ex presentatione Domini Regis nunc And said that Sir Thomas Chichley was seised in Fee of the said Advowson and also of the Mannor of Preston and divers other Lands in the County of Cambridge which Mannors and Lands were holden of King James in Capite by Knights-service and being so seised he died and that this Advowson and the Mannor descended to Thomas Chichley his Son and Heir who at the time of his death was within age And that afterwards by force of a Writ of Diem clausit extremum this matter was found wherby the King seised the body and was possessed of the Mannor and of the Advowson and that the said King James died the King which now is suscepit regimen hujus regni and was possessed and the Church became void And the King by his Letters Patents under the great Seal presented the Defendant Thompson and traversed the Grant made by Sir Thomas Chichley to Thomas East and Edward Anger of the said Advowson as the Plaintiff had alledged The Plaintiff replyed protestandâ— that the Defendant is not Parson Imparsonee and that the Plea is insufficient Pro placito dicit quod non habetur aliquod tale recordum talis inquisionis post mortem praedicti Thomae Chichley militis modo forma prout wherupon the Defendant demurred And after many Arguments at Baâ— by Attho Henden Davenport and Hedley it was adjudged for the Defendant And that the Title of the Plaintiff being traversed brought to have been maintained and not to traverse other matter alledged by the Defendant for Traverse upon Traverse is only when the matter traversed is but Inducement Also it appears fully that the King is entituled to this Presentation though there was not any Office vide 21 E 4. 14 H 7. and then all the Titles of the King should be answered and therfore the deniall of the Office is not materiall for if he dies seised the King may present without Office vide Bendoes case 21 Eliz Rot 1378. Crachford against Gregory Lord Dacren when the King is entituled by Office to an Advowson though the very Title be in a stranger yet if the Church be void and he which hath Title present this is but Vsurpation Vide 17 H 7. Kel 43. 11 H. 8. ibid. fol. 200. vide 21 E 4. 1. 5 E 4. 3. or 13. of things which lye in Grant the King is in actuall possession Crachfords case 20 E 4. 11. Stamf. fol 54. 2. R 3. issue 7. 28. 23 H 8. Kel 97. new Book of Entries fol 130. vide there that Traverse is allowed to be taken upon Traverse vide for that 9 H 7. 9. 10 E â— 49. Dyer 107. 10 E 4. 2. 3. 6 E. 3. â— When two Titles appear for the King as here the dying seised of the Advowson of Sir Thomas C. who also died seised of the Mannor of Preston holden in Capite that is a good Title and the Office found is another Title and â—oth ought to be answered in case of the King vide for that matter 37 H 6. 6. 24 H 3. 27. 46. E. 3 25 9 H 6. 37. 39 H 2. 4. 40 E 3. 11. In case of severall charges to the King although the King be not party yet they ought to be answered Hedley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that the presentment of the King tolls all the right of the Plaintiff and therfore only ought to be answered and he ought not to traverse the Title of the Plaintiff which by the Plea was toll'd but notwithstanding that he answered not the dying seised of the Advowson and the Tenure by which the King is intituled upon the Office and therfore all is one And the Plaintiff had waved his Title and not maintained it And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pasch 4 Car. Congham's Case Rescous by the Plaintiff in the primer action IN an action upon the Case against Congham and his Wife That wheras the Plaintiff hath recovered in Debt against one and had a Writ of Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and the Sheriff had arrested the party and had him in Execution for the Debt the Defendants rescued the party and he escaped Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Feme was found guilty of the Rescous And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Aleph that this action lies not because that Debt lies against the Sheriff And the Sheriff shall have an action for the Rescous vide F N B. 102. And properly this action of Rescous lies where it is upon mean processe and that is for the delay by the Rescous and damage may be greater or lesser accordingly And the Rescous is according to the condition of him which is arrested for if he may be easily taken again and that he becomes not more poor that then the damage is the lesse vide 16 E 4. fol. 3. But after divers motions at Bar Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And the Lord Richardson held strongly that it lies And this Tort may be punisht at the Suit of the party who had damage therby viz. the party the Sheriff or Baily And Harvey and Crook agreed