expressly that he recover treble damages yet because it did amount to so much if the words of the sentence be joyned together It was directed that a special Prohibition in which the Statute and the whole matter is to be mentioned be awarded And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court That the Statute of 2 â— 6. for substraction of Tythes meerly doth not give any damages but if the Tythe be first set forth and then they are substracted there because the Parson had once an interest in them he shall recover treble damages And the principal Case was resembled by Warburton Justice to the case of Waste that if the Jury give damages 20l l there the Court shall treble the damages and make the same 60l and so it was done in the principal case Hill 11 Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 342. GIPPE's Case A Man Libelled for Tythes in the Spiritual Court the Defendant alleadged a Modus Decimandi and thereupon had a Prohibition and afterwards the Plaintiffe in the Prohibition did not prove his suggestion within six months and therefore the Court granted a Consultation because the Law hath appointed a certain time within which time the suggestion is to be proved Otherwise the Parson should be delayed and prejudiced in his Tythes and so it was adjudged in Parson Bugs case Mich. 8. Jacobi in this Court Hill 11 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 343. CROSSE and STANHOP's Case AN action of false Imprisonment was brought against the Defendant and two other Justices of Peace of the County of York The Defendants justified the Imprisonment by reason of the Statute of 1 M. cap. That it should not be lawful for any maliciously and contumeliously to molest or disquiet any person or persons which are Preachers or after should be Preachers And the Plaintiffe demurred upon the Plea in Bar generally and two Exceptions were taken to the Pleading 1. Because the words of the Statute were misrecited for the words of the Statute are in the disjunctive maliciously or contumeliously And the opinion of the Court was that when the precedent subsequent words disjunctive are all of one sense that the word Or is all one with the copulative but where they are of divers natures as by word or deed it is otherwise The second Exception was That where the words were by the greater part of the Justices the Recital was by the better part of the Justices But notwithstanding these Exceptions it was adjudged against the Plaintiffe Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 344. CARTWRIGHT's Case CArtwright prayed a Prohibition and the Case was this A. lying sick upon his bed made his Will and afterwards said unto his Executors named in the Will I will that B shall have twenty pounds more if you can spare it And the Executor answered and said Yes forsooth but no Codicil was made of the same Legacie And a Bill was preferred in the Spiritual Court for the Legacie whereupon the Executor prayed a Prohibition And it was holden by this Court that although this Court hath not power to hold plea of the thing Libelled for there in the Spiritual Court yet it hath power to limit the Jurisdictions of other Courts and if they abuse their authority to grant a Prohibition Vid. 2 H. 4. 10. But it was doubted whether the Spiritual Court as this case is might give remedy to the person for the Legacie For the same not being annexed to the Will by a Codicil it was but fidei commissum and so the doubt was Whether the Spiritual Court might hold plea of it For if they cannot hold plea of it then in this case a Prohibition may be lawfully granted although that this Court have not power nor jurisdiction of the thing it self The Court would be advised of it and therefore it was adjourned Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 345. Sir CHRISTOPHER HEYDON's Case GOdsall Shepard Smith brought an Assise of Novel disseisin against Sir Christopher Heydon which was tryed at the Assises in Norfolk before Sir Tho. Fleming Lord Chief Justice of England and Justice Dodderidge which was found for the Plaintiffs and Judgment was given for them in the Court of Common-Pleas And thereupon Sir Christopher Heydon brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned for Error That whereas the Judgment was given upon his own Confession the Judgment was entred That the Plaintiffs did recover per visum Recognitorum Assise predict And after argument in the Kings-Bench it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Judgment given in the Common-Pleas should be affirmed notwithstanding the Error assigned And now to reverse the Judgment given in the Kings Bench he brought another Writ of Error in Parliament Cook Chief Justice said That the Clarks of the Chancery ought not to make a Writ of Error to the Parliament unlesse they have the Kings licence so to do And it was agreed by the whole Court that a Writ of Error lieth in Parliament upon the Transcript of the Record without bringing of the Record it self in Parliament For the Parliament is holden at the Kings pleasure and may be dissolved before the Errors be discussed and so the Record it self cannot be brought here again because the Parliament which is a higher Court was once possessed of it 8 H. 5. Error 88. The same Law in Error upon a Judgment given in Ireland 5 E. 2. Error 89. where only the Transcript of the Judgment is removed For if the Record it self should be brought into England it might be that before it came hither it shall be drowned in the sea and it is dangerous to commit a Record to the mercy of the winds and sea And Error lieth to reverse a Fine upon the Tenor of the Record and it is not necessary to bring the Fine it self because there is not any Chirographer in this Court to examine it At another day the same Term George Crook and Noy took five Exceptions to the said Writ of Error the first was Because the Writ doth recite the Judgment to be in Assis capt coram Tho. Fleming Capital Justiciar ad Placita Johannem Dodderidge milit unum Justic ad Placit coram nobis tent And the Exception was because that this latter addition was not to them both Dodderidge Justice held that the same was no good Exception to abate the Writ of Error because the omission is only in the addition of Honour which is surplusage and the Person is certain and his power appears to take the Assise and that Exception is not in point of jurisdiction but of denoting of the person and therefore is like the Case in 19 Eliz. Dyer 356. which is a stronger Case and 6 E. 6. Dyer 77. Haughton and Cook contr But Crook Justice did agree with Dodderidge that the addition of the same was but surplusage and that the Writ had been well enough without it Cook Chief Justice held the contrary For then he varieth from their
it is not known whether he be guilty or not and in Cuddingtons Case it was a general Pardon and that was the cause that the Action did lie for that it is not known whether he committed the Felony or not But they conceived that if it had been a particular Pardon that then in that case the Action would not have been maintainable For the procuring of a special Pardon doth presuppose and it is a strong presumption that the party is guilty of the offence Note it did not appear in the Case of Fines the principal Case whether the Pardon by which Dr. Spicer was pardoned were a general Pardon or whether it were a particular and special Pardon Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 415. DAVER's Case IN Davers Case who was arraigned for the death of William Dutton Ley Chief Justice delivered it for Law That if two men voluntarily fight together and the one killeth the other if it be upon a sudden quarrel that the same is but Man-slaughter And if two men fight together and the one flieth as far as he can and he which flieth killeth him who doth pursue him the same is Se defendendo Also if one man assaulteth another upon the High-way and he who is assaulted killeth the other he shall forfeit neither life nor lands nor goods if he that killed the other fled so far as he could Quod nota Pasch 21 Jacobi â—n the Court of Wards 416. Sir EDWARD COKE's Case THis Case being of great consequence and concernment The Master of the Court of Wards was assisted by four of the Judges in the hearing and debating of it and after many Arguments at the Barr the said four Judges argued the same in Court viz. Dodderidge one of the Justices of the Kings Bench Tanfield Lord chief Baron of the Exchequer Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and Ley Lord Chief Justice of his Majesties Court of Kings Bench The Case in effect was this Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents did grant to Sir Christopher Hatton the Office of Remembrancer and Collector of the first Fruits for his life Habendum to him after the death or surrender of one Godfrey who held the said Office then in possession Sir Christopher Hatton being thus estated in the said Office in Reversion and being seised in Fee-simple of diverse Mannors Lands and Tenements did Covenant to stand seised of his said lands c. unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of J. Hatton his son in tail and so to his other sons intail with the Remainder to the right heirs of J. Hatton in Fee with Proviso of Revocation at his pleasure during his life Godfrey the Officer in possession died and Sir Christopher Hatton became Officer and was possessed of the Office and afterwards he became indebted to the Queen by reason of his said Office And the Question in this great Case was Whether the Mannors and Lands which were so conveyed and setled by Sir Christopher Hatton might be extended for the said Debt due to the Queen by reason of the Proviso and Revocation in the said Conveyance of Assurance of the said Mannors and Lands the debt due to the Queen was assign'd over and the Lands extended and the Extent came to Sir Edward Coke and the heir of John Hatton sued in the Court of Wards to make void the Extent And it was agreed by the said four Justices and so it was afterwards decreed by Cranfield Master of the Court of Wards and the whole Court That the said Mannors and Lands were liable to the said Extent And Dodderidge Justice who argued first said that the Kings Majestie had sundry prerogatives for the Recovery of Debts and other Duties owing unto him First he had this prerogative ab origine legis That he might have the Lands the Goods and the Body of the Person his Debtor in Execution for his Debt But at the Common Law a common person a common person could not have taken the body of his debtor in execution for his debt but the same priviledg was given unto him by the Statute of 25. E. 3. cap. 17. At the Common Law he said that a common person Debtee might have had a Levari facias for the Recovery of his Debt by which Writ the Sheriffe was commanded Quod de terris Catallis ipsius the Debtor c. Levari faciat c. but in such Case the Debtee did not meddle with the Land but the Sheriffe did collect the Debt and pay the same over to the Debtor But by the Statute of West 2. cap 20. The Debtee might have an Elegit and so have the moyetie of the Lands of his Debtor in Execution for his Debt as it appeareth in C. 3. part 12. in Sir William Harberts Case Secondly He said That the King had another prerogative and that was to have his Debt paid before the Debt of any Subject as it appeareth 41. E. 3. Execution 38. and Pasc 3. Elizabeth Dyer 197. in the Lord Dacres and Lassels Case and in M. 3. E. 6. Dyer 67 Stringfellows Case For there the Sheriffe was amerced because the King ought to have his Debt first paid and ought to be preferred before a Subject vid. 328 Dyer There the words of the Writ of Priviledg shew that the King is to be preferred before other Creditors By the Statute of 33. H. 8. cap. 39. The Execution of the Subject shall be first served if his Judgment be before any Processe be awarded for the Kings debt In the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. I find that by the Common Law the King might grant a Protection to his Debtor that no other might sue him before that the King was satisfied his debt See the Writ of Protection Register â— 81. B. the words of which are Et quia nolumus solutionem debitorum nostrorum caeteris omnibus prout ratione Perogativae nostrae totis temporibus retroactis usitatae c. But that grew such a Grievance to the Subject that the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. was made And now by that Statute a common person may lawfully sue to Judgment but he cannot proceed to Execution and so the Kings Prerogative is saved unless the Plaintiffe who sueth will give security to pay first the Kings Debt For otherwise if the Paty doth take forth Execution upon his Judgment and doth levy the money the same money may be seized upon to satisfie the Kings Debt as appeareth in 45. E. 3. title Decies tantum 13. The third Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have the Debt of the Debtor to the Kings Debtor paid unto him v. 21 H. 7. 12. The Abbot of Ramseys Case The Prior of Ramsey was indebted to the King and another Prior was indebted to the Prior of Ramsey and then it was pleaded in Barr that he had paid the same Debt to the King and the Plea holden for a good Plea
the Court was That it is a good grant of an Annuity by these words annualem redditum But whether the Husband shall have a Writ of Annuity after the death of the wife for an Annuity during the Coverture they were in some doubt because it is but a thing in Action as is an Obligation Otherwise were it of a Rent which she had for life Note in pleading for a Rent he shall plead That he was seised c. Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 152 WINKFEILD'S Case Winkfeild devised Land in Norfolk to one Winkfeild of London Goldsmith and to his heirs in Fee And afterwards he made a Deed of Feoffment thereof to divers persons unto the use of himselfe for life without impeachment of waste the Remainder unto the Devisee in fee. But before he sealed the Deed of Feoffment he asked one if it would be any prejudice to his Will who answered No. And the Devisor asked again if it would be any prejudice because he conceived that he should not live untill Livery was made And it was answered No. Then he said that he would seale it for his intent was that his Will should stand And afterwards Livery was executed upon part of the Land and the Devisor died Rodes and Periam Justices The Feoffment is no Countermand of the Will because it was to one person but perhaps it had been otherwise if it had been to the use of a stranger although it were not executed Anderson Chiefe Justice and others the Will is revoked in that part where the Livery is executed And he said It would have been a question if he had said nothing And all the Justices agreed That a man may revoke his Will in part and in other part not And he may revoke it by word and that a Will in writing may he revoked by word Periam said It is no revocation by the party himselfe but the Law doth revoke it to which Windham agreed But he said That if the party had said nothing when he sealed the Feoffment it had been a revocation of the party and not of the Law Periam If the Witnesses dye so as he cannot prove the words spoken at the sealing of the Feoffment the Feoffment will destroy the Will and so he spake to Anderson who did not deny it All this was delivered by the Justices upon an Evidence given to a Jury at the Barre Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 153 NOte That it was said by Anderson Chiefe Justice That if one intrude upon the possession of the King and another man entreth upon him that he shall not have an Action of Trespasse for he who is to have trespasse ought to have a possession and in this case he had not for that every Intruder shall answer the King for his time and therefore he shal not answer to the other party To which Walmesley and Fenner Serjeants agreed Periam doubted of it for he conceived That he had a possession against every stranger Snagg Serjeant conceived That he might maintain an Action of Trespasse but Windham and Rodes Justices were of opinion that he could not maintain Trespass Walmesley he cannot say in the Writ Quare clausam frâ—git c. Rodes vouched 19. E. 4. to maintain his opinion Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 154 NORRIS and SALISBURIE'S Case IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the Case was this Norris was possessed of wools for which there was a contention betwixt the Defendant and one A. And Norris promised A. in consideration that the goods were his and also that he should serve processe upon Salisbury out of the Admiral Court that he would deliver the goods to A. And afterwards he delivered the goods to Salisbury the Defendant who gave him Bond with Condition to keep him harmlesse from all losses charges and hinderances concerning and touching the said wools Afterwards A. served processe upon him and he did not deliver to him the goods for which A. brought his Action upon the Case against Norris who pleaded That he made no such promise which was found against him And afterwards Norris brought an Action of Debt upon the Bond against Salisbury because he did not save him harmlesse in that Action upon the Case And the opinion of the whole Court was That the Action of Debt would not lie because that the Action upon the Case did not concern the wools directly for the Action is not brought but for breach of the promise And that is a thing of which the Defendant had not notice and it was a secret thing not concerning the wools but by circumstances and so out of the Condition Anderson Chiefe Justice said That if A. promise B. in Consideration that B. is owner of goods and hath them to deliver them to C. the same may be a good consideration yet he somewhat doubted of it But Walmesley did affirme it to be a good Consideration Mich. 29 Eliz in the Common Pleas. 