It was agreed and resolved That it may and doth well enough hold For howsoever that none was charge able at the Common Law by the name of an Administrator inasmuch as by the Statute of 31. Ed. 3. cap. No accusation lay against an Administrator by that name And that A custome may not commence since the making of that Statute yet inasmuch as he was chargable at the Common Law as an Executor for his Administration so that the name of the charge is only changed and yet in substance is all one For every Executor is an Administrator and the pleading is upon an action brought against an Executor that he never was Executor nor ever administred as an Executor And an Administrator hath the quality and office of an Executor Therefore the custom of Forreign Attachments will hold against an Administrator as well as against an Executor As to the third Question which is Whether the Forreign Attachment for the debt due unto the Intestate after the promise broken be such a dispensation with the promise that no Action now lieth for the Administrator upon the breach of the promise It was agreed and resolved that the promise was dispensed with and no action lay upon the breach of it for the debt due by Tenant unto the Intestate which was the ground and cause of the promise made unto Spink the Plaintiff is taken away by the judgement had in London upon the custome of Forreign Attachments Et sublato fundamento fallit opus And therefore if after the promise broken there had been a Recovery had of the principal debt by the Plaintiff as Administrator or otherwise there had been a Release made unto the Defendant Now the Action upon the Case upon the promise would have failed inasmuch as the debt which was the consideration and ground of the promise is gone and so the dampnification which he should have had by not performance of the promise faileth And agreeing to this resolution was the Case of one Bardeston and Humfry cited to be adjudged whereupon an accompt he that was found in Arrearges upon a consideration of forbearance by one moneth promiseth payment of them And those Arrerages thus due being attached in the hands of the Accomptant after the promise broken It was held that no Action might afterwards be maintained upon the breach of promise The Case concerning the Prisage of Wine KIng Edward the third in the first year of his Reign doth by his Letters Patents bearing date the same time grant unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London that no prisage shall be of any of the Wines of the Citizens of London But they shall be free and discharged from the payment of all manner of Prisage George Hanger being a Citizen and Freeman of London and Resient within the City fraughteth four several Ships with Merchandize to be transported beyond the Seas the which four Ships being disburdened of the said Merchandize are laden with Wines Two of the Ships came up the Thames at London and before any unbulking of them George Hanger maketh Frances Hanger being his wife his Executrix and dieth Afterwards the other two Ships came up to London Sir Thomas Waller being cheif Butler of the King by virtue of Letters Patents made unto him Demandeth the payment of Prisage of the said Frances Hanger for the Wines in the said four Ships that is to say To have of every of the Ships one Tun before the Mast and one other Tun behind the Mast She denieth the payment of it whereupon the said Sir Thomas Waller as chief Butler exhibiteth his Information into the Kings Bench against the said Frances Hanger Whereunto the said Frances pleadeth a special Plea in Barre shewing the whole matter as abovesaid opon which Sir Thomas Waller demurreth in Law The Questions of this case are two The first is whether for the Wines which came up the Thames in the two Ships before the death of George Hanger any Prisage ought to be paid unto the King or not The second is whether any Prisage ought to be paid for the Wines which were upon the Sea in the Ships before the death of the said George Hanger but came not up the Thames until after the death of George Hanger The case was argued at several times by Sir Henry Mountague Knight then Recorder of London now Lord chief Justice of the Kings Bench Thomas Coventry then Utter Barister now Solicitor General unto his Majesty and Francis Mingay an Utter Barister of the Inner Temple on the behalf of Frances Hanger and by Henry Yelverton then an Apprentice of the Law of Graies-Inn and now Attorney General unto his Majesty and Thomas Crew of the same Inn likewise an Apprentice of the Law on the part of Sir Thomas Waller Likewise it was argued at several times by the Judges of the Kings Bench that is to say first by Sir Thomas Fleming Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Crook and afterwards by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Iohn Crook Sir Iohn Dodridge and Sir Robert Houghton And Sir Edward Crook Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Dodridge were of opinion that judgement ought to be given for Frances Hanger against Sir Thomas Waller for they conceived upon the reasons following that no Prisage ought to be paid neither for the Ships that came in after the death of George Hanger nor for the Ships that came in before the death of George Hanger but they all were to be discharged of the payment of Prisage by vertue of the said Charter made by Edward the third unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London First in regard thath these Wines thus in each of the four Ships aforesaid remained notwithstanding the death of George