but Yelverton and my self doubted therof because that it is an immediate wrong to the Sheriff or Baily and the party had no prejudice in common presumption because that his action is transferred to the Sheriff who hath more ability to satisfie him Farrington versus Caymer LIonell Farrington qui tam pro se quam pro c. brought an Information against William Caymer Information where it shall be brought upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4. against Ale-brewers and Bear-brewers for selling Bear at higher prises then were assessed by the Iustices upon Not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff had a Verdict at Norfolk Assises And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Information was brought in the Common Bench and yet it was brought and tryed in the proper County where the Offence was committed wheras by 33 H. 8. cap 10. 37 H 8 cap 7. 21 Jac cap 4. it ought to be brought in the Country and not in the Common Pleas. And upon grand deliveration and hearing of councell of either part the Court resolved that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff And first it was agreed that wheras by the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4 which appoint that the Iustices of Peace assesse the prises of Barrels and other Vessels of Beer and that they which sell against that rate forfeit six shillings c. to be recovered by action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any Court of Record in which no wager of Law c. and gives one Moyety to the party which will sue and the other to the King no action may be brought in any Court of Record but onely in one of the four Courts of Record at Westminster
proceed by fiue to enforce him to lay it open yet these Affirmative Customs do not toll the Negative And to prove that the Lord had an Inheritance therin he vouched 14 E 2. Fitz. Grant 92. A Rent granted to one and his Heirs out of the Mannor of Dale which he hold of the Mannor of D. this is an Inheritance And if this shall not be a forfeiture then this Customary Inheritance which the Lord had in the feild-course might be tolled at the will and pleasure of the Copyholder Serjeant Hitcham argued strongly to the contrary First That it is no Inclosure because that all is not inclosed Secondly The forfeiture of a Copyhold is alwaies by some thing done to the Copyhold land it self but this is done as it is supposed to the feild-course of the Lord which is not Copyhold and it is better for the Copyhold and makes the land better and also the Feild-course is therby made better and more beneficiall to the Lord and therfore the Copyhold land is not altered but is meliorated and it is like so the case in Dyer 361. Althams case after no Wast done the Evidence was that a Trench was made in a Meadow by which the Meadow was Meliorated and adjudged no wast which might be given in evidence But he said that in Brooks case at the first comming of Popham to be chief Iustice it was adjudged that if a Copyholder build a new house it is a forfeiture for that altoreth the nature of the thing and put the Lord to more charge So if Tenant for yeare makes a Hay-yard in the land that is wast He said that this Custom is qualified by taking a Fine if he would or by imposing a pain in the Court to enforce the Defendant to lay it open And all the Court were of opinion that this is no forfeiture for the reasons before and that this Feild-course is a thing which commence by agreement and is but a Covenant and not of common right And Forfeitures which are odious in Law shall be taken strickly Trin. 5 Car. Starkey versus Tayler Case STarkey an Atterney of this Court brought an action upon the case against one Mr. Tayler of Lincolns Inn for saying of these words to him Words Thou art a common Barretor and a Judas and a Promoter And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words maintain not action for the generality and uncertainty that he shall be called a common Barretor And the chief Iustice seemed to be of opinion that those words are not more then if he had said That he was a common Brabler or Quarreller But it was urged by Serjeant Hicham that the action lies and that it is a generall Rule Quod sermo relatur ad personam As in Birchley's Case He is a corrupt man And in Mores Case it was said of an Attorney That he was a cousening Knave And if these words were spoken of a common person he doubted if they were actionable but being spoken of an Attorney action lies And if these words were spoken of Iudge without doubt they were actionable And in this case being spoken of an Attorney who is a Minister of Iustice and who hath the Causes of his Clients in his hands to gain them or to lose them The Statute of Westminster saies the Sheriffs are charged to