155 IT was holden by the whole Court That in an Action of Trespasse It is a good plea in barre That the Plaintiffe was barred in an Assize brought by him against the Defendant and issue joyned upon the Title But otherwise if it were upon the generall issue viz. Nul tort nul disseisin For then it might be that the Plaintiffe was never ousted nor disseised and so no cause to recover In which case it was no reason to put him from his Writ of Right Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Intratur Mich. 27. Rot. 1627. 156 BRAGG'S Case A Woman having cause to be endowed of a Manor in which are Copy-holders doth demand her Dower by the name of certain Messuages certain Acres of land and certain Rents and not by the name of the third part of the Manor and she doth recover and keeps Courts and grants Copy-holds It was holden by the whole Court that in such Case that the Grants were void for she hath not a Manor because she hath made her demand as of a thing in grosse Otherwise if the demand had been of the third part of the Manor for then she had a Manor and might have kept Courts and granted Copies And the pleading in that Case was That she did recover the third part of the Manor per nomen of certain Messuages and Acres and Rents which was holden to be no recovery of the third part of the Manor Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 157 NOte it was holden for Law That the Justices may increase but not decrease damages because the party may have an Attaint and so is not without remedy But note contrary by Anderson and Periam Justices Hill 39. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 158 SErjeant Fenner moved this Case That the Lord of a Manor doth prescribe That if the Tenant do a Rescous or drive his Cattel off from the Land when the Lord comes to distrain that the Tenant shall be amerced by the Homage and that the Lord may distrain for the same Anderson
Chief Justice did conceive it might be a good custome and so also was the opinion of Rodes Justice and he vouched 11 H. 7. where the Lord had Three Pound for Pound-breach Fenner It is extortion if the amercement be not for a thing which is a common Nusans and cited 11 H. 4. to prove it Periam Justice said That hee said well Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1962. 159 GILE'S and NEWTON'S Case THE Case was That the Queen seised of the Manor of Gascoigne and of the Graunge called Gascoigne Graunge in D. did grant all her Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. and it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Manor did not pass And so Anderson Chief Justice said it is if it were in the Case of a common person but an Advowson shall passe by the Feoffment of the Manor without Deed without the words cum pertinentiis for that is parcell of the Manor which the whole Court granted Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 160 J. S. was arrested by force of a Latitat out of the King's Bench at the Suit of J. D. and the Sheriffe took an Obligation of him with two Sureties upon condition that he appear such a day in the King's Bench and also that ad tunc ibidem he answer the said J. D. in a Plea of Trespass It was moved by Rodes Serjeant That the Obligation was void by the Statute of 23. H. 6. by which Statute no Obligation shall be said to be good if not for appearance only and this Obligation is for appearance and also that he shall answer to J. D. which is another thing then is contained in the Statute and therefore it is void But all the Justices were of opinion That the Obligation was good notwithstanding that because that the words of the Writ directed to the Sheriffe are Quod capias such a man It a quod habeas corpus ejus hîc such a day ad respondendum tali in a Plea of Trespasse and so nothing is contained in the Bond which is not comprised within the Writ directed unto him but if any other collaterall thing be put into the Obligation then the Bond shall be void for the whole 31. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 161 BUCKHURST'S Case LEssee for ten years granted a rent charge unto his Lessor for the years Afterwards the Lessor granted the Remainder in Fee to the Lessee It was the opinion of the whole Court that the rent was gone and extinct because the Lessor who had the rent is a party to the Destruction of the Lease which is the ground of the Rent 29. Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 162 ALLEN and PATSHALL'S Case A Copy-holder doth surrender unto the use of a Stranger for ever and the Lord admits the Surrendree to have and to hold to him and his Heirs It was adjudged in this Case That if it were upon a devise that such a one should have the Copyhold in Fee and afterwards a surrender is made unto the Lord to grant the Copy-hold according to the Will and he grants it in Fee to him and his Heirs that the Grant is good But quaere in the first Case for it was there but a bare Surrender only Mich. 27 28. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 163 STRANGDEN and BARNELL'S Case AN Action of Trover and Conversion was brought of Goods in Ipswich the Defendant pleaded That the Goods came to his hand in Dunwich in the same County and that the Plaintiffe gave unto him the goods which came to his hands in Dunwich absque hoc that he is guilty of any Trover and Conversion of Goods in Ipswich And by the opinion of the Court the same is a good manner of Pleading by reason of the speciall Justification Vide 27. H. 6. But when the Justification is generall the County is not traversable at this day Vide 19. H. 6. 6 7. Mich. 27. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 164 BARTON and EDMOND'S Case AN Infant and another were bounden in a Bond for the Debt of the Infant The Infant at his full age did assume to save the other man harmelesse against the said Bond afterwards the Infant died It was resolved by the whole Court that upon this Assumpsit an Action upon the Case would lie against the Executors of the Infant But if a Feme Covert and another at her request had been bounden in such a Bond and after the death of her Husband she had assumed to have saved the other harmelesse against such Bond such Assumpsit should not have bound the Wife Trinit 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 165 ZOUCH and BAMPORT'S Case THis Case was moved When the Defendant pleads in Bar to the Action and the Plaintiffe replies and the Defendant doth demur specially upon the Replication and the Bar is insufficient Whether the Justices shall give Judgment upon the Replication or shall resort unto the insufficient Bar the Replication being also insufficient And the opinion of the Court was That when the Action is of such a nature that the Writ and the Count doth comprehend the Title as in a Formedon and the like then because there is a sufficient title for the demandant by the Writ and the Count so as the Judges may safely proceed to Judgement for the Plaintiffe there they shall resort to the Barr. Contrary in Cases where the Title doth commence only by the Replication as in Assize Trespass and the like 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer 166 NOte it was said by Sir Francis Bacon the King's Solicitor That it was adjudged 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer That where the King had made a Lease for life who was ousted by a Stranger that the same should be said a Disseisin of the particular estate against the common ground which is That a man cannot be disseised of lesse estate then of a Fee-Simple 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 167 IT was holden and adjudged by Popham Chief Justice of the Kings Bench That where a Lease was made unto the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor that the same was a good remainder notwithstanding the uncertainty and that in that Case the Husband after the death of the Wife should have Judgement to recover the Land 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 168 PROCTER'S Case IT was adjudged in this Case That the Lachess of the Clark in not entring of the Kings Silver shall not prejudice the King or the Crowne 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 169 HARDING'S Case IT was holden by the whole Court of Kings Bench as it was reported by Sir Robert Hitcham Knight That if a man make a Lease of Copy-hold land and of Free-hold land rendring Rent and the Copy-hold descends to one and the Free-hold to another that the rent shall be apportioned Trinit 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Rot. 1702. 170 LEONARD and STEPHEN'S Case IN Trespass the issue joyned was Whether it were a Feoffment or not and
was adjudged against the Plaintiffe as in a Valore Maritagii if the Defendant will shew that hee tendered a mariage whereas it is not needfull for him so to do yet if the same be not true and issue be taken upon it Judgement shall be given against him wherefore hee concluded for the Plaintiffe The principall Case was adjourned Trinit 10 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 270 GOODMAN and GORE 's Case GOodman brought an Assize against Gore and others for erecting of two houses at the West end of bis Wind-Mill per quod ventus impeditur c. And it was given in Evidence That the said houses were situate about eighty feet from the said Mill and that in height it did extend above the top of the Mill and in length it was twelve yards from the Mill and notwithstanding this neernesse the Court directed the Jury to find for the Defendant And in that Evidence it appeared by a Deed procured by the Plaintiff himself That his Wife was Joint-tenant with him and therefore it was holden by the Court That the Assize brought in his own name alone was not well brought And Cook Chief Justice also said That the Count was not good by reason of these words viz. Per quod ventus impeditur for he said That these were the words of an Action upon the Case and not of an Assize But the Clarks said That such was the usuall forme ad quod non fuit responsum and in that Case it was said obiter by Cook Chief Justice That if the Husband and Wife be Joint-tenants and the Husband sowes the Land and dieth and the Wife doth survive that she shall have the embleements Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 271 HARDINGHAM's Case IN an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit the Defendant did justifie That he did enter and distrain for an Amercement in the Sheriffs Torne which was imposed upon the Plaintiffe for enchroaching upon the Kings High-way without shewing that the same was presented before the Justices of Peace at their Sessions as the Statute of 1. E. 4. cap. 2. requireth Haughton Serjeant for stay of Judgement in this Case said That the Statute is That the Justices of Peace shall award Process against the person who is so indicted before the Sheriffe which was not done in this Case And he said That the Statute did not extend to Amercements only in Trespasses Quare vi armis but to every other Trespass for the Statute speaks of Trespasses and other things which shall be extended to all Trespasses Cook Chief Justice said That the Statute of 1. E. 4. cap. 2. did not extend to Trespasses which were not contra pacem as the encroachment in this Case is for otherwise the Lord of a Leet could not distrain for an amercement without such presentmennt before Justices of the Peace And although the Statute speaks of Felony Trespass c. the same is to be meant of other things of the same nature which is proved by the clause in the Statute viz. That they shall be imprisoned which cannot be in the principall Case at Bar. Warburton and Winch Justices agreed in opinion with Cook Chief Justice Trinit 10. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 272 FRAUNCES and POWELL's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Spirituall Court for citing the Plaintiffe out of his Diocess upon the Statute of 23. H. 8. and by the Libel it appeared That Powell the Defendant had complained against the Plaintiffe in the Court of Arches for scandalous words spoken in the Parish of Saint Sepulchers London Cook Chief Justice held That a Prohibition would lie unlesse the Bishop of London had given liberty to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to entermeddle with matters within London for he said that in the Statute of 23. H. 8. there is a clause of exception in case where such liberty is given by the inferior Diocesan and therefore a day was given by the Court to procure a certificate of the opinion of the Civilians whether such authority given by the Inferiour Ordinary to the Arch-Bishop were Warranted by there Law or not for the Statute of 23. H. 8. is so and then if the authority be lawfully granted no prohibition will lye And Cook said that the Statute of 23. H. 8. was made but in affirmance of the common Law as appears by the books of 8. H. 6. and 2. H. 4. For there it is said that if one be excomenge in a forrain Dioces that the same is void coram non judice and he said that the principal cause of making of the said Statute was to maintain the Jurisdiction of Inferiour Diocesses But it was holden that if the Plaintiff had defamed the Defendant within the Peculiar of the Arch-Bishop that in such case he might be punished there although that he did inhabit within any remote place out of the Peculiar of the Arch-Bishop and in this Case it was said that the Arch-Bishop had in thirteen Parishes in London Peculiar Jurisdiction It was adjorned Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Court of Wards 273 COTTONS Case SIR John Tirrel Tenant in Capite made a Lease unto Carrel for 1000. years and further covenanted with Carrel and his Heirs that upon payment of five Shillings that he and his heirs would stand seised of the same Lands unto the use of Carrel and his Heirs And in the Deed there were all the ordinary clauses of a conveyance bona fide viz. That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands discharged of all Incumbrances and that he would make further assurance c. Carrel assigned this Lease to Cotton who died in possession his Heir within age and in two Offices the Jury would not find a Tenure because it was but a Lease for years And in a que plura the matter came in question in the Court of Wards And Cook Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Tanfeild Chief Baron of the Exchequer were called for Assistants to the Court of Wards and they were of opinion that because it was found by the Offices that Cotton died in possession that the same was sufficient to entitle the King to Wardship of the Lands But before the Judges delivered there opinions the Lessee was compelled to prove the Sealing of the Lease by witnesses which was dated 12. years before For if they have no sufficient witnesses to prove the Sealing of the Lease without all doubt there was sufficient matter found to entitle the King viz. that the party died in possession which shall be intended of an estate in Fee simple till the contrarie be proved But the two Justices moved the Attorney That he would not trouble himself with the proof of a matter in fact For they said It was confessed on all sides that there was such a Lease and that the Assignee of it died in possession of the Land and therefore they said that they were cleer of opinion that the Heir of such a Lessee who died in possession should be