Hanger to be still the Wines of George Hanger for if Frances Hanger the Executrix were to bring an Action for the recovery of them she should bring an Action as for the Wines of George Hanger if Frances Hanger should be wained or attainted of Felony or Treason those Wines should not be forfeited insomuch as they are not the Wines of Frances Hanger but of George Hanger If a Judgement in Debt or other Action should be had against Frances Hanger as Executrix of George Hanger these Wines should be taken in execution as the Wines of George Hanger and so these Wines thus brought in before and after the death of George Hanger continuing as yet the Wines of George Hanger to be recovered as his Wines to be taken in execution as his Wines and to prevent a Forfeiture because these Wines shall be said to be the Wines of George Hanger whereby they may be protected and priviledged from the payment of Prisage within the words intent meaning of the before recited Charter made by King Edward the third which pointeth rather at the Wines then at the person of George Hanger
REPORTS OF SPECIAL CASES Touching several Customes AND Liberties OF The City of LONDON Collected by Sir H. Calthrop Knight Sometimes Recorder of London Whereunto is annexed divers ANCIENT CUSTOMES AND USAGES Of the said City of LONDON LONDON Printed for Abel Roper at the Sun St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet 1670. To the Right Worshipful Sir THOMAS LOE K. ALDERMAN OF The City of LONDON Worthy Sir BEing put in mind of that saying of Seneca Ingratum sidixeris Omnia dixeris And having a desire to avoid that Rock whereupon so many have suffered Shipwrack have had often conflicts within my self wherein I might express my thankfulness unto you of whom I a Stranger have received so many undeserved favours and at last bethought my self that you being one of the Noble Governours of this famous City of London and being likewise a President over several Companies of Merchants in it a Treatise concerning the Customs of the City of London or otherwise concerning the Priviledges and Immunities granted unto the Merchants of London would not altogether be an unfitting subject to be presented unto your view whereupon I have selected som few Cases collected by my self of the resolution of the Iudges concerning some Customes of your City and some Charters granted unto the Citizens of it and offered them unto your consideration the which I desire you to accept as a pledge and token of a thankful mind howsoever they in themselves are unworthy your pains to be taken in the reading of them and so with my truest wishes of the continuance of all happiness unto your self your thrice Noble Lady and the branches of your flourishing Family I take my leave ever resting From my Chamber in the middle Temple 2 Januarii Anno Dom. 1661. The affectionate and hearty well-wisher of all good unto you and yours Henry Calthrop The Contents of several Cases THe Case of the City of London concerning Neusances in stopping up the lights of their Neighbours houses by new Buildings page 1 Touching the custome of Citizens learning that Trade whereunto they have been Apprentices seven years and betaking themselves to other Trades 9 The custome of London touching forreign Attachment 27 The Case concerning the prisage of Citizens Wines  The Case concerning repairing of Wharfes and Docks  The cuctome of London to fine one chosen by the Commons to be Sheriff and refusing to hold 33 The Case of Merchant-Adventurers 36 Certifying Indictments upon Certioraries 42 Concerning Orphans Portions 46 The custome in not removing body and cause upon Habeas Corpus 50 The Case concerning payment of Tythes in London 54 Divers ancient cuctomes and usages of the of City London 79 Hust of Pleas of Land 80 Hustings of Common Pleas. page 85 Assizes of Mort d' ancest in London 94 Assizes of Novel Dissezen called freshforce in London 97 De curia Majoris London Custumis Civitatis ejusdem diversis Cesibus terminalibus in eadem curis 100 The Commission and Article of the Wardmote Inquest by the Mayor 129 An Act for the reformation of divers abuses used in the Ward-mote Inquests 146 The Articles of the charge of the Ward-mote Inquest 151 An Act Parliament for the preservation of the River of Thames 169 An Act of Common Councel concernidg the conservation and cleansing of the River of Thames 174 The Oath of the Constables within the City of London 180 The Oath of the Scavengers 182 The Oath of every Freeman of this City of London 183 An Act of Common Council concerning making Freemen of the City againct colouring of forreign Goods 185 The Statutes of the Streets of this City against Annoyances 187 Old Laws and Customes of this City 196 By Act of Parliament in 14. Car. 2. 