expell all Barretors out of their Countries And in the Statute of 34 E. 3. is the description of a common Barretor and his punishment who is a stirrer of false and unjust Suits and that he shall be imprisoned during the pleasure of the King bound to his good behaviour and fined And Littleton in his Chapter of Warranties faith they are hired to keep Possessions and therfore an action lies But to say of another man That he is a common Barretor is not actionable unlesse he saith that he is convicted Hil. 3 Car Rot. 1302. Watt versus Maydewell Leicest WIlliam Watt brought an Ejectione firmae against Laurence Maydewell Where acceptance of a new Lease for years makes a surrender of the former upon a Lease made by Robert Rome upon Not guilty and a speciall Verdict found the Case was thus Francis Griffith seised of Land in Fee by Indenture bearing date the fourteen of November and 14 Iac. demised the said Land wherof c. for one and forty years to Robert Rome rendring two shillings Rent to commence from the Annunciation which shall be An 1619. and after the same year by another Indenture bearing date the third of December 15 Iac. to commence from the Annunciation last demised the same Lands for ninety nine years to Dame Frances Perroint who entred and was therof possessed And after that the said Francis Griffith by another Indenture the same year bearing date the fourteen day of November 16 Iac. to commence from the seventeenth of November An. 1619. devise it to the said Robert Rome for one and forty years who accepted it and afterwards entred and being possessed made his Will and appointed Executors and died the Executors administred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who was possessed untill he was ousted by the Defendant And the only question of this Case was if the acceptance of the second Lease by Robert Rome had determined discharged or extinguished the former Lease And after Argument it was adjudged for the Plaintiff the reason was because that by the Lease made to the Lady Perpoint for ninety nine years and her Entry Francis Griffith had but a Reversion and could not by his Contract made afterwards with Robert Rome give any Interest to Robert Rome This Lease made to Robert Rome viz. his former Lease was good in Interest being to commence at a day to come and is grantable over and may be surrendred or determined by matter in Law before the Commencement therof as if he take a new Lease to commence presently which see in 37 H. 6. 29. 22 E. 4. for it tuures in Contract And in this case it had been without question that the taking of the new Lease had been a surrender of the former if it were not by reason of the Lease for ninety nine years which is for so great a number of years that disables him to contract for one and forty years 37 H. 6. 17. 18. 14 H. 7. 3. Dyer 140. Vide Smith and Stapletons case in Plowden If a man makes a Lease for one and twenty years and after makes a Lease for one and twenty yeares by Paroll that is meerly void but if the second Lease had beene by Deed and hee had procured the former Lease to Attorn he shall have the Reversion vide Ive's Case Coke lib 5. fol 11. there it is adjudged that the acceptance of a Leese for years to Commence at a day to come is a present surrender of a former Lease These Cases were vouched in this Case Baker and Willoughby Serjeant Bakers Case in the Court of Wards with the Lady Willoughby that a
happen as in Chudleys case Coke lib 1. fol 133. a Feoffment to the use of the Feoffor for life and after his death to his first Son which shall be afterwards born for his life and so to divers And afterwards to the use of I. D. in tail It is resolved that all the uses limited to-persons not in Esse are contingent but the uses to persons in Esse vest presently and yet these contingent uses when they happen vest by interposition if the first Estate for life which ought to support them be not disturbed And in this case it was a good Estate for life in Margaret And then gives the remane in the Feoffees for eighty years if Nicholas and Elizabeth Sanders so long should live and if Elizabeth survive Nicholas then to Elizabeth for her life and after her decease to Posthumus in tail and after his decease to the said three Daughters in tail so that there the Estate for years determines upon the death of Elizabeth and so also the Estate for life to Elizabeth which was contingent determines by his death And the Lord Darbies case a Feoffment to the use of Edward The Lord Derbies case late Earl of Derby in tail and then to the use of the two Feoffees for eighty years if Henry late Earl of Darby should so long live and after his decease to Ferdinand and to the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of William now Earl of Derby And it