the case which implyed their opinions to be for the Universitie And 21. H. 7. was vouched That the Patronage was only matter of favour and was not a thing valuable And in this case Cook chief Justice said That Apertus haereticus melius est quam fictus Catholicus Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 310 BOND and GREEN's Case AN Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator the Defendant shewed how that there were divers Judgments had against him in 〈◊〉 Aâ—d â—â—so that there was another Debt due by the Testator which was assigned over unto the Kings Majesty and so pleaded That he had fully Administred Barker Serjeant took Exception to the pleading because it was not therein shewed that the King did assent to the Assignment and also because it was not shewed that the Assignment was enrolled The Court said nothing to the Exceptions But whereas he Defendant as Administrator did alledge a Retayner in his own hands for a debt due to himselfe The opinion of the whole Court was that the same was good and that an Administrator might retayne to satisfie a debt due to himselfe But it was agreed by the Court That an Excecutor of his own wrong should not Retayne to satisfie his own debt See to this purpose C. 5. part Coulters Case Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 311 STROWBRIDG and ARCHERS Case IN An Action of debt upon a Bond the Defendant was Outlawed And the Writ of Exigent was viz. Ita quod habeas corpus ejus hîc c. whereas it ought to be coram Justiciariis nostris apud Westminster And for that defect the utlagary was reversed and it was said that it was as much as if no Exigent had been awarded at all And upon the Reversall of the utlagary a Supersedeas was awarded and the party restored to his goods which were taken in Execution upon the Capias utlagatum It was also resolved in this Case That if the Sheriffe upon a Writ of Execution served doth deliver the mony or goods which are taken in Execution to the Plaintiffs Atturney it is as well as if he had delivered the same to the Plaintiff himself for the Receipt by his Atturney is in Law his own Receipt But if the Sheriff taketh goods in Execution if he keep them and do not deliver them to the paâ—â— at whose suit they are taken in Execution the party may have a new Execution as it was in the principal Case because the other was not an Execution with Satisfaction Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 312 CHAVVNER and BOVVES Case BOwes sold three Licences to sell Wine unto Chawner who Covenanted to give him ten pounds for them and Bowes Covenanted that the other should enjoy the Licences It was moved in this Case whether the one might have an Action of Covenant against the other in such Case And the opinion of Warburton and Nichols Justices was That if a Man Covenant to pay ten pound at a day certain That an action of Debt lyeth for the money and not an action of Covenant Barker Serjeant said he might have the one or the other But in the principall Case the said Justices delivered no opinion 313 Note That this Day Cooke Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was removed to the Kings Bench and made Lord Chief Justice of England And Sir Henry Hobart who was the Kings Aturney generall was the day following made Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Sir Francis Bakon Knight who before was the Kings Solicitor was made Atturney Generall And Mr Henry Yelverton of Grays-Inn was made the Kings Solicitor and this was in October Term. Mich. 11 Jacobi 1613. Mich. 11. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 314 THis Case was put by Mountague the Kings Serjeant unto the Lord Chief Justice Hobart when he took his place of Lord Chief Justice in the Common Pleas viz. Tenant in tail the Remainder in taile the Remainder in Fee Tenant in tail is attainted of Treason Offence is found The King by his Letters Patents granteth the lands to A who bargaineth and selleth the land by Deed unto B. B. suffers a common Recovery in which the Tenant in tail is vouched and afterwards thâ— Deed is enrolled And the question was Whether it was a good Bar of the Remainder And the Lord Chief Justice Hobart was of opinion That it was no barre of the Remainder because before enrollment nothing passed but only by way of conclusion And the Bargainee was no Lawfull Tenant to the Precipe Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 315 WHEELER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition upon the Statute of 5. E. 6. for working upon Holy days and the Case was That a man was presented in the spirituall Court for working viz. carriage of Hay upon the feast day of Saint John the Baptist when the Minister preached and read divine service and it was holden by the whole Court of Common Pleas That the same was out of the Statute by the words of the Act it self because it was for necessity And the Book of 19 H. 6. was vouched That the Church hath authority to appoint Holy days and therefore if such days be broken in not keeping of them Holy that the Church may punish the breakers therof But yet the Court said That this day viz. the Feast day of Sr John the Baptist was a Holy day by Act of Parliament and therefore it doth belong unto the Judges of the Law whether the same be broken by doing of such work upon that day or not And a Prohibition was awarded Mich. 11 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 316 REARSBY and CUFFER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Court of Requests because that a man sued there by English Bill for money which he had layd out for an Enfant within age for his Meat drink necessary apparel and set forth by his Bill that the Enfant being within age did promise him to pay the same And a Prohibition was awarded because as it was said he might have an action of Debt at the common Law upon the contract for the same because they were things for his necessary livelihood and maintenance And it was agreed by the Court That if an Infant be bounden in an Obligation for things necessary within age the same is not good but voidable Quaere for a difference is commonly taken When the Assumpsit is made within age and when he comes to full age For if he make a promise when he cometh of full age or enters into an Obligation for necessaries which he had when he was within age the Law is now taken to be that the same shall binde him But see 44. Eliz. Randals Case adjudged That an Obligation with a penaltie for money borrowed within age is absolutely void Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 317 SMITH's Case SMith one of the Officers of the Court of Admiralty was committed by the Court of Common Pleas to the prison of
Commission which is their authority but if it had been left out in their Commission then the Writ had been good enough And he said that when a man meddles with a thing which is but surplusage which he needed not to do he must recite the same substantially otherwise his plea will be vitious C. 4 par Palmers case And when he maketh Tho. Fleming Capit. Justic ad Placita indefinitely he varieth from the truth for the stile is Tho. Fleming Capit. Justic ad Placita coram Rege tent Haughton Justice acc ' and he said that in every Writ of Error which is to remove a Record three things ought to be expressed 1. Mention is to be made before what person it was taken as the book is in 28 H. 6. 11. 2. It is to mention betwixt whom it was 9 H. 6. 4. 3. The manner of the caption is to be mentioned whether by Writ or without Writ 2 R. 3. 2 3. and this Writ faileth in the first of them therefore he concluded that the VVrit should abate Cook Chief Justice was of the same opinion and agreed that Misnosmer and variance are not to be favoured if they be not substantial and essential quae dant esse rebus and he said that the variance in this case is of such nature For in many Records yet extant and in the time of King H. 3. it is to be found that the Chief Justice of England did sit and give Judgment in the Common-Pleas and in the Exchequer and so then Capital Justic ad Placita is too general because he might sit and give Judgment in any of the said Courts The second Exception was because that the VVrit saith Assisa capta c. and doth not say per breve nor sine breve nor doth say secundum legem consuetudinem c. For in 43 Eliz. in the Case betwixt Cromwell and Andrews it was adjudged not good to say That such an Action came into the Common-Pleas out of the Country and doth not shew that it came by adjournment or by Certlorari or Mittimus To which it was answered by Damport Councellor for the Plaintiff that it is a strong intendment that the Assise was taken per breve and therefore it needed not to be expressed because it is a general and not a special Assise Crook Justice The Exception is good for it is so general that it cannot be intended which Assise it was For put case there were two Assises betwixt the same parties it cannot be known which Assise is intended And of the same opinion was Haughton Justice Dodderidge contrary and he said Notwithstanding the Exception the Record ought to be removed by the Writ For the Judges Conscience may be well satisfied which Record is to be removed And here the Record which is to be removed is so precisely shewed that no body can doubt of it which ought to be certified And there are Records removed by Writs of Error which are more dubious then this is v. 19 Eliz. Dyer 356. 20 E. 3. But in this case the Writ is much enforced by the words Sommon Capt. For in every Assise there are four Commands to the Sheriffe 1. Facere tenementum esse in pace to quiet the possession 2. Facere recognitionem or Recognit videre tentam 3. Summoneas 4. Ponas eos per vadios c. For which cause of necessity it must be meant an Assise per Breve The third Exception was because in the Writ it was not shewed who was Plaintiffe and who Defendant Dodderidge It is generally to be agreed That the Writ of Error ought to agree with the Record which Rule is taken in 3 H. 6. 26. C. 3. par the Marquess of Wincbesters Case But yet every Variance doth not abate this VVrit For if the variance be only in matter of circumstance as it is in this Case the VVrit shall not abate vid. 9 H. 6. 4. 4 5 Phil. Ma. Dyer 164. 2 Eliz. Dyer 173. 180. 28 H. 6. 11. 12. The fourth Exception was because it doth not shew the place of the Caption of this Assise but sayes generall in Com. Norfolk Haughton held that rather to be examinable in the Parliament then here The last Exception was because the VVrit is directed to Cook Chief Justice that he certifie the Record sub sigillo suo whereas it was said the Record it self was to come in Parliament and there a Transcript thereof is to be made and the Record to be remanded V. 22 E. 3. 23 Eliz. Dyer 357. 1 H. 7. 29. against the Book of Entries 302. To which it was answered That it is at the pleasure of the Parliament to have either the one or the other 22 E. 3. 3. 8 H. 5. Error 88. To which Cook agreed And note that upon this VVrit of Error a Supersedeas was fraudulently procured and a VVrit of Attachment issued forth against Bacon who procured it And the Supersedeas was disallowed because that another Supersedeas was granted in the first VVrit of Error And a man can have but one Supersedeas But the Question in this Case was Admitting that the VVrit of Error be good and not abateable If the same be a Supersedeas in it self And the Court doubted of that point For Cook Chief Justice said That he had viewed 26 or 27 VVrits of Error which were brought in Parliament where the first Judgment was disaffirmed and but one where the Judgment was affirmed and that is in 23 Eliz. Dyer 357. the Record of which cannot be found Et quod in praxi est inusitatum in jure est suspectum The Books where Error was brought in Parliament are 2 E. 3. 34 40 in the old print 22 E. 3. 3. 42 Ass pl. 22. 9 H. 5. 23. 1 H. 7. 29. 23 Eliz. Dyer 375. And it should be mischievous for delay for a Parliament is only to be summoned at the Kings pleasure Haughton Dodderidge and Crook held cleerly That this VVrit of Error was a Supersedeas in it self and that upon the Book of 8 E. 2. Error 88. 1 H. 7. 19. where it is said That the Justices did proceed to Execution after the Judgment affirmed in Parliament and therefore ex consequente sequitur not before And therefore the VVrit of Error is a Supersedeas that they cannot proceed But there is no President of it in the Register but a Scire facias fo 70. And the Court held That if a Supersedeas be once granted and determined in default of the party himself that he shall never have another Supersedeas but otherwise if it fail by not coming of the Justices Also Cook Chief Justice held That by this VVrit of Error in Parliament Sir Christopher Heydon could not have the effect of his suit because it is to reverse a Judgment coram Rege and so the Judgment given in the Common-Pleas stands firm and Sir Christopher Heydon is put to a new VVrit of Error in this Court for the Judgment
resolved That although the Award was void as to that part yet for the residue it stood good and therefore for not performance of the same the Bond is forfeited As if J. be bounden to perform the Award of J. S. for White-Acre and that he award that I enfeoffe another of White-Acre and that he give unto me Ten pounds If I tender unto him a Feoffment of White-Acre and he refuseth it and will not give to me the 10l. I shall have an Action of Debt upon the Bond as it is adjudged in Osborn's Case C. 10. par 131. The same Law If J. S. and J. N. submit themselves unto the Award of J. D. who awardeth that J. S. shall surcease all suits and procure J. N. to be bounden with a stranger and make a Feoffment of his Mannor of D. which is a thing out of the Submission In that case there are three things enforcing the Arbitrement the first is only good the second is against the Law and the other is out of the Submission yet being in part good it ought to be performed in that otherwise the Bond is forfeited But this Case was put If J. be bounden to stand to the Award of A. ita quod it be made de super premissis and afterwards A. maketh an Award but of part of the premises there it is void in all because it is not according to the authority given unto him And afterwards in the principal Case Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe Pasch 12 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 353. DOCKWARY and BEAL's Case IN an Essex Jury The opinion of the Court was That Wood will passe by the name of Land if there be no other Land whereby the words may be otherwise supplied Also it was agreed That the Tenant for Years might fell Underwoods of 25 years growth if the same hath used to be felled Pasch 12 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 354. WROTESIEY and CANDISH's Case ELizabeth Wrotesley did recover Dower 6 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas in which Writ she demanded tertiam partem Manerii de D. eum pertinaciis Nec non tertiam partem quarundam terrarum jacent in Hovelan And upon Ne unque seise que Dower the parties were at issue and the Venire facias awarded de Hovelan And it was found for the Plaintiffe and Judgment was given for her And Candish the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned for Error That it was a Mis-trial For that the Venire facias ought to have been de Manerio and not of Hovelan 6 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 7. 20. C. 6 par â— 19 H. 6. 19. 19 E. 4. 17. Yet the Councel of the Defendant moved That the Trial was good for the Land in Hovelan And it being found that the Husband was seised of the Mannor of D. that now the Trial was good for the whole Pasch 12 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 355. COWLEY and LEGAT's Case COwley brought an Audita quaerela against Legat and the Case was this Cowley and Bates bound themselves in a Bond of 200l. jointly and severally to Legat And afterwards 6 Jacobi Legat brought an action of Debt upon the Bond against Bates and had Judgment and 7 Jacobi the said Legat brought Debt against Cowley in the Kings Bench upon the same Bond and obtained Judgment and afterwards he sued forth Execution upon the first Judgment by Elegit and had the Land of Bates who was Tenant thereof only for another mans life in Execution and afterwards he took forth a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Cowley upon the Judgment in the Kings Bench And thereupon Cowley brought an Audita quaerela containing in it all the whole matter And the opinion of all the Justices was That the Audita quaerela was well brought And first it was holden That when a man may plead the matter in bar he shall not have an Audita quaerela upon the matter because it was his lachess that he did not take advantage of it by way of plea. But secondly in this Case it was said That he could not have pleaded the special matter and therefore as to that point the Audita quaerela was well brought But the onely doubt in the Case was Whether Legat the Defendant might have a new Execution by Capias ad satisfaciendum after that he had Execution against one of the Obligers by Elegit and the doubt was because the Judgments upon which he grounded his Executions were given at several times and in several Courts and against several persons For it was agreed by the whole Court That a Capias doth not lie after Execution sued by Elegit against the same person but after a Capias an Elegit is grantable And the reason of the difference is because upon the prayer to have an Elegit it is entred in the Roll Elegit sibi executionem per medietatem terrae so as he is estopped by the Record to have another Execution but upon a Capias nothing at all is entred upon Record Yet Cook Chief Justice said That it is the common practice of a good Attorney to deferre the entry in the Roll of Execution upon an Elegit until the Sheriffe hath retorned it served And in such case it was agreed That if the Sheriffe retorn upon the Elegit That the party hath not Lands c. then the party may take forth a Capias Also the Elegit is in it self a satisfactory Execution and by the Common-Law a man shall have but one Execution with satisfaction And therefore at the Common-Law if after Execution the Land had been evicted the party had no remedy And Cook said If part of the Land be evicted the party shall not have remedy upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 5. to which Crook Justice agreed And the Court held it to be no difference although that the Judgments were given in several Courts against persons several and at several times and where it is but one Judgment against one person Vide the Case 43 E. 3. 27. where in Debt the Defendant said That the Plaintiffe had another Action for the same Debt depending in the Exchequer by Bill Judgment c. And by Mowbray and Finchden cleerly it is a good plea although it be in another Court And Dodderidge Justice said That in the first case the said Legat might sue the said Cowley and Bates severally and after Judgment he might choose his Execution against which of them he pleased But he could not have Execution by Elegit against them both And therefore he said That although there be an Eviction of the Land or that the Judgment be reversed by Error after that he hath Execution against one by Elegit yet Legat could not have Execution against the other for by the first Execution he had determined his Election and he could not sue the other which Cook agreed Mich. 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 356. FOX and MEDCALF's Case IN a Writ of Accompt brought in