198 REPORTS of special CASES Touching several CUSTOMES And LIBERTIES Of the City of LONDON c. The Case of the City of London concerning Neusans in stopping up the lights of their Neighbours Houses by New-buildings REginold Hughs an Attorney of the Kings Bench being seized in his demesne as of Fee of an ancient house in the Parish of Saint Olaves in the Ward of Queen Hithe London in the South-Part of which House have been three ancient Lights time our of mind Anthony Keeme having taken a Lease for 31. years from the Rector and Guardians of the Parish Church of Saint Michael at Queen Hithe by Indenture of a rumous house and yard next adjoyning unto the said House with a Covenant to bestow a 100 marks at the least upon the repairing or new building of the said House doth within two years pull down the said House and doth build a new House in the place where the old House stood and likewise upon the yard whereby the three ancient Lights on the South-side of â—â—â—â— House are stopt up whereupon Reynold Lewes doth bring his action upon the case against Anthony Keem for the stopping up the Lights unto which the said Anthony doth plead a special Plea in Bar shewing the ruinousness of the House and likewise the Lease made by the Rector and Guardians and the Covenant comprised within the Lease and doth also shew that there is a custom in London that if one have an ancient house wherein there are ancient Lights and one other hath a House adjoyning upon that House he that hath the adjoyning House may well enough enhance his House or build a new House upon his ground and to stop those ancient Lights of the House next adjoyning unless there be some writing to the contrary And he doth aver in facto that there was no writing to the contrary and that he according to the Custome did take down the old House and build a new one upon the same Foundation and upon the Yard opposite unto the said Lights whereby they were stopped up and upon this Plea in Bar the Plaintiff demurreth in Law The Questions of this case are First whether it be lawful for a man to build a House upon his own Ground whereby the Lights of an ancient House are stopped there being no Custome to enable him Secondly whether the Custome of London will enable a man to build a new house from the ground where no house formerly was whereby he may stop the ancient lights of his Neighbours house Thirdly Whether upon an ancient foundation a house may lawfully be enhansed so as it shall stop up the light of the Neighbours house adjoyning As to the first it is clear by the opinion of Sir Thomas Flemming Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Cristopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Crook Justices of the Kings Bench that there being no custome it is not lawful to erect a new house upon a void piece of ground whereby the old lights of an ancient house may be stopped up for the rule of equity and law saith Utere tuo ut alienum non laedas and the light which cometh in by the Windowes being an essential part of the House by which he
Commonalty for payment of the said sum at a certain day and thereupon is enlarged The four hundred Marks are not paid at the day whereupon the Mayor and Commonalty affirm a Plaint against him in London for the said Debt The Defendant obtaineth a Habeas Corpus to remove the body and the cause into the Kings Bench upon a supposition that he was to have the Priviledge by reason of a Priority of Suit in the Kings Bench and upon returne of the Habeas Corpus all this matter appeared unto the Court and it was moved by Sir Henry Mountague now Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench then one of the Serjeants of the King and Recorder of London that a Procedendo might be granted whereby the Major and Commonalty might proceed against him in the Court at London It being a customary Suit meerly grounded upon the custome of London But that was denied by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice and the whole Court because by the Law Chamberlain having cause of Priviledge by reason of the Priority of Suit against him in the Kings Bench might not be re-manded but he was to answer in that Court Whereupon the Major and Commonalty did declare against him upon the said Obligation in the Kings Bench. Secondly it was moved that the action upon this obligation might be laid in some indifferent County and not in London forasmuch as the Trial there must be had by those that were Parties unto the Action it being brought by the Mayor and Commonalty But Sir Edward Cook and the Court would not upon this surmise take away the benefit which the Law giveth to every Plaintiff upon a transitory action wich is to lay it in whatsoever County he will And if there be any such cause as is surmised then after Plea pleaded he may make an allegation That the City of London is a County in it self and that all the Citizens there are Parties to the Action which is brought whereby there may not be an indifferent Trial. And upon this surmise the Court shall order the Trial to be in a Forreign County The which was done accordingly and so the matter proceeded The Case of the Merchant-Adventurers KIng Edward the third in the year of his reign by Letters Patents doth incorporate certain persons by the name of the Merchants-Adventurers of England and doth give power unto them to transport white Clothes into divers parts beyond the Seas restrayning them from carrying over Woolls The Merchants-Adventurers do trade beyond the Seas and continue the transposing of Clothes white until the 29. of August in the tenth year of his Majesties Reign that now is At which time the King by his Letters Pattents doth encorporate the Earl of Sussex late Lord Treasurer of England Sir Thomas Vavasour Sir Stephen Soam William Cockayn and others by the name of The Merchants Adventerers of the new trade of London with full power authority to transport dyed and dressed Cloths into divers parts beyond the Seas with a restraint prohibiting all the Old Merchants-Adventurers which did not joyn themselves unto this new Company to tranport any under the forfeiture of them and also inhibiting the New Merchants from transporting any Clothes but such as are died and dressed And after three years passed they having power during that time to transport 36000 white Clothes And there being a refusal of the Old Merchants Adventurers to surrender