was adjudged that the remainders vest presently And this possibility that Henry might have over lived the eighty years will not make the remainders contingent And in a Suit which was at Lancaster between Farrington and another Farringtons case upon a speciall Verdict there found about 8 Jac. and many times argued at Serjeants Inn it was afterwards adjudged a good remainder and not contingent And the same case in this Court upon a Scire facias for two have executor of certain Land for debt recovered against the Earl of Derby which Land was intailed by the same Conveyance c. brought against the Earl of Bridgwater and his Wife one of the Co-heirs of Ferdinand Earl of Derby was adjudged in this Court vide Borastons case Coke lib 3. fol 20. 14 Eliz Dyer 314. Lovies case Coke lib 10. 27 H 8. 24. 38 E 3. 26. 5 E 3. 27. 30. E 3. Collthurst and Bemchins case was urged that the remainder limited to B. for life and after that C. hath married Ja. S. then to the use of C. in Fee this is contingent and is collaterall And this case is not like to that And after Argument at Bar this Term it being argued before that the Lord Richardson was there who was of the same opinion we all concurred and Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff Pasch 8 Car. Metcalfe versus Hodgson Case MEtcalfe brought an action upon the case against Hodgson and Wharton late Sheriffs of the City of York and count That wheras time out of memory c. there hath been a Court of Record holden before the Sheriffs of the said City upon the Bridge called Ousbridge An action of the case lies not against a Sheriff for taking of insufficient Bail being Iudges and that in this Court every one having cause of action arising within the said City had used to commence any action for debt there and that the Defendants being arrested by their bodies the Sheriffs had used to take Bayle of them and to let them to Bayle finding sufficient sureties and that the Sheriffs are also and time out of memory have been Keepers of the Gaol there And wheras the Plaintiff had brought an action against one Smith and recovered the now Defendants being Sheriffs had taken insufficient Bail of him c. And upon Not guilty pleaded it was tryed before the Lord chief Baron at York for the Bail are supposed to be taken at Wakefield but that was not alledged for any thing which appears to be out of their Iurisdiction And the Iury contrary to the direction of the Lord chief Baron gave Verdict for the Plaintiff And after many motions in Arrest and praying of Iudgment it was resolved that this act was done by them as Iudges and for this Iudiciall Act no action lay And though that the Bail by the event appear to be insufficient yet there is no remedy by action upon the case it being without fraud or corruption and not for reward And this Case differs nothing from the ordinary cases of all insufficient Bailes taken by any of the Kings-Bench Common Bench or Exchequer And that they having two Authorities in una persona it shall be taken to be done by that Authority by which they have power to vail and that is as Iudges of the Court and not as Gaolers for by this they have no power to Bail any and in this capacity they are only subject to an escape vide Dyer 163. Error cannot be assigned in that which the Court of Common Bench do as Iudges vide 12 E 4. 19. Conspiracy lies not for that which a Iustice doth as Iudge of Record Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Hickes versus Mounford Trin. 7 Car. Rot. 514. Replevin REplevin brought by Walter Hickes against Simon Mounford and others the Defendants make Conusance as Bayliffs to Sir John Elliot Executor of Richard Giddy And that the place contain twenty acres and was parcell of the Mannor of Trevelun And that Thomas Archbishop of York and Cardinall and three others were seised of the Mannor wherof c. in Fee Traverse of a day and the third of June 11 H 8. by Deed inrolled granted to King H. 8. a Rent-charge of fifty Marks per annum out therof in Fee with clause of Distresse and convey the Rent by discent to E. 6. Mary and Elizabeth who by her Letters Patents granted it to Richard Giddy for life who made the said Sir John Elliot his Executor and died and for such a summ arrear they Avow c. The Plaintiff pleaded in Bar to this Avowry and confessed the Seisin of the said Arch-bishop and the others and said that the said Arch-bishop and the others the fourth of June 11 H 8. enfeoffed Peter Edgecombe in Fee of the said Mannor who conveyed it to Richard Edgecombe Knight who entred and licensed the Plaintiff to put in his Beasts which he did and that they were there untill by the Defendants distrained absque hoc that the said Arch-bishop and the others the aforesaid 3. June 11 H 8. granted the said Rent to the said King and his Heirs Modo forma prout the Defendants alledged Et hoc paratus est verificare The Defendants say that the Arch-bishop and the others granted the Rent to the King modo forma as they had alledged and Issue therupon and the Iury found That the said Arch-bishop and the others 11 H 8. recovered this Land against Sir