puisne or the lesser Debt and although the Debtor be able and sufficient to pay both Debts viz. the Kings Debt and the Debt owing to the Subject yet the Kings Debt is to be first paid Now to apply these cases to the Case in question Here is a Subject who is indebted to the King And I say That the Lands which such a Debtor hath in his power and dispose although he hath not any Estate in the Lands shall be liable to pay the Debt to the King And I say That Sir Christopher Hatton had a Fee in the Mannors and Lands in this case And although he did convey them bona fide yet untill his death by reason of the Proviso of Revocation they were extendable Trin. 24. E. 3. Rot. 4. Walter de Chirton Customer who was indebted to the King for the Customs purchased Lands with the Kings monies and caused the Feoffor of the Lands to enfeoffe certain of his friends with an intent to defraud and deceive the King and notwithstanding he himself took the profits of the Lands to his own use And those Lands upon an Inquisition were found and the values of them and retorned into the Exchequer and there by Judgment given by the Court the Lands were seized into the Kings hands to remain there untill he was satisfied the Debt due unto him And yet the Estate of the Lands was never in him But because he had a power viz. by Subpena in Chancery to compell his Friends to settle the Estate of the Lands upon him therefore they were chargeable to the Debt You will say perhaps there was Covin in that Case But I say that neither Fraud Covin nor Collusion is mentioned in the Report in Dyer 160. C. 11. par 92. And that Case was a harder Case then our Case is For Walter de Chirton in that Case was never seised of the said lands But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton himself had the lands And when he had the lands he was assured of the Office although he had not the possession of it For he was sure that no other could have it from him and no other could have it but himself And for another cause our Case is a stronger Case then the Case of Walter de Chirton For Chirton had no remedy in Law to have the lands but his remedy was only in a Court of Equity and a remedy in Consc ' onely But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a time in which he might let the land to passe and yet he had a power to pull it back again at his pleasure So as he had the disposition of it but before the alteration of the uses he dyed And if he had been living being indebted to the King the King might have extended the lands because that then he had the possession of them There were two Considerations which moved Sir Christopher Hatton to Convey the Lands the first was honorable viz. For the payment of his Debts the second was natural viz. For the preferment of his Children Although the Conveyance of the Lands for payment of his Debts was but for years yet the same was too short like unto a Plaister which is too short for the sore For the Covenanters were not his Executors and so they were not liable to Debts And although he be now dead and cannot revoke the former uses yet he had the power to revoke the uses during his life And so he was chargeable for the Debt due to the King Tanfield Chief Baron agreed with Justice Dodderidge in all as before And he said That all powerful and speedy courses are given unto the King for the getting in of his Revenues and therefore he said he had the said Prerogatives as have been recited And in 25 E. 3. in libro rubro in the Exchequer there the Foundations of the said Prerogatives do appear If a common person arrest the body in Execution he shall not resort to the lands contr to Blumfields Case C. 5. par The course of the Exchequer makes a Law every where for the King If any Officer be indebted unto the King and dyeth the course of the Exchequer is For to call in his Executors or the Heir or the Terre-Tenants to answer the Debt and if he hath no lands then a Writ issueth out of the Exchequer to know what goods he had and to whose hands they be come All Inquisitions concerning Lands in the like Cases are Habuit vel seisitus and not that he was seised onely The word Habuit is a large word and in it is contained a disposing power But in this Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a power every day to revoke the uses And when he had once revoked them then was he again as before seisitus 7 H. 6. in the Exchequer the Kings Farmor had Feoffees to his use and dyed indebted to the King And upon an Inquisition it was found that Habuit for he had them in his power by compelling his Feoffees by Equity in Chancery and therefore it was adjudged that the King should have the Lands in the Feoffees hands in extent But in this case Sir Christopher Hatton might have had the Lands in him again without compulsion by a Court of Equity for that he had power to revoke the uses in the Conveyance at his pleasure Mich. 30. H. 6. rot in the Exchequer A Clark of the Court was assigned to receive monies for the King who had Feoffees of lands to his use And the lands were found and seised for the Kings monies by force of the word Habuit 32 H. 6. Philip Butler's Case who was Sheriffe of a County being indebted to the King his Feoffees were chargeable to the Kings debt by force of the word Habuit For habuit the lands in his power 6 E. 4. Bowes Case acc ' 34 H. 6. A widow being indebted to the King her Feoffees were chargeable to pay the Kings debt because she had power of the lands It being found by Inquisition that habuit 1 R. 3. the like Case And 24 Eliz. in Morgan's Case it was adjudged That lands purchased in the names of his Friends for his use were extended for a debt due by him to the King Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas argued to the same purpose and agreed with the other Justices and he said in this case it was not material whether the Inquisition find the Deed to be with power of Revocation For he said that the Land is extended and that the extent remains good untill it be avoided And he said that a revocable Conveyance is sufficient to bind the Parties themselves but not to bind the King but the Lands are lyable into whose hands soever they come When a man is said to forfeit his body it is not to be intended his life but the freedom of his body Imprisonment At the Common Law a Common person could neither take the bodie nor the Lands in Execution But yet at the Common Law
thing and shall he be bound by a Conveyance Anno. 16. H. 6. then in the time of Civil War Uses began and of Lands in use the Lord Chief Baron Tanfield in his Argument hath cited diverse cases where the lands in use were subject and lyable to the debt of Cestuy que use in the Kings Case and so was it untill the Statute of 27. H. 8. of Uses was made Babbington an Officer in the Exchequer had lands in the hands of Feoffees upon Trust and a Writ issued out and the lands were extended for the Debt of Babbington in the hands of his Feoffees Sir Robert Dudley having lands in other mens hands upon Trusts the lands were seized into the Kings hands for a contempt and not for debt or damages to the King And in this Case although that the â—nquisition do find the Conveyance but have not found it to be with power of Revocation yet the Land being extended it is well extended untill the contrary doth appear and untill the extent be avoided by matter of Record viz. by Plea as the Lord Chief Baron hath said before Ley Chief Justice of the Kings Bench argued the same day and his Argument in effect did agree with the other Justices in all things and therefore I have forborne to report the same at length And it was adjudged That the Extent was good and the Land well decreed accordingly Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Exchequer Chamber 417. The Lord SHEFFIELD and RATCLIFF'S Case IN a Writ of Error brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Monstrans de Droit in the Court of Pleas The Case was put by Glanvile who argued for Ratcliffe the Defendant to be this 2 E. 2. Malew being seised of the Mannor of Mulgrave in Fee gave the same to A. Bigot in tail which by divers discents came to Sir Ralph Bigot in tail Who 10 Jannarii 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of â—is last Will and thereby after his Debts paid declared the use unto his right heirs in Fee and 9. H. 8. dyed The Will was performed Francis Bigot entred being Tenant in tail and 21 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of himself and Katherine his wife and to the use of the heirs of their two bodies Then came the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. by which Tenant in tail for Treason is to forfeit the Land which he hath in tail Then the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses is made Then 28 H. 8. Francis Bigot did commit Treason And 29 H. 8. he was attainted and executed for the same Anno 31 H. 8. a private Act of Parliament was made which did confirm the Attaindor of Francis Bigot and that he should forfeit unto the King word for word as the Statute of 26 H. 8. is saving to all strangers except the Offendor and his heirs c. 3 E. 6. The heir of Francis Bigot is restored in blood Katherine entred into the Mannor and dyed seised 8 Eliz. their Issue entred and married with Francis Ratcliffe and had Issue Roger Ratcliffe who is heri in tail unto Ralph Bigot And they continue possession untill 33. Eliz. And then all is found by Office and the Land seised upon for the Queen who granted the same unto the Lord Sheffield Francis Bigot and Dorothy die And Roger Ratcliffe sued a Monstrans de Droit to remove the Kings hands from off the lands and a Scire facias issued forth against the Lord Sheffield as one of the Terre-Tenants who pleaded all this special matter and Judgment was thereupon given in the Court of Pleas for Roger Ratcliffe And then the Lord Sheffield brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber to reverse the said Judgment And Finch Serjeant argued for the Lord Sheffield that the Judgment ought to be reversed And now this Term Glanvile argued for Roger Ratcliffe that the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas ought to be affirmed There are two points The first If there were a Right remaining in Francis Bigot and if the same were given unto the King by the Attaindor and the Statute of 31 H. 8. Second If a Monstrans de Droit be a proper Action upon this matter which depends upon a Remitter for if it be a Remitter then is the Action a proper Action The Feoffment by Ralph Bigot 6 H. 8. was a Discontinuance and he had a new use in himself to the use of his Will and then to the use of his Heirs Then 9 H. 8. Ralph Bigot dyed And then Francis Bigot had a right to bring a Formedon in the Discendor to recover his estate tail 21 H 8. then the point ariseth Francis Bigot having a right of Formedon and an use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. before the Statute of 27 H. 8. by the Feoffment he had so setled it that he could not commit a forfeiture of the estate tail When a man maketh a Feoffment every Right Action c. is given away in the Livery and Seisin because every one who giveth Livery giveth all Circumstances which belongs to it For a Livery is of that force that it excludes the Feoffor not only of all present Rights but of all future Rights and Tytles v. C. 1. par 111. and there good Cases put to this purpose 9 H. 7. 1. By Livery the Husband who was in hope to be Tenant by Courtesie is as if he were never sised 39 H. 6. 43. The Son disseiseth his Father and makes a Feoffment of the lands the Father dyeth the hope of the heir is given away by the Livery It was objected by Serjeant Finch 1. Where a man hath a right of action to recover land in Fee or an estate for life which may be conveyed to another there a Livery doth give away such a Right and shall there bind him But an estate in tail cannot be transferred to another by any manner of Conveyance and therefore cannot be bound by such a Livery given I answer It is no good Rule That that which doth not passe by Livery doth remain in the person which giveth the Livery 19 H. 6. Tenant in tail is attainted Office is found The estate tail is not in the King is not in the person attainted but is in abeyance So it is no good Rule which hath been put When Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment Non habet jus in re neque ad rem If he have a Right then it is a Right of Entre or Action but he cannot enter nor have any action against his own Feoffment 19 H. 8. 7. Dyer If Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and the five years passe and afterward Tenant in tail dyeth his issue shall have other five years and shall be helped by the Statute for he is the first to whom the right doth accrue after the Fine levied for Tenant in tail himself after his Fine with Proclamations hath not any right But if Tenant in tail be