up their Patent The King bringeth a Quo Warranto against divers of the Merchants of the old Company by particular names to know by what Warrant they do without Licence of the King transport Clothes white undied and undressed beyond the Seas The Merchants upon the return of the Quo Warranto do make their appearance And an Information being exhibited gainst them by Sir Fr. Bacon Knight now Lord Chancellour of England and then Attorney General unto his Majesty cometh into the Kings Bench and moveth the Court that the old Merchants Adventurers might have a short day the next ensuing Term to answer unto the Information exhibited against them Insomuch that the new Company of Merchants Adventurers standing at a gaze as being uncertain of what validity the old Patent would be did slack to transplant the Diers and other Tradesmen out of the Low-Countries into England being necessary Instruments for the puting in Execution of this design because there were not here in England those that were able to Die and Dress in that manner that the Low-Country men did And so there was in the interim a stop of the current of Merchandizing with our Cloth the which being the principal Commodity that we had here in England the Fleece that causeth it may well and aptly have the term of The Golden Fleece and there being a stop made of the traffiquing and trading with these clothes it is as dangerous unto the Politique Body of the Commonwealth as the stop of a Vein could be to the natural Body for as by the stop of a Vein the Blood is debarred of his free passage and so of necessity there must be a Consumption by the continuance of it follow unto the body natural So traffique being the Blood which runneth in the Veins of the Commonwealth it cannot be but that the hinderance of it by any long continuance must breed a Consumption unto the State of the Commonwealth Wherefore to open this Vein which was as yet somewhat stopped and to give a more free passage unto the Blood he was a Suitor unto the Court on the behalf of the Company of the New Merchant-Adventurers that the Court would give expedition in this Case for they conceived that if this new design might take its full effect as it was intended it could not be but of necessity there must a great benefit redound to the Commonwealth For first Whereas our State groweth sick by reason of the many idle Persons which have not means to be set on work this Dying and Dressing of Cloths within our Kingdome would give sufficient imployment unto them all whereby there should be a cure to the lazy Leprosie which now overspreadeth our Commonwealth Secondly Whereas now we send out clothes White and the Low-Country-men receive them of us and Dye them and Dress them and afterwards transport them unto forreign parts making a wonderful benefit to themselves both in point of profit and likewise in respect of maintaining their Navy whereas if the Clothes were Died and Dressed by our selves we might reap that matter of gain and also be Masters of the Sea by strengthening our selves in our Shipping Thirdly Whereas there happeneth often a confiscation of all our Clothes and much disgrace and discredit lighteth upon our Nation and our Clothes by the abuse of the Low-Country-men in stretching them a greater length than they will well bear when they Dye and Dress them now it should be prevented when they should never have the fingering of them to put that abuse in practice Wherefore this Patent made by
Custome for the payment of a thousand pound according unto the time limited by the Will and according to the Will aforesaid The Executor denieth to find Sureties whereupon he was committed to prison and a Habeas Corpus being awarded out of the Court of Kings Bench to have the Body of the Executor together with the cause all this matter appeareth upon the return And now it was moved by Richard Martin late Recorder of London then an Apprentice of the Law that the return was insufficient and so the Executor ought to be enlarged First in regard that the ground of the imprisonment was the Custome of London and the custome is against the Law and void insomuch that it enforceth an Executor to find Sureties for the payment of a Legacy according unto the Will where the law requireth that debts be paid before such time as Legacies be performed and the Law giveth an election unto the Executor to pay which of the Legacies he will in case there be not sufficient to pay all the debts and legacies of the Testator but this exception was disallowed by the said Court insomuch that the custome of London appeareth by the return to be that he shall find Sureties for the performance of the Legacies according unto the Law of the Realm and the Will of the Testator So as if the Executor had not sufficient to pay debts and legacies he hath the same power and liberty after such time as he hath found Sureties as he had before Secondly except on was taken because it appeared by the return that the Devisor was a woman and also only the Wife of a Freeman and not a Free-woman and she is not within the custom of London which only speaketh of a Freeman But this exception was over-ruled for a woman being a Free-woman within the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 29. which enacteth that no Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned c. but by the lawful judgement of his Peers So that she being a Barroness or Countess shall be tried by her Peers upon an Indictment preferred against her she shall also be reputed a Freeman within this custome Secondly the Wife of a Freeman having