fee 60 Devise and what said in tail inde 85 Dower barred by Joynture 51 E. ELegit the Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds 16 Essoign though the Writ be not returned 28 Essoin upon return of an alias Summons 43 Essoine shall not be allowed in Dower after Issue 69 Error in omission of additions 41 Estate derived from one and shews not how 15 Exâ—cutors to what intents they shall be before probat of the Will 30 Executor the same person made by the Obligor and by the Obligee 128 Execution shall be de bonis testatoris where the Executors breake the Covenants of the Testator 35 Execution shall not be awarded upon Iudgment given in the grand Sessions of Wales 117 Extortion 53 78 Estrayes where they may be fettered 67 F. FIne to two and the Heirs of one to the use of them two and their Heirs 112 Fine de Oct. puris where the Caption was 14. February 135 G. GRant of an Advowson without alledging it to be by Deed 54 Grantee of a Rent-charge takes a Lease of part of the Land and after surrenders it the Rent shall be revived 94 Tenant for life with a Remainder to him in tail expectant and remainder to him in fee 96 Grant a Rent in fee and after had fee by Fine 96 H. HEriot where the Lord shall loose it when the Tenant hath none 4 Habeas Corpus liberty cannot be given to a Prisoner therby 129 Habendum void to parties not named in the Deed 88 Hue and Cry and Debt upon that Statute 125 I. INdempnitas nominis and supersedeas inde 45 Infant where he shall appear by Guardian and where by Prochein amy 92 Inditements for Rape and Buggery 115 Inns how they may be erected or restrained 99 Information against a Subject for Extortion 53 Information where it shall be brought 98 Intermarriage where it is a release of a promise c. before marriage 17 Jurisdiction a Plea therto where part of the land lies in the Cinque Ports 74 Judgment to what day it shall have relation 95 Joynture bars Dower 51 L. A Lord where he may be sworn 87 Lease by Feme in speciall tail 84 Lease by Baron and Feme without reservation of any rent 102 Lease where the acceptance of a new Lease makes a surrender of the former 104 N. NOtice where it shall be upon a promise 80 Nusances 136 O. OUtlawry where it may be pleaded 53 Obligation by the Sheriff where void 52 Office of a Park-keeper is good if the King dispark the Park 86 Obligation to levy a Fine before a day who shall do the first act 48 P. PArdon 79 Parliament what shall be said a Session 61 Pleas severall and by severall Defendants upon joynt Contracts 26 Prescription for a way and no place to which c. issue joyned on the Prescription 10 Prescription to have Herbage 45 Prescription to have Deer in discharge of Tithes 57 Plea as Heir and shews not how 15 Prescription to have Common omni tempore anni without saying quolibet anno 1 Plea of Grant of an Advowson without alledging by Deed 54 Prohibition 22 Prohibition to Chester 59 Q. QVire Impedit c. 31. 36 Quid juris clamat 89 Quod permittat 28 R. REcord shall be good where the conveyance is delivered to be inrolled but is not inrolled 1 Release of land devised before it be vested 60 Rationabile parte bonorum 109 Recovery if the Town be omitted therin the Land doth not passe 106 Record matter of Record tryed per pais 20 Remainder where it shall be said Contingent 118 Rent tendred at the day 13 Rent Assumpsit lies not for it 34 Rescous by the Plaintiff in the first action 98 Request where necessary 2. 73. 106 Return insufficient of a Writ of Quare Impedit 24 S. Statutes What shall be said a Parish Church within the Statute of 43 Eliz. 93 Resolves upon the Statute of 3 H. 7. cap. 2. 2 Resolves upon 35 Eliz. cap. 1. concerning Sectaries 61 Resolves upon 5 Eliz. concerning Aliens 132 Resolves upon the Statutes concerning Souldiers 134 Upon the Statute of Hue and Cry 125 Statute-Merchant without day of payment 42 Statute of Limitations extends not to Arrearages of Rent reserved upon Indenture 109 So De rationable parte bonorum 109 Debt upon a poenall Statute is not gone by the death of the King 82 Sci. fac against a Sheriff to have Execution of monies returned levied by him 32. 