and the party be delivered out of Execution then he shall not be taken again in Execution But if he be taken in Execution upon an erronious Process if he be delivered out he may be taken again in Execution for the first Execution was erronious and is no Record being reversed Hyde Chief Justice If a man recover in Debt upon an Obligation and the Judgment be reversed by Error he is restored to his first Action and may plead Nul tiel record Dyer 59 60. Triwingards Case A man in Execution had a VVrit of Priviledg out of the Parliament upon which the Sheriff sets him at liberty by Law for a time yet he shall be in Execution again and the Law saves the others right Broome Secondarie of the Kings Bench If Error be brought after the year of the Judgment in the Common Pleas and the Judgment be affirmed here the partie may take forth a Capias within the year of the Judgment affirmed although in the Common Pleas he cannot have a Capias because the year is past For we are not to respect what process he ought to have in the Common Pleas but after the year of the Judgment affirmed here the partie is to have a Scire facias Jones Justice said That when he was a Reporter the Judges delivered their opinions in Garnons Case C. 5. part 88. That if after the year and day he bring Error and the Judgment be affirmed that he ought to have the like process here as in the Common Pleas And that was a Scire facias because that the year was past in the Common Pleas although it were within the year of the Judgement affirmed here Dodderidge Justice The Cases which Banks cited are Law but are not well applyed The whole Court was of opinion That if the Common Pleas award erronious process the Court cannot award a Supersedeas but the partie is put to his VVrit of Error here and upon that erroneous Process we cannot grant a Supersedeas but the partie is put to his new VVrit of Error And according to the opinion of the Court Sir William Fish brought a new VVrit of Error Mich. 2 Caroli Rot. 179 in the Kings Bench. 462. BELLAMY and BALTHORP's Case IN an Action of Trover and Conversion The Plaintiff did lay it that he was possessed of twenty Loads of Wheat and that he lost them and that they came to the Defendants hands who converted the same to his own use The Defendant did justifie and said That the Parish of O. is an ancient Parish in which there is a Rectorie impropriate c. and the Earl of Clare was seised of the Rectorie and made a Lease unto him of the Tythes of that Parish for one year by force of which he was possessed and that the Corn was set forth by the Parishoners and that one T. gathered the Tythe and delivered the same to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant his Servant took away the Tythe as it was lawfull for him to do Upon which the Plaintiff did demurr First because the Plea did amount to no more then the general issue viz. Not guilty and if the Plea do amount to no more then the general issue then it is no good plea but he ought to have taken the general issue 5 H. 7. 11. Ass For if in an Assise the Tenant saith that the Plaintiff did disseise him and that he entred upon him the plea is not good because it amounts but to the general issue viz. Nul lort nul disseisin and the other party may demurr upon it 22 E. 4. 40. In Trespass for Batterie it is no plea to say that he did not beat him because it is but Not guilty by Argument 34 H. 6 28. b. If I bring Trespass for breaking of my Close It is no good plea to say that I have no Close or if it be for carrying away my Goods to say that I had not any Goods but the Party ought to have pleaded Not guilty It may be objected That in this Case the Defendant makes Title to the Corn. To that we say He derives a Title to Tythes without a Deed which gives no title to them For Tythes do not pass by Demise alone without Deed but by the demise of the Rectorie without Deed they will pass So by a Feoffment of a Mannor without Deed the Services will pass but the Services alone will not pass without a Deed. 21 H. 7. 21. 19 H. 8. 12. A Warren may be demised without Deed. 9 E. 4. 47. But the profits of Courts will not pass without Deed. 22 H. 6. 34. b. By way of Contract a Demise may be of Tythes without Deed but in pleading it ought to be set forth that there was a Deed. C. 10. part 92. Where the Deed ought to be shewed which proves that there ought to be a Deed. In the Common-pleas in an Action of Trover and Conversion of certain Goods the Defendant said That A. was possessed of them and made him Executor c. And the Plaintiff did demurre and had Judgment because it amounted but to the generall Issue Dodderidge Justice The Parson may demise his Tythe to the Owner of the Land without Deed but he cannot grant them to a stranger without Deed. If the Defendant make Title from a stranger then it doth amount to the generall Issue but if both Plaintiff and Defendant make Title from one Person or Donor then the plea is a good plea. Otherwise per Curiam it doth amount to the generall Issue But the Opinion of the Court was because that the Defendant did make a title of Tythes without a Deed therefore Judgment in the principall Case was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 436. The Dean and Chapter of Carlisle's Case A Writ of Error was directed unto the City of Carlisle to remove the Record of a Judgment given there in Curia nostra whereas the Judgment was given tempore Jacobi And the Opinion of the Court was That it was not good nor the Record thereby well removed Dyâ—r 4. Eliz 206 b. There was a Certiorari to remove a Record cujusdam inquisitionis capt c. in Curia nostra Whereas in truth it was taken in the time of the predecessor of the King and so thereby the Record was not well removed Dodderidge Justice If a Writ of Error doth abate upon the Plea to the Writ and the Record be well removed the partie may have a new Writ of Error coram vobis residet c. but if the Record be not well removed as in this Case at Barr it is not then the partie shall not have a new Writ of Error here We do many times grant a Scire facias to sue forth Execution in the inferior Court which proves that the Record by an ill and insufficient Writ of Error is not removed but doth remain there still If there be variance betwixt the Record and the VVrit of Error the Record is not well
REPORTS OF Certain Cases ARISING In the severall Courts OF RECORD at WESTMINSTER In the Raignes of Q. Elizabeth K. James and the late King CHARLES With the Resolutions of the Judges of the said Courts upon Debate and solemn Arguments Collected by very good Hands and lately Re-viewed Examined and Approved of by the late Learned Justice GODBOLT And now Published by W HUGHES of GRAYS-INNE Esquire With two TABLES one of the Cases the other of the Principall Matter therein contain'd Quid juvat Humanos scire cognoscere Casus Si fugienda facis facienda fugis London Printed by T. N. for W. Lee D. Pakeman and Gabriell Bedell M.DC.LII An Alphabeticall Table of the Cases A ALlen and Patshals Case 162 Adams and Wilsons Case 244 Althams Case 262 Ayliff and Browns Case 337 Astley and Webs Case 411 Arnolds Case 455 Ashfield and Ashfields Case 456 B BVshies Case 32 Braches Case 69 Barker and Treswells Case 84 Bilford and Deddingtons Case 89 Bonefant and Sir Richard Grenfields Case 92 Brayes Case ib. Barber and Topseils Case 115 Bare and Mounslowes Case 127 Braggs Case 156 Buckhursts Case 161 Burton and Edmunds Case 164 Blagrave and Woods Case 175 Burton and Harvyes Case 184 Birryes Case 190 Basset and Bassets Case 197 Barker and Finches Case 209 Bridges Case 212 Bristow and Bristows Case 227 Boswells Case 234 Berryes Case 237 Bury and Taylors Case 253 Browns Case 278 Bond and Greens Case 310 Bagnall and Plots Case 322 Bradley and Jones Case 333 Brookers Case 336 Baldwyne and Girryes Case 341 Buggs Case 342 Blithman and Martins Case 347 Bagnall and Harvies Case 366 Blanfords Case 367 Brooke and Gregories Case 368 Bisse and Tyters Case 369 Barnwell and Palsies Case 384 Bret and Cumberlands Case 391 Bishop and Turnors case 395 Blackston and Heaps case 396 Brown and Pells case 402 Bronkers case 407 Bridges and Mills case 414 Butlers case 416 Bowen and Jones case 417 Bullen and Shoters case 437 Bridges and Nichols case 441 Brown and Greens case 442 Bendloes and Hollydayes case 456 Busher and Murryes case 457 Baspool and Longs case 458 Bellamy and Balthorps case 462 Brookers case 465 Buckleys case 468 Bowden and Jones case 488 Baker and Blackmoors case 493 Bailiffs of Yarmouth and Cowper 506 Baxter and the King 510 Beles case 514 Blands case 516 Brownloes case 517 Barker and Taylors case 518 Butcher and Richmonds case 516 Barrel and VVheelers case 480 C CArter and Crofts case 41 Cropps case 43 Cotsill and Hastings case 96 Countess of Darbies case 96 Sir Jarvis Cliftons case 103 Costard and VVickfields case 110 Culpepers case 136 Conyers case 144 Crosse and Casons case 223 Candict and Plomers case 228 Chalk and Peters case 235 Cullingworthâ— case 245 Claypoole VVhestons case 253 Colgat and Blythes case ibid. Carles case 257 Coxe and Grayes case 264 Cook and Fishers case 267 Cottons case 273 Cookes case 294 Charkes case 299 Chawner and Bowes case 312 Cunden and Symmons case 325 Clay and Barnets case 328 Cowper and Andrews case 329 Colt and Gilberts case 335 Cross and Stanhops case 343 Cartwrights case 344 Crooke and Averins case 349 Claydon and Sir Jerome Horseys case 350 Cloathworkers of Ipswiches case 351 Cowley and Legats case 355 Clarkes case 364 D DIke and Dunstons case 65 Dighton and Clarkes case 74 Denny and Turnors case 98 Duke and Smiths case 189 Doylyes case 239 Dethick and Stokes case 255 Dean of VVinsors case 301 Dockwray and Beales case 353 Dudleys case 359 Davers case 413 Dean of Carliles case 463 Dayes case 470 Dcane and Steels case 498 Done and Knots case 423 E EDelses case 36 Earl of Kents case 87 Eglinton and Aunsels case 99 Sir Ralph Egertons case 172 Edwards and Dentons case 261 Evesque de York and Sedgwicks case 287 Evesque de Chichester and Strodwicks case 326 Evesque de Salisburies case 357 East and Hardings case 456 Erish and Iues case 458 Euers and Owens case 496 Earl of Pembrook and Bostocks case 505 Eveley and Estons case 508 Edwards case 510 Edwyn and Wottons case 516 F FVtter and Bosomes case 42 Fullers case 106 Fraunces and Powels case 272 Fortescue and Cookes case 276 Fleetwood and Gotts case 284 Fial and Variars case 334 Foxe and Medcalfs case 356 Froswel and Welshes case 373 Franklins case 375 Fines case 415 Favels case 416 Farthing and Duppers case 422 Fleetwoods case 435 Fish and Wisemans case 461 Fryer and Dewes case 485 Fisher and Warners case 494 Floyd and Cannons case 503 G GOmersal and Gomersals case 69 Giles case 70 Green and Harris case 147 Giles and Newmans case 159 Gage and Peacocks case 200 Grissel and Sir Christopher Hodsdayes case 210 Grivel and Stapletons case 235 Goodman and Goors case 270 Greenway and Barkers case 275 Garven and Pyms case 286 Gage and Smiths case 298 Gippes case 342 Grubs case 348 Greenway and Barkers case 359 Lâ— Gerards case 365 Godfrey and Dixons case 388 Grayes case 389 Garrawayes case 416 Gorge and Sir Robert Lanes case 433 Godbolts case 435 Glede and Wallis case 454 Gunter and Gunters case 466 Green and Moodies case 472 God and Winches case 499 Guyn and Guyns case 515 H HArwood and Highams case 46 Herolds case 59 Hobbies case 82 Hollinshead and Kings case 109 Hoody and Winscombs case 130 Hardings case 169 Haltons case 174 Harlow and Woods case 208 Heydon and Smiths case 239 Hughes and Keens case 262 Hardings case 271 Herrenden and Taylors case 277 Hutchinsons case 288 Hatch and Capels case 290 Hughes case 306 Hill and Grubhams case 320 Sir Christopher Heydons case 345 Hurlston and Woodroofs case 386 Hill and Wades case 387 Hobbies case 388 Hewet and Byes case 428 Hawksworth Davies case 431 Haddon Arrowsmiths case 456 Hardings case 456 Holmes and Wingraves case 460 Heninghams case 465 Hoskins case 4â—1 Hern and Webbs case 483 Hunts case 49 Harvy and Reignolds case 497 Hill and Farlies case 501 Hill and Wades case 502 Huet and Overies case 504 Hemsers case 512 Hye and Dr. Wells case 514 Humfries Studfields case 519 Hawkford and Russels case 67 I JOyces case 68 Johnsons case 206 James and Ratcliffs case 279 Jennour and Alexanders case 297 Ireland and Barkers case 300 Jurks and Cavendishes case 324 Jugin and Pâ—ynes case 381 Jermyn and Coopers case 382 Jones and Ballards case 512 K KItleys case 39 Kingston Hulls case 187 Kerchers case 243 Kirby and Walters case 394 Killigrew and Harpers case 432 Knollys and Dobbins case 436 Kite and Smiths case 444 Kellawayes case 446 Knights case 447 L LVddingdon Amners case 36 Lovell and Gulstons case 83 Leeds and Cromptons case 104 Knightleys case 126 Lewknor and Fords case 136 Leonard and Stephens case 170 Langley and Colsons case 196 Lee and Swons case 211 Lee and Lees case 285 Leighton and Greens case 292 Lee and Colshills case 303 Laistons case 319 Lamberts case 339 Lynsey and Ashtons case 352 Lambert
of the Justices was That the Fee was executed for a moitie Manwood If the Land be to one for life the Remainder for yeers the Remainder to the first Tenant for life in Fee there the Fee is executed so as if he lose by default he shall have a Writ of Right and not Quod ei deforceat for the term shall be no impediment that the Fee shall not be executed As a man may make a lease to begin after his death it is good and the Lessor hath Fee in possession and his wife shall be endowed after the Lease And I conceive in the principall case That the term shall not be extinct for that it is not a term but interesse termini which cannot be granted nor surrendred Mounson If he had had the term in his own right then by the purchase of the Fee the Term should be extinct But here he hath it in the right of another as Administrator Dyer If an Executor hath a term and purchaseth the Fee the term is determined So if a woman hath a term and takes an husband who purchaseth the Fee the term is extinct Manwood The Law may be so in such case because the Husband hath done an act which destroyes the term viz. the purchase But if the woman had entermarried with him in the Reversion there the term should not be extinguished for the Husband hath not done any act to destroy the term But the marriage is the act of Law Dyer That difference hath some colour But I conceive in the first case That they are Tenants in common of the Fee Manwood The Case is a good point in law But I conceive the opinion of Manwood was That if a Lease for yeares were to begin after the death surrender forfeiture or determination of the first lease for yeares that it shall not begin in that part for then perhaps the term in that part shall be ended before the other should begin Pasc 20. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 3. A Man seised of Copyhold land descendable to the youngest Son by Custome and of other Lands descendable to the eldest Son by the common Law leaseth both for yeers The Lessee covenanteth That if the Lessor his wife and his heirs will have back the land That then upon a yeers warning given by the Lessor his wife or his heirs that the Lease shall be void The Lessor dieth the Reversion of the customary Land descends to the younger son and the other to the eldest who granteth it to the younger and he gives a yeers warning according to the Covenant Fenner The interest of the term is not determined because a speciall heir as the youngest son is is not comprehended under the word Heir but the heir at common Law is the person who is to give the warning to avoid the estate by the meaning of the Covenant But Manwood and Mounson Justices were cleer of opinion That the interest of the term for a moity is avoyded for the Condition although it be an entire thing by the Descent which is the act of Law is divided and apportioned and the warning of any of them shall defeat the estate for a moity because to him the moity of the Condition doth belong But for the other moity he shall not take advantage by the warning because that the warning is by the words of the Condition appointed to be done by the Lessor his wife or his heirs And in that clause of the Deed the Assignee is not contained And they agreed That if a Feoffment of lands in Borough-English be made upon condition That the heir at common Law shall take advantage of it And Manwood said that hee would put another question Whether the younger son should enter upon him or not But all Actions in right of the Land the younger son should have as a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment Attaint and the like quod nota Pasc 22. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 4 IT was holden by Meade and Windham Justices of the Common Pleas That a Parsonage may be a Mannor As if before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum the Parson with the Patron and Ordinary grant parcel of the Glebe to divers persons to hold of the Parson by divers Services the same makes the Parsonage a Manor Also they held That a Rent-Charge by prescription might be parcel of a Manor and shall passe without the words cum pertinentiis As if two Coparceners be of a Manor and other Lands and they make partition by which the eldest sister hath the Manor and the other hath the other Lands and she who hath the Lands grants a Rent-charge to her sister who hath the Manor for equality of partition Anderson and Fenner Srjeants were against it Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5. THis Case was moved by Serjeant Periam That if a Parson hath Common appendant to his Parsonage out of the lands of an Abby and afterwards the Abbot hath the Parsonage appropriated to him and his Successors Whether the Common be extinct Dyer That it is Because he hath as high an estate in the Common as he hath in the Land As in the case of 2 H. 4. 19. where it is holden That if a Prior hath an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards purchaseth the Advowson and then obtains an Appropriation thereof that the Annuity is extinct But Windham and Meade Justices conceived That the Abbot hath not as perdurable estate in the one as in the other for the Parsonage may be disappropriated and then the Parson shall have the Common again As if a man hath a Seignorie in fee and afterwards Lands descend to him on the part of the Mother in that case the Seignory is not extinguished but suspended For if the Lord to whom the Land descends dies without issue the Seignorie shall go to the heir on the part of the Father and the Tenancy to the heir on the part of the Mother And yet the Father had as high an estate in the Tenancy as in the Seignory And in 21 E. 3. 2. Where an Assize of Nusance was brought for straightning of a way which the plaintif ought to have to his Mill The defendant did alledg unity of possession of the Land and of the Mill in W. and demanded Judgment if c. The plaintif said that after that W. had two daughters and died seised and the Mill was allotted to one of them in partition and the Land to the other and the way was reserved to her who had the Mill And the Assize was awarded And so by the partition the way was revived and appendant as it was before and yet W. the Father had as high an estate in the Land as he had in the Way Hill 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 6. A Man makes a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor to the use of himself and his Wife and his heirs In which Manor there are Underwoods usually to be cut every one and twenty yeers and