the liberty and priviledge to Trade in the City and so able to take benefit by it she shall also be bound by the customes of it Thirdly howsoever she was dwelling out of London at the time of the Will made she is a Freeman within the compass of the custome Fourthly it was objected that this custome of London concerning Orphans was an antiquated custome and had not been put in use by many years and therefore ought not now to be put in ure to take away the liberty of a man and especially also because the life of a custome is the usage but this exception was over-ruled for this custome is dayly put in Ure The custome in not removing body and cause upon Habeas Corpus A Petition being affirmed in London by one Hill a Citizen and Freeman of London against another Citizen and Freeman of London upon a Bond of a hundred pound a Summons is awarded against the said obliged and the pretext being returned that he hath nothing whereby he may be summoned within the City upon a Surmize made by Hill the Obligee that one Harrington a Citizen and Freeman of London is indebted in a hundred pound unto the first Obligor a Summons is awarded according to the custome of London of Forreign Attachments for the warning of Harrington who is warned accordingly whereupon Harrington procureth a Habeas Corpus for the removing of his body together with the cause into the Kings Bench upon which Writ a return is made in this manner that is to say That London is an ancient City and that time out of mind of man the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of London have had Conusans of all manner of Pleas both real and personal to be holden before the Mayor Altermen and Sheriffs of London in London and that in no action whatsoever they ought to remove the cause out of London into any other Court and do moreover shew a confirmation made by R. 2. in the seventh year of his Reign of all their customes and so for this cause they had not the body here nor the cause And exception being taken to the insufficiency of this return it was agreed and resolved by the whole Court of Kings Bench that this return made was ill for common experience teacheth that the usual course is and alwayes hath been that upon Habeas Corpus the body together with the cause have been removed out of London into the Kings Bench and likewise upon Certioraries awarded out of the Kings Bench. Records have been certified out of London into that Court for Justice being to be done unto the Citizens of London as well in that Court as in the 〈…〉 proper Court the Court of London being an inferiour Court unto the Court of Kings Bench where the King is supposed to sit in person ought to yeild bedience unto the Writs awarded out of that Court as the Supetiour Court but if the cause should be such that there should be a failer of Justice in the Kings Bench upon the removing of the cause because it is only an action grounded meerly upon the custome of London then a return made of the special matter will be warrantable or otherwise if the return be made that the custome of London is that no cause which is a meer customary cause wherein no remedy can be had but only in London according unto the custome of London may well be allowed so as the cause specially be returned into the Court whereby it may appear unto the Court that it is such a cause which will not bear action at the Common Law for it is usual in the Kings Bench that if the cause returned unto the Court upon the Habeas Corpus appear to be such a cause as will bear an action only by the custome and not at the Common Law the Court will grant a Procedendo and send it back again to London as if the cause returned appear to be an action of Debt brought upon concesit se solvere or to be an aaction of Covenant brought upon a Covenant by word without any specialty for these be meer Customary actions which cannot be maintained but by the custome of London and therefore that shall be remanded for if the Kings Bench should retain these causes after such time as they are removed and should not remand them there would be failing of Justice and the Judges of the Kings Bench in the person of the King do say Nulli negabimus nulli vendemus nulli differemus justitiam and the reteining of these causes would be a denying of Justice wherefore they do grant a Procedendo and remand it The case concerning payment of Tythes in London RIchard Burrel being seized in his Demesne as of Fee of a House called Green Acre a Shop and Ware-house in
Ancestours although the same Ancestors held elsewhere out of the City of any other Lordship by what service soever and the same Mayor and Aldermen ought to enquire of all the Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels within the same City pertaining to such Orphans and the Lands Tenements Goods and Chartells within the same City pertaining to such Orphans to seize and safely keep to the use and profit of such Orphans or otherwise to commit the same Orphans together with their Lands Tenements Goods and Chatels to other their friends upon sufficient Surety of Record in the Chamber of the Guild-Hall in convenient sort to maintain the same Orphans during their minority and to repair their Lands and Tenements and safely to keep their Goods and Chattels and to give good and true accompt before the said Mayor and Aldermen of all the profits of the same Infants wen they come to age or be put to a trade or married at the advice of the said Mayor and Aldermen and that in all cases if it be not otherwise ordained and disposed for the same Orphans and their Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels by express words contained in the same Wills of their Ancestors and no such Orphans may be married without consent of the said Mayor and Aldermen And in like sort where Lands Tenements Goods or Chattles within the same City are devised to a Child within age of a Citizen of the same City his Father living and the same Child be no Orphan yet by custome of the same City the said Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels shall be in the custody of the Mayor and Aldermen as well as of an Orphan to maintain and keep the said Lands Tenements c. to the use and profit of the said Infant and shall give good and true accompt for the same as is aforesaid And note that where a Citizen of the same City hath a wife and children and dieth all debts paid this Goods shall be divided into three parts whereof the one part shall come to the dead to be distributed for his Almes the other part shall come to his wife and the third part to his children to be equally parted amongst them notwithstanding any device made to the contrary and for the same the wife or children or any of them may have their recovery and suit to demand such Goods and Chartels against the Executors or Occupiers of the same Goods and Chattels before the same Mayor and Aldermen by plaint Item by ancient custome of the said City it was not lawful to any Stranger or Forreigner to sell Victuals or other Merchandizes to any other Stranger or Forreigner within the same City to self again nor to any such Forreigner or Stranger to sell Victuals or any other Merchandize within the said City by retail Item by ancient custome of the said City of London the Citizens and Ministers of the same City are not to obey any Commandment or Seals except the Commandment and Seal of our Sovereign Lord the King immediate neither can any of the Kings Officers make any Seisure or Execution within the said City nor within the Franchises of the same by Land nor by Water except only the Officers of the City aforesaid Item touching the Judgements given in the Sheriffs Court in Actions personal or in Assizes taken before the Sheriffs and Coroners by custome of the said City the parties against whom such Judgements are given may sue a writ of Errour directed to the May or Aldermen and Sheriffs to reverse the said Judgements in the Hust and if the Judgements be found good yea though the same Judgements be affirmed in the Hust yet the same party may sue another writ of Error directed to the Mayor and Sheriffs to cause the Record to come before the Justices assigned at Saint Martins le Grand as hath been heretofore done But if any party by such Judgemenn given before the said Sheriffs be convict in Debt or Damages and is therefore committed to Prison until he hath made agreement with the party and afterwards pursueth a Writ of Error to reverse the Judgement in the Hust where although the Judgement be affirmed and the same party will sue a-another Writ of Error to reverse the same Judgement before the Justices assigned at Saint Martins as is aforesaid yet nevertheless the same which is so in person must not be delivered out of Prison by ancient custom of the same City by means of any such Writ of Error until he have found sufficient Sureties within the said City or laid in the money into the Court to pay him that recovered the same if in case that the Judgement be afterwards affirmed And in case that such Writ of Errour be sued to reverse any Judgement given in the Hust before the Justices assigned at Saint Martins le Grand and it be commanded by Writ to safe keep the parties and to cause the Record and Process to come before the same Justices then shall the parties be kept as the Law requireth But no Record may be sent before the same Justices but that the Mayor and Aldermen shall have fourty dayes respite by appointment of the same Justices after first Sessions then to advise them of the said Record and of the Process of the same and at the first Sessions of the Justices after fourty dayes shall the said Process and Record be recorded before the same Justices by mouth of the Recorder of the said City And of Judgements given before the Mayor and Aldermen in the Chamber of the Guild-Hall according to the Law Merchant no Writ of Error is wont to be sued Item by ancient custome of the said City all the Liberties and Priviledges and other customes belonging to the said City are usually recorded by mouth and not to be sent or put elsewhere in writing Item the Citizens of London by custome of the City ought not by any Writ to go out of the City in any sort to pass upon an Enquest Item the Wife after the death of her Husband by custome of the City shall have her Frank Bank viz. a woman after the death of her husband shall have of the Rents within the same City whereof her husband died seized in Fee And in that Tenement wherein the husband and she did dwell together at the time of the death of the husband the woman shall have to her self wholly the Hall the principal chamber and the cellar wholly and shall have the use of the Oven the Stable Privy and Yard in common with other necessaries thereunto belonging for her life and at that hour that she is married she loseth her Frank Bank and her Dower of the same saving her Dower of other Tenements as the law requireth Item every Freeman of the said City using Trade may by custome of the same City take an Apprentice to serve him and learn him his Art and Mystery and that by Indenture to be made between him and his said Apprentice which Indenture shall be examined and