11 Sci. fac by Baron and Feme the death of the one shall abate it 37 Sci fac against the Sheriff for taking insufficient Pledges 77 Surrender by Baron and Feme of the Estate of the Feme for life and the King in consideration therof makes a new Lease 7 Suspension of things where they may be revived 94 Supersedeas by the Wife upon an Exigent against Husband and Wife 86 T. TEnder of Rent at the day 13 Tithes and action therupon 121 Tithes of Wood and small tithes 77 Trespass by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron and for the Battery of the Wife 59 Tryall where nul tiel vill it pleaded 31 Traverse upon Traverse 96 Traverse of a day 121 Town shall be intended whole Town 74 Traverse of Seisin 123 Tenure by Castleguard is Socage Tenure 91 Tryall of Treason how it shall be 131 Tryall of an action of Account upon receit in two Counties 111 Tryall of matter of Record by the Country 20 Trover and Conversion the Defendant justifie without confession of the Conversion 10 Treason persons attainded therof and set at large how they shall be brought to execution 21 V. VEnire fac from a Towne within a Parish 6 Ven. fac from divers Towns 27 39 Ven. fac where nul tiel vill is pleaded 31 Ven. fac of a Visne from a place known in a Town without making it from the Town 106 View counterpleaded 44 View upon a Quod permittat 28 Usurpation 66 Judgment in Dower upon Voucher 71 W. VVAter increase thereof in Westminster Hall 108 Waifes where they may be fettered and other learning therupon 67 Warrant to four and two only execute it 127 Warranty lineall bind not without Assets 22 Wast in cutting wood to make Cole-mines 19 Wast and inquiry of damages theron 45 Wast how the Writ shall be made where a Lease for life is made the remainder in fee 110 Writs and filing therof 112 WORDS I. S. is in Leicester Gaole for stealing a Horse 2 Welsh words 8 He is a cousening Knave and so I have proved him before my Lord Major for selling of me a Saphire for a Diamond 13 George is a cousening Knave and cousened a poore man of a hundred pounds and all the Georges are Knaves 14 He is a cousening Knave and hath cousened me of forty pounds 14 He is a false Knave and keeps a false Debt-book for he chargeth me with the receit of a peice of Velvet which is false 14 Thou art a pilfering Merchant and hast pilfered away my Goods from my Wife and Children 14 She is a cousening woman and hath cousened one of her Neighbours of four pounds and I will bring good proof of it 14 I doubt not but to see you indited for Sheep stealing 18 Forgery spoken of an Attorny 29 Thou hast forsworn thy self in the Councell before the Marches 34 Thou art a filching fellow and didst filch four pounds from me 34 I charge thee with Felony for taking money out of I. S. pocket and I will prove it 38 I have matter enough against thee for I. S. hath found Forgery against thee and can prove it 41 Forsworn where actionable and where not 44 He is a Bankrupt spoken of one not a Tradesman 45 He is a Bankrupt spoken of a Baker without alledging him to be a common Baker 49 Cousening Knave whether actionable or not 52 I will have him hanged for robbing in the high-way 58 Thou art a Theef and hast stoln my Corn 15 He is as arrant a Knave as any in England 72 I doubt not but to prove that the Plaintiff hath spoken Treason 75 Thou art a common Barretor a Judas a Promoter spoken of an Attorney 104 Thou art a Theef and hast stoln Passions Lamb and marked it and he denied it 110 Thou art a Theef and hast cousened my Cosin Baldwin of his Land 113 I will charge him with flat Felony for stealing my Ropes from of my Shop 113 Thou didst bring Faggots a mile and halfe to burn the Colliers 123 Thou hast made many false Certificates to the Major and Burgesses in that Court 123 Trust him not he is not worth four pence of a Tradesman 125 If I list I can prove him perjured 127 Thou old Witch thou old Whore I will have thee hanged if I can do it 132 I accuse Mr. Justice Hutton of high Treason 131 He is a Witch and an Inchanter and hath bewitched the Children of Strong 13 Errata PAge 1. line 28. for Bormis Inn read Bozuni's Inn p. 3. l. 19. r. grant p. 7 l. 25. blot out by p. 13. l. 2. r Witch p. 22. l. 20. for to the Secondary r. secondarily p. 24. l. 27. r. of p. 28. r. Quod permittat p. 49. l. 8. r. entire l. 24. r. Ignoramus l. 36. r. Lord Hobart the same p. 54. l. 18. the same L. 38. p. 56. l. 42. r. Vicaridge l. 54. r. folk p. 61. l. 9. r. vested p. 65. l. 37. r. Lord Hob. p. 76. l. 38. r. sold p 81. l â—â— r. Justices p. 88. r. Hartopp p. 99. l. 25. r. unwholesome p. 104. l. 35. r. Perpoint l ult r. demised p. 105. l. 23. r. Lessee l. 33. after One add Grants proximam Advocationem to and after l. ult r. admitted p. 107. l. 10. r. founded l. 15. r. trimming p. 109. l. 24 r. objection l. 25. r. Action p. 110. l. 14. r. property l. 19. the Ter-tenant r. and held the said lands l. 37. r. dimisione p 112. l. 10. r. time l. 24. put out which granted p. 214. l. 8. r. agreed l. 35. r. rendred p. 116. l. 5. r. Georges p. 117 l. 24. r. Certiorari p. 119. l. 23. r. her l. 35. r. to p. 130. l. penult r. according