Lord Dyer said So in the principall Case and therefore the later Use was utterly void and shall not be raised by intendment But otherwise it had been if it had been by devise Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 10. IT was holden by all the Justices of the Common Pleas That the Queen might be put out of her Possession of an Advowson by two Usurpations And she shall be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson as a common person shall be because it is a transitory thing and that the Grant of that Advowson made by the Queen after the two Usurpations should be void and that was so adjudged upon a demurrer in the point And so it is holden in 47 E. 3. 4. b. Psch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 11. AN Indenture of Covenant was made betwixt I. S. and I. D. in which I. S. did Covenant to Enfeoffe I. D. of his Manor of D. In consideration of which I. D. by the same Indenture did Covenant with the said I. S. to pay him 100 li. The Question is If I. S. will not make the Feoffment whether I. D. be bound to pay the money It was holden by the Lord Dyer Chief Justice and Justice Mead That he is not because the money is Covenanted to be paid Executory to have the Feoffment made and therefore if he will not make the Feoffment he shall not have the money As if I Covenant with one That I will marry his Daughter and he Covenants with me That for the same cause he will make an Estate to me and his Daughter and to the Heirs of our two bodies begotten of his Manor of D he shall not make it untill we are married But if I Covenant with a man That I will marry his Daughter and he Covenants with me To make an Estate to me and his Daughter if I marry another woman or if the Daughter marryeth another man yet I shall have an Action of Covenant to compell him to make the Estate because in this later Case the Covenant was made for another Cause And this difference was so taken by the whole Court 15 H. 7. 10. So if A. grant to B. all the ancient Pale and for that B. grants That he will make a new Pale it is holden in 15. E. 4. 4. by Catesby and affirmed by Littleton That if B. cannot have the ancient Pale that he shall be excused from making the new Pale But if two things are given by two Persons one for the other there if one of them detain the one the other cannot detain the other as is 9 E. 4. 20. and 15 E. 4. 2. It is holden That if one grant Tithes in Fee by one Deed and by the same Deed for the same Grant the Grantee grant to the same Person an Annuity of 20 li That if the Grantor of the Tithes enter into the Tithes yet the Grantee cannot detaine the Annuity because the grant of the Tithes is executed in him and he may have an Action for them if the other enter upon them But in the principall Case The Covenant was but Executory for the other and then if one be not performed the other shall never be performed Windham and Periam Justices conceived the contrary and therefore the case was adjourned and a demurrer in law upon it Pasch 23 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 12. TEnant in taile the Remainder in Fee the Tenant in taile makes a Lease for life according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and afterwards dieth without issue and before any entrie he in the remainder grants his Remainder by Fine Whether the Conusee of the Fine may enter upon the Tenant for life and avoid his Lease was the question Fenner Serjeant Hee cannot because when a Free-hold is given by Livery it cannot be defeated without Entrie As If a Parson make a Lease for life rendring rent and dieth and his successor accept the rent the lease is affirmed as it is holden in 11. E. 3. and 18. E. 4. The Case was That a man made a Lease for life the remainder in Fee Tenant for life granted over his estate and then a Formedon was brought against the Grantee and then the first Tenant for life died And by all the Justices except Littleton and divers Serjeants the Writ shall not abate if he in the Remainder hath not entred So in the principall case When he had made a Lease for life and afterwards died without issue living the Tenant for life his estate is not defeated before entrie of him in the Remainder And then when before entrie he in the Remainder grants his Remainder the Grantee shall have it but as a Remainder for so is his grant and so the estate of Tenant for life which was but voidable is made good And so was it holden by Windham and Periam Justices but Meade and Dyer Chief Justice did conceive that by the death of Tenant in taile without issue his Lease made to him for life was void and not voidable because by the death of Tenant in tail his estate out of which the estate of the Tenant for life was derived is determined and therefore the estate for life is determined also Et cessante causâ cessat effectus And Meade compared it to the Case of 21. H. 7. 12 where it was holden That if a man do make a Lease for life upon condition that if he pay unto the Lessee ten pounds at such a day that his estate shall cease Now by the performance of the Condition the estate is determined without entrie Mich. 24. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 13. POLES Case THomas Pole one of the Clerks of the Chancery married a woman who was Executrix to her Husband and in an Action of Debt brought against them in the Common Pleas the said Pole brought a writ of Priviledg to have removed the said Action into the Chancery And by all the Justices the Writ was disallowed and the defendants ruled to answer there because the Wife was joyned in the Action with the Husband and she could not have the priviledg and therefore not the Husband And so it is adjudged by the whole Court 34. H. 6. 29. and 35. H. 6. 3. But see 27. H. 8. 20. where the case was That a man brought an Action in the Common Pleas against Husband and at the pluries returned he and his Wife were arrested into an inferiour Court veniendo to Westminster and because the Husband hath priviledg therefore his Wife shall be in the same condition But Dyer said That the reason there was because the Wife came in aid of her Husband to follow his suit And therefore it is not like the principall Case at the Bar. Mich. 24. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 14. IN Debt upon a Bond of Forty pound for the Payment of Twenty pound at a Day and Place certain The Defendant pleaded That he had paid the said Twenty pound according to the Condition upon which they are at Issue and at
contract was determined and not in esse at the time of promise But he said it was otherwise upon a consideration of Marriage for that is alwayes a present consideration and alwayes a consideration because the party is alwayes married Windham to the same intent and compared it to the Case of 5. H. 7. If one sell an horse to another and after at another day will warâ—ant him to be good and sound of limb and member it is void warranty for it ought to have been at the same time that the horse was â—old Periâ—m Justice contrary for he said This case is not like to any of the cases which have been put because there is a great difference betwixt Contracts and this Action For in Contracts the consideration and promise and sale ought to concur because a Contract is derived of con trahere which is a drawing together so as in Contracts every thing requisite ought to concur as the consideration of the one side and the promise or sale of the other side But to maintain an Assumpsit it is not requisite for it is sufficient if there be any moving cause or consideration precedent for which cause or consideration the promise was made and that is the common practice at this day For in Assumpsit the Declaration is That the Defendant for and in consideration of ten pounds to him paid postâ—a silicet a day or two after super se assumpsit c. and that is good and yet there the consideration is executed And he said that Hunt and Baker's case which see 10. Eliz. Dyer 272. would prove it The case was this The Apprentice of Hunt was arrested when Hunt was in the Country and Baker one of Hunts neighbours to keep the Apprentice out of the Counter became his Baile and paid the debt Afterwards Hunt returning out of the Country thanked Baker for his neighbourly part and promised him to repay him the said summ Upon which Baker brought an Action upon the Case upon the promise And it was adjudged that the Action would not lie not because the consideration was precedent to the promise but because it was executed and determined long before But there the Justices held That if Hunt had requested Baker to have been surety or to pay the debt and upon that request Baker paid the debt and afterwards Hunt promiseth for that consideration the same is good for the consideration precedes and was at the instance and request of the Defendant So here Sydenham became bail at the request of the Defendant and therefore it is reason that if he be at losse by his request that he ought to satitfie him And he conceived the Law to be cleer that it was a good consideration and that the request is a great help in the Case Rodes Justice agreed with Periam for the same reasons and denyed the Case put by Anderson And he said That if one serve me for a year and hath nothing for his service and afterwards at the end of the year I promise him ten pounds for his good and faithfull service ended he may maintain an Assumpsit for it is a good consideration But if the servant hath wages given him and the Master ex abundantia as he said promiseth him ten pounds after his service ended the same promise shall not maintain an Assumpsit for there is not any new cause or consideration preceding the Assumpsit And Periam agreed to that difference and it was not denyed by the other Justices but they said that the principall Case was a good case to be advised upon and at length after good advice and deliberation had of the cause they gave Judgment for the Plaintiff that the Action would lie And note That they very much relyed upon Hunt and Bakers Case before cited See Hunt and Baker's Case in 10. Eliz. Dyer 272. Pasc 27. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 41 CARTER and CROST's Case CArter brought an Action of Detinue of a chaine against Crosts and declared That Thomas Carter his brother was thereof possessed and died Intestate for which cause the Bishop of Cork granted him Letters of Administration and that the Chain came to the Defendants hands by Trover c. And declared also That he was as Administrator thereof possessed in London To which the Defendant Crosts pleaded the Generall Issue and the Jury gave a speciall Verdict and found that the Administration was committed to Carter in London by the Bishop of Cork in Ireland here and did not find that Carter was possessed of the chain in London And upon this special Verdict first it was moved That the Bishop of Cork in Ireland being in England might commit administration of things in Ireland And it was held cleerly by the Court That he might of things within his Diocesse in Ireland because it is an Authority Power or Matter that followes his Person and wheresoever his Person is there is his Authority As the Bishop of London may commit Administration being at York but it ought to be alwaies of things within his Diocesse and therefore they held That the Declaration was good in that point That the Bishop of Cork did commit Administration in London although there be no such Bishop of England The second point was If an Aministrator made by a Bishop of Ireland might bring an Action here as Administrator and it was holden That he could not because of the Letters of the Administration granted in Ireland there could be no triall here in England although that Rodes Justice said That Acts done in Spirituall Courts in Forrain places as at Rome or elsewhere the Law saith That a Jury may take notice of them because such Courts and the Spirituall Courts here make but one Court and he proved it by the Case of the Miscreancy in 5. R. 2. Tryall 54. where a Quare Impedit was brought by the King against the Clerk of a Church within the Bishopprick of Durham and counted that the Bishop who is dead presented his Clerk and that the Clerk died and the Chapter collated a Cardinall who for Miscreancy and Schisme was deprived the Temporalties being in the Kings hands Burgh He hath counted of an Avoidance for Miscreancy at the Court of Rome which thing is not tryable here Belknap Chief Justice I say for certain That this Court shall have Conusans of the Plea and that I will prove by Reason for all Spirituall Courts are but one Court and if a man in the Arches be deprived for a Crime and appeal to Rome and is also there deprived that Deprivavation is triable in the Kings Court in the Arches And if a man be adhering unto the Kings enemies in France his Lands are forfeitable and his adherence shall be tryed where his Land is as oftentimes it hath been for adherence to the Kings enemies in Scotland And so by my faith if one be Miscreant his Land is forfeitable and the Lord thereof shall have the Escheat and that is good reason For if a man
could be if it were not of Land holden in Socage and therefore that tenure is implyed Contrary When a man is to plead a Devise but where the Verdict doth not strongly imply a thing it shall not be good as in Scolasticas Case Plo. Com. 411. Exception was taken that the Jury did not find That the Devisor had not any Heir Male alive praeter the said John and Francis for if he had the wife of the Plaintiffe had no cause of Action And it was there holden by Harper That it was not a good Verdict for the incertainty so in our Case Cook contrary 1. The Grant is not good and the Rectory is no part of it nor can they passe by the word Portion 1. By the Etimology of the word for Portion is a thing in grosse by it selfe and cannot passe by that thing which is intended Nomen Collectivum as a Rectory is So of a Manor if a man grant totam illam portionem Manerii hee being seised of a Manor nothing passeth for portio is no more then partio as the Latinists say and then if a man grant all that part of his Manor or part of his Tithes in D. and he be seised of the whole Manor of D. or of the Rectory of D. nothing passeth Also the words after expound the Queens mind for the words precedent are coupled with a Cum after scil Cum omnibus aliis c. So as the first part shews the grant of Tithes and the later part shews what Tithes viz. those which were in the Occupation of John Corbet so as but part is granted and in the Kings Grant a part shall not be taken for the whole and so in no case if not by the Figure Synecdoche which cannot be in cases of Grants at the common Law Also the words are totam illam portionem c. and not totam meam portionem c. and the word illa or that ought to have a word What which is a word shewing in whose possession the portion was Also the Kings Letters Patents ought for the most part be taken according to the meaning of the King for the case was in the Exchequer That where the King granted all his Tenements in D. that nothing passed by that Grant but the Houses Otherwise it is in the case of a common person So 22. Ass where the King grants goods of Felons quorumcunque damnatorum it shall not extend to Treason nor to murder of the Kings Messenger So 8. H. 4. 2. If the Grant be of all the goods of those who pro aliqua transgressione sive delicto c. forisfacere deberent it shall not extend to those who are felo de se Also the Non obstante doth not help the matter For I take this difference When nothing passeth by the words precedent Ex vi termini there nothing is helped by the Non obstante But if any thing passe by the precedent words Ex vi termini there a Non obstante may make the thing good which otherwise should be void As if the King grant to J. S. the Manor of D. Non obstante that he is seised for the term of life thereof it is a void Grant But if the Grant were of the Manor of D. notwithstanding that I. S. hath it for life here the Non obstante makes the Grant good which otherwise should be the ignorance of the King to make a Grant of that of which he is excluded by the Non obstante because thereby he takes knowledg of the particular estate and so he is not deceived As to the matter moved against the Verdict I conceive that it makes against the other side for it was on his part to prove the Occupation and if there be no Occupation at the time of the Lease the Grant is void and he was to prove it being in the affirmative And then in re dubia majus inficiatio quà m affirmatio intelligenda and a May be may be intended in every case And if such construction should be in speciall Verdicts I dare affirm that by such May bees all speciall Verdicts shall be quashed But the Law is to give a favourable construction of them according to the meaning of the Jurours Snagg contrary and by him these words cum omnibus aliis c. are void in the Kings case and vouched the case of 29. E. 3. 9. before vouched Where the King had granted to the Earl of Salisbury the custody of the Lands of the Prior of Mountague being seised into the Kings hands as a Prior Alien and afterwards the Earl died his Heir within age whereby the said Lands and others and Advowsons came to the Kings hand by reason of minority and afterwards the King granted to the Son all the Lands and Advowsons which were Patris sui ac omnes terras ac omnes advocationes of the said Prior which the King had before given to the father of the said son And it was there holden That although that the Advowsons passed not to the Father yet by that grant they did passe and that these woads which he granted to his father were meerly void Clâ—nche Justice Nothing passeth by this word Portion for it is a thing in gross and a thing in gross cannot contain another thing and a word which signifies a thing in grosse cannot passe another thing As if a man grant all his Services in D. it is to be intended Services in grosse and if he have not any Services but those which are parcell of a Manor nothing shall passe by those words But I conceive That those Tithes which are parcell of the Rectory shall passe by these words Cum aliis c. For although that the words are in the tenure of John Corbet yet if they were not in his tenure the Non obstante will help it for it is Non obstante any misnaming of the Tenants or of the quantity or quality of the Tithes so as these words imply as much as if the Grant had been in the tenure of John Corbet or of any other in L. or elsewhere Gaudy Justice If the words Totam illam portionem were left out of the Book the other words Cum omnibus aliis shall passe nothing and those words Totam illam portionem are as nothing to passe a thing not in grosse and by consequence nothing shall passe by the other words And afterwards Judgement was given That nothing passed by the Letters Patents Hill 28 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 43. CROPP's Case CRopp made a Lease for years reserving rent at Mich. upon Condition That if the rent be behind at Mich. and a Month after that he might enter The Lessee after Mich. and before the Month ended sent his servant to the house of Cropp to pay the money to Cropp the servant coming to Cropps house found him not for he was not at the House the Servant delivered the Rent to one Margery Briggs who was his Daughter in Law to deliver the
same to Cropp the Lessor And the same Margery at one or two dayes before the payment of the said Rent had received the Rent in the like manner and had paid it to Cropp and he had accepted of it But now he refused to receive it of her but at the last day of the Month he went to the Land and there demanded the Rent and because it was not paid he entred Laiton argued for the Lessor That his entry was lawfull for he said That the Tender made by Margery Briggs to the Lessor was not sufficient 1. Because the Servant of the Lessee had Authority to deliver it to the Lessor therefore when he delivers it to another he hath not pursued his Authority 19. H. 8. 27. H. 8. Letter of Atturney made to diverse to give livery of Seisin If one make Livery alone it is void 34. H. 6. If a Capias be to many Coroners and one execute it it is void 18. E. 4. If one hath a Letter of Atturney to make Livery he cannot transfer this Authority to another to make Livery for him Also if in this Case a Stranger had tendered the Rent the Lessor was not bound to receive it as upon a Mortgage if a Stranger tender the Money the Mortgagee is not bound to accept of it 21. E. 4. In case of Corporall Service as Homage or Fealty the demand is to be made of the person but of Rent the demand is to be made upon the Land because the Land is the Debtor Clenche Justice conceived That if the Lessee himselfe had delivered the Rent to Margery Briggs that it had been good but it is a doubt if good made by the servant for he could not transfer his Authority to another Wray Chief Justice If it were upon a Bond the Obligee was not bound to accept of it before the day so if it were payable at Mich. only there the Lessor is not bound to accept of it before the day but in as much as 't is after the day the Month is a Liberty and Benefit for the Lessee and it was due at Mich. therefore I conceive That being tendred to him within any part of the Month that he is bound to accept of it And as to that That his servant cannot transfer his Authority over and therefore Margery Briggs is but a stranger in that act that is not so for now she is a servant in that to the Lessor himself and therefore there is privity enough also she hath received the Rent for him before What then said Laiton We can prove a speciall commandment for the time before that she received it At another day the Case was moved again and it was ruled against Cropp the Lessor because the rent was due at Mich. and the month after was given because of the penalty of Re-entry and the Tender and Refusall after the Rent was due and within the month saves the penalty and also Lawes ought to be expounded Secundùm â—quum bonum and good conscience and the Lessor was at no prejudice if he had accepted of it when his Daughter in Law tendred it unto him and therefore it was conceived That he had an intent to defraud the Lessee of his Lease and the Law doth not favour Frauds and therefore it was adjudged against Cropp the Lessor Hill 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 44 PRIDEAUX's Case IN this Case it was moved Where a man marrieth a woman who is an Administratrix so as the Suit is to be in both their names Whether they shall be named in the Writ Administrators or not Wray Chief Justice They shall be for by the Entermarriage the Husband hath Authority to entermeddle with the Goods as well as the Wife but in the Declaration all the speciall matter ought to be set forth and so some said is the Book of Entries That both of them shall be named Administrators Hill 28. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 45. AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz. Thou art a Cozener and a Bankrupt and hast an Occupation to deceive men by the words were spoken of a Gentleman who had One hundred Pound land per annum to live upon and therefore although he used to buy and sell Iron yet because he was not a Merchant nor did not live by his Trade the better Opinion of the Court was That the words were not actionable and so adjudged Hill 28. Eliz in the King 's Bench. 46 HARWOOD and HIGHAM's Case ONE had Houses and Lands which had been in the tenures of those which had the Houses and he devised his Houses with the Appurtenances and it was holden and so adjudged by the whole Court That the Lands did passe by the words With the Appurtenances For it was in a Will in which the intent of the Devisor shall be observed Trinit 28. Eliz. Rot. 1130. in the Common Pleas. 47 The QUEEN and SAVACRE's Case IN a Quare Impedit by the Queen against Savacre Clerk the Case was this The Queen presented to a Parsonage which was void by the taking of another Benefice by the said Savacre and the said Savacre for to enable him to have two Benefices pleaded That he was the Chaplain of Sir James a Crosts Controller of the Queens House who by the Statute of 21. H. 8. cap. 13. might have two Chaplains and might qualifie them to take two Benefices to which it was replied That the said Sir James a Crost had two other Chaplains which are qualified to have two Benefices and have also two Benefices by reason of that qualification and also are alive so as he is a third Chaplain who could not be qualified by that Statute To which it was answered That one of those two Chaplains is removed and discharged by the said Sir James a Crost to be his Domesticall Chaplain scil Capellanum familiarem as it was pleaded and so he hath now but two Chaplains of which the Defendant was one upon which there was demurrer joyned Three Points were in the Case 1. If the qualification Sub sigillo be sufficient within the Statute without the Signature or name of Sir James a Crost 2. When two Chaplains are qualified and one is removed out of service if he might qualifie another by the Statute the party being alive who was qualified 3. Whether he remain his Chaplain notwithstanding such removall during his life Upon which Points after perusall of the Statute it was agreed by the whole Court That the Queen ought to have Judgement and so they gave Judgement presently And the reasons of their Judgement were for the first Point Because that the Defendant Sâ—vâ—cre was not qualified Sub Signo Sigillo praedict Jacobi a Crost but only Sub Sigillo and the words of the Statute are viz. Under the Sign and Seal of the King or other their Lord or Master c. Which words Or other their Lord or Master shall be referred to Sign and Seal which is limited to the
King And as to the second Point they held the Law to be cleer That after that he hath retained as many as by the Law he may retaine and they are sub Signo and Sigillo testified to bee his Chaplains and by reason thereof have qualification to have two Benefices and have two Benefices by vertue thereof although that afterwards they are removed for displeasure or otherwise out of service yet during their lives their Master cannot take other Chaplains which may by this Statute be qualified for so every Baron might have infinite of Chaplains which might be qualified which was not the meaning of the Statute and of that opinion is the Lord Dyer in his Reports And as to the third Point they held That although he were removed from the Domesticall Service of the Family yet hee did remaine Chaplain at large and so a Chaplain within the Statute And further the Opinion of the Court was in this Case That if the party qualified to die the Queen or other Master mentioned in the Statute might qualifie another againe Quod nota The Case was entred Pasch 28. Eliz. Rot. 1130. Scot. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 48. ONE made a Deed in this forme Noverinit c. that I have demised and to Farme letten all my Lands in D. to I. S. and his Wife and to the Heirs of their two Bodies for thirteen years And it was moved That it was an Estate in taile and 5. E. 3. and 4. H. 4. were vouched But Clenche Justice who was only present in Court was of Opinion That it is but a Lease for years although it was put that Livery was made secundùm formam chartae and his said That if one make a Lease for forty years to another and his Heirs and makes Livery that it is but a Lease for years and he said It is no Livery but rather a giving of Possession But he would have it moved again when the other Justices came Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 49 AN Action upon the Case was brought against an Inn-keeper upon the Custome of England for the safe keeping of the things and Goods of their Guests and he brought his Action in another County then where the Inn was and it was said by Clench Justice That if it be an Action upon the Case upon a Contract or for words and the like transitory things that it may be brought in any County but in this Case he said It ought to be brought where the Inn is Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 50. ONE charged two men as Receivers The Question was Whether one of them might plead Ne unque son Receiver and it was moved That he could not but ought to say Nâ— unque son Receiver absque hoc that he and his Companion were Receivers Clenchè and Suit Justices held That it was well without Traverse and Vide 10. E. 4. 8. Where an Account was brought against one supposing the receipt of Two hundred Marks by the hands of I. P. and R. C. The Defendant as to One hundred Marks pleaded That he received it by the hands of I. P. tantùm without that that he received it by the hands of I. P. and R. C. And as to the other One hundred Marks he received them from the hands of R. C. only without that that he received I. P. and R. C. And there it was doubted Whether it be good or not But in the end of the Case by Fitz. Accompt 14. If an Account be brought against two and one saith He was sole his Receiver and hath accounted before such an Auditor if the Plaintiffe answer unto his Bar he shall abate his Writ because the Receipt is supposed to be a joint Receipt And it is not like unto a Praecipe quod reddat against two Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 51. AN Action upon the Case was brought against one for that he said to another I will give thee Ten Pound to kill such a one and the Question was Whether the Action would lie It was said by Sir Thomas Coâ—kaine that such a Lady had given poyson to such a one to kill her Child within her that the words were not Actionable Also one said That another had put Gun-Powder in the Window of a house to fire such a house and the house was not fired adjudged that the words were not Actionable The Case was betwixt Ramsey of Buckinghamshire and another who said That he lay in wait to have killed him it was found for the Plaintiffe and he had Forty Pound Damages given him But of the Principall Case the Court would advise Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 52 IT was holden by the Court That the Habeas corpus shall be alwayes directed to him who hath the custody of the Body Therefore whereas in the case of one Wickham it was directed to the Maior Bailiffs and Burgesses Exception was taken unto it because the pleas were holden before the Maior Bailiff and Steward but the Exception was dissallowed But otherwise it is in a Writ of Error for that shall be directed to those before whom the Judgment was given In London the Habeas corpus shall be directed Majori Vicecomit London because they have the custodie and not to the whole Corporation But I conceive that the course is that the Writ is directed Majori Aldermannis Vicecomitibus c. Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 53 MARSH and PALFORD's Case OWen moved this Case That one had an upper chamber in Fee and another had the neather or lower part of the same house in Fee and he who had the upper chamber pulled it down and he which had the lower room would not suffer him to build it up again But the opinion of the Justices was that he might build it up again if he did it within convenient time And there it was said that it had been a Question Whether a man might have a Free-hold in an upper chamber Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 54. A Question was moved to the Court Whether Tithe should be paid of Heath Turf and Broom And the opinion of Suit Justice was That if they have paid tithe Wool Milk Calves c. for their cattell which have gone upon the Land that they should not pay tithe of them But some doubted of it and conceived That they ought to say that they have used to pay those Tithes for all other Tithes otherwise they should pay tithe for Heath Turf Broom c. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 55. TWo Parsons were of two severall Parishes and the one claimed certain Tithes within the Parish of the other and said That he and all his Predecessors Parsons of such a Church scil of D. had used to have the Tithes of such Lands within the Parish of S. and that was pleaded in the Spiritual Court and the Court was moved for to grant
for him to do and demanded Judgement of the Action Upon which Cook did demur in Law and he took divers Exceptions to Herolds Plea 1. That hee hath pleaded a Custome and hath so pleaded it that no Issue can be taken upon it for he saith Quod Vsitatum est quod Admirallis pro tempore existens non potest concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and doth not shew where the Court is holden and doth not say Quod â—alis habetur consuetudo in curia as he ought and as it is in 4. 5 Phil. Mar. Dyer 152. in an Assize brought of the same Office of Registership of the Admiralty for there he brought Assize de libero tenemento suo in Ratcliffe and alledged Quod per consuetudinem in curia Admiral à tempore c. And he said That the Court hath been used to be holden time out of mind c as well at Ratcliffe as elsewhere And if the place be not alledged then it cannot be known from what place the Visnâ— shall come See also that forme observed in the Book of Entries 75. b. So in an Assize of the Office of Philizer in the Common Pleas it was alledged where the Bench was viz. in Com' Midd ' as it is in my Lord Dyers Reports Also 2. he doth not say That Curia Admirallis is an ancient Court c. as he ought for in 22. H. 6. it is said That where a prescription is alledged and pleaded in a Court he ought to say That is is an ancient Court in qua habetur talis consuetudo c. for a Prescription cannot be in any Court if it be not an ancient Court The third matter was Because that in the Condition of the Bond it is said That they are seised of that Office to them for their lives eorum diutius viventi therefore he shall be estopped to say That it is good only for the life of the Admirall as in 18. E. 4. 4. He cannot speak against the Condition of the Bond although it be but a supposal or recital The fourth matter was Because he hath bound himself that the other should enjoy the same all his life without interruption although that the Office become void by Forfeiture or otherwise yet he cannot have it against his own Bond. And Cook said There is a Case in my Lord Dyers Reports where if the Lessor warrant the Estate of the Lessee if he be ousted by a stranger without Title he shall have no action of Covenant But if the Covenant be That he shall quietly enjoy it against him although that the Lease become void yet the Lessor shall not take advantage against him Clenche Justice If the Party occupy the Office by right or by wrong it is not materiall he is not to interrupt him against his owne Bond. Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 60 AN Action of Debt was brought for an Amerciment in a Court Baron And the Plaintiffe declared That the Defendant was amerced at the Court Baron of the Farmor of the Manor of Cinkford and exception was taken because it might be that he was amerced at another Court of the Farmor and therefore he ought to have said At the Court Baron of the Manor and not at the Court of the Farmor of the Manor Another Exception was That hee said That at such a Court holden before the Steward there he was amerced Whereas in truth the Court Baron is holden before the Suitors because they are the Judges and not the Steward and for that was vouched 4. H. 6. and Fitz Nat. in the Writ of Moderata Misericordia Suit Justice True it is that the Suitors are Judges in Real Causes not in Personal Another Exception was taken That he doth not shew That he had requested or demanded the Amercement But to that it was answered That Licet sepius requisitas was in the Declaration and that is sufficient because it was a Duty before the Request but if it first begin upon the Request to be a Duty then it ought to be alledged In facto that there was a Request Another Exception was That no Custome was alledged that they might amerce for it is not incident of common right unto a Court Baron â—or to amerce but to distrain or seise therefore Custome ought to warrant it The Case was adjourned Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 61. AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Concessit Solvera according to the Law Merchant and the custome of the City of Bristow and Exception was taken because the Plaintiff did not make mention in the Declaration of the custome But because in the end of his Plea he said Protestandâ— se sâ—qui querelam secundùm consuetudinem civitatis Bristow the same was awarded to be good and the Exception disallowed Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 62. SVit Justice said That if the custome of a Manor be That the Homage might make By-Lawes it shall bind the Tenants as well Free-holders as Copy-holders But Tanfiâ—ld of Councell in the Case said That it is no good nor reasonable custome But such By-Lawes may be made by the greater number of the Tenants otherwise they shall not bind them Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 63 The Vicar of Pancras Case THE Vicar of Pancras sued one in the Spirituall Court for Tithes And he pleaded That some of them for which the Vicar did sue did belong to the Parson and that he had paid them to the Parson and prayed a Prohibition Cook He shall not have a Prohibition for by this Plea he hath put in Debate the controversie of the Tithes betwixt the Parson and Vicar and then when both are Spiritual Persons the common Law shall not hold Plea of them as is 35. H. 6. 39. and 31. H 6. Also by this Plea a Modus decimandi is not in question but the right of the Tithes and that doth appertain to the common Law And there Cook said That is holden in 11. H. 7. That Unions and Endowments of Vicarages do appertain to the Spirituall Law Also the prescription of the Defendant was That he had used time out of mind c. to have for horses a giâ—tment her bage 3.d. ob q. and after that they had used to pay for every Cow to the Vicar 4.d. and for the Calfe and Milk of every Cow 6.d. And Cook took exception that such prescription was double and repugnant in it self for he prescribes that he paies for herbage and then he prescribes That he paies for every Cow 4d. which cannot be meant but for herbage of the Cow for it is not for Milk or Calfe of the Cow for he prescribes to pay for them 6.d. He took another Exception That he prescribes that he hath used to pay but doth not shew that he hath paid for so he ought to do for otherwise he shall out the Spirituall Court of Jurisdiction and yet not give
which implyes an Affirmative which yet seems to be repugnant to a Negative as in 21. H. 6. 19. In a Writ of Entrie the Defendant pleaded the deed of the Demandant after the darrein Continuance The Demandant said It was not his deed after the darrein Continuance And that was holden a Negative pregnans wherefore he was compelled to plead and say he made it by dures before the darrein Continuance such a day absque hoc that he made it after the darrein continuance and then Issue was taken upon it The same Case is in 5. H 7. 7. But there it is said That in Debt upon a Bond to perform an Arbitrement Non fecerunt Arbitrementum per diem is no Negative pregnans The same Law that non deliberavit arbitrium in Script 38. H 6. in Formedon Ne dona pas in taile is a Negative pregnans Vide 39 H. 6. The Case of the Dean and Chapter The second Exception was That he hath pleaded neque such nor such nor such had disturbed him by any indirect means but onely by due course of Law And that cannot be tryed neither by Jury nor by the Judges Not by the Jury because it is not to be put to them whether they had disturbed him by indirect means or by due course of Law for they shall not take upon them the construction What is an indirect means and what is the due course of Law for it appertaineth to the Justices to adjudg that Not by the Judges because hee hath not put it certain that it was a due course of Law by which he disturbed him As 22. E. 4. 40. In Debt upon a Bond the Defendant saith that it is upon condition That if the Defendant or any for him came to Bristow such a day and there shewed to the Plaintiff or his Councell a sufficient Discharge of an Annuity of forty shillings per annum which the Plaintiff claims out of two Messuages of the Defendant in D that then c. The Defendant said that A. and B. by the assignement of the Defendant came the same day to Bristow and tendered to shew to N and W. of the Plaintiffs Councell a sufficient Discharge of the Annuity and that they did refuse to see it and demanded judgment of the Action The Plaintiff did demur upon the Plea And after a long argument it was adjudged by all the Justices to be no Plea c. because it lay in the judgment of the Court to judg of it and he did not shew in certain what discharge he tendered as a Release Unitie of possession c. If a man be bound to plead a sufficient plea before such a day in Debt upon such a Bond it is no plea to say That he hath pleaded a sufficient plea before the day but hee ought to shew what plea he hath pleaded For the Court cannot tell whether it be a sufficient plea or not if it do not appear what manner of plea it is 35 H. 6. 19. The Condition of a Bond was That where the Plaintiff was indebted to J. S. in one hundred pounds If the Defendant acquit and discharge the Plaintiffe that then c. The Defendant pleaded That hee had discharged him c. and the Plaintiffe did demurre upon the plea because hee did not shew how and it was holden no good plea. So 38. H. 8. Br. Condition 16. per curiam in the Kings Bench where a man pleaded That he had saved him harmlesse it was no Plea without shewing how because he pleaded in the Affirmative contrary if he had pleaded in the Negative as Non damnificatus est Suit and Clenche Justices said That if he had pleaded That he was not disturbed by any indirect means it had been good enough Gaudy If he had said That he was not disturbed contra formam conditionis praedict ' it had been good as upon a pleading of a Statute Ne entra pas contra formam Statuti Clench If I be bound to suffer I. S. to have my house but not I. D. I ought to answer That I have suffered the one and not the other to have it Suit Justice They are both severall issues and one shall not be repugnant to the other Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 75 STURGIE'S Case A Case was moved upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. Cap. 14. The Case as I conceive was thus Grandfather Father and Daughter Land descended from the Grandfather to the Father who made a Lease for one hundred years the Father died and the Daughter forged a Will of the Grandfather by which he gave the Land to the Father for life the Remainder to the Daughter in Fee and the same was forged to have avoided an Execution of a Statute Staple the Lease being defeated and if it were within the Statute of 5. Eliz. was the question Solicitor That it was within the statute and within the first Branch viz. If any shall forge any deed c. to the intent that the Estate of Free-hold or Inheritance of any person c. in or to any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments Freehold or Copyhold or the right Title or Interest of any c. of in or to the same or any of them shall or may be molested c. Lessee for years hath a Title hath an Interest hath a right therefore within the words of the Statute and those words shall be referred to the words Lands Tenements c. But Cook said They shall be referred to the words precedent viz. Estate of Freehold or Inheritance and then a Lease for years is not within them Also by the Solicitor A Testament in writing is within the words of the Statute and therefore he recited a clause in the end of the Statute viz. and if any person plead publish or shew forth c. to the intent to have or claime thereby any Estate of Inheritance Freehold or Lease for years And also he said a Statute Staple is an estate for years although it be not a Lease for years because it is not certain Cook If she should be within both branches then she should be twice punished which Law will not suffer And the Statute is whereby any Estate for years shall be claimed and she would not claim but defeat an Estate for years and a Statute Staple is not a Lease for years and the Statute is not to be taken by Equity because it is a Penall Law Solicitor When the Statute is extended then it is an Estate for years although it be uncertain If a man forge a Lease for years it is directly within the Statute But if a man have a Lease and another is forged to defeat it it is a question whether it be within the Statute And all the doubt of this Case is upon the reference of these words Right Title Interest And it was adjourned Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 76 THE Vicar of Pancras Case was argued again by Godfrey And he said That no Plea shall be
not recited in the Statute So here our Case is within the Mischiefe of the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 4. although it be not within the Example So the Statute of West 1. is That if the Gardien or Lessee for years maketh a Feoffment in Fee Tam Feofator quam feofatus habeantur pro disseisoribus yet 22. Ass is That if Tenant by Elegit make a Feoffment it is within the Statute Also it may be a doubt Whether Land devisable onely by custome bee intended in the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 4. And whether Land devisable by the Statute of 32. H. 8. be within it or not viz. If a Statute of a puâ—sne time shall be taken by Equity within a more Ancient Statute and I conceive it may as 12. H. 7. the Statue of 4. H. 7. which sayes that the heire of Cestuy que use shall be in Ward shall extend to the Statute of Praerogativa Regis for if he be in Ward to the King he shall have Prerogative in the Lands to have other Lands by reason thereof Gaudy Justice did rely very much upon the word Devisees viz. that they have an Interest and that the Sale was not good Suit Justice They are both Executors and Devisees of the Lands Devisees of the Lands and Executors to performe the Will Cook he who refused to sell cannot waive the Freehold which is in him by a refusall in pars as 7. H. 2. and 7. E. 4. but ought to waive it in a Court of Record therefore he hath an Interest remaining in him Clenche Justice What if he had devised the Lands to four and made one of them his Executors and willed that he should sell could not he sell All the Court agreed that he might Cook When a man deviseth that his Executors shall sell the Fee descends to the heir yet they may sell that which is in another but the same is not like to our Case It was adjourned Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 93. A Judgement was given upon a Bond for four thousand pound And the Scire facias was sued for three thousand pound and he did not acknowledge satisfaction of the other thousand pound Haughton moved That the Scire facias should abate As if a man brings Debt upon a Bond of twenty pound and shews a Bond for forty pound and doth not acknowledge satisfaction for 20l l it is not good The Justices would advise of it And at another day it was moved againe Whether the Scire facias was good because it doth recite Quod cum nuper such a one recuperasset four thousand pound and doth not shew in what Action or at what day the Judgment was given or the Recovery had Piggot That is not material for such is the Form in an Audita querela or Redisseisin As to the other That he doth not acknowledge satisfaction as in the Case before cited by Haughton which Case is in 1. H. 5. That is not like to an Execution for an Execution is joint or severall at the will of him who sues it forth as in 19. R. 2. Execution 163. hee may have part of his Execution against one in his life time and if he dieth other part against his Heir or Executor Note the Execution was of the whole but because the Defendant had not so much he had but part against him who had no more and therefore of the residue he had Execution against the Heir Gawdy Justice I conceive that he cannot have an Execution unlesse he acknowledge Satisfaction There is no difference as to that betwixt the Action of Debt upon a Bond and a Scire facias and the intendment viz. that it shall be intended that he was paid because he sued but for Three thousand Pound will not help him Piggot as to that vouched a Case out of 4 5. Mary in Dyer which I cannot find Suit Justice said That if the Defendant in the Scire facias say nothing by such a day that Judgement should be entred for the Plaintiffe Quod executio fiet Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 94 JUdgement was given against an Infant by default in a reall Action of Land And a Writ of Error was thereupon brought and it was argued That it is not error for in many cases an Infant shall be bound by a Judicious act as 3. E. 3. Infant 14. Where an Infant and a Feme Covert bring a Formedon and the woman was summoned and severed And it was pleaded That where the Writ doth suppose the woman was Sole she was Covert and Judgment was demanded of the Writ and that the Infant could not gainsay it but confessed it this Confession of the Plea which abated his Writ was taken And 3. H. 6. 10. Br. Saver Default 51. An Infant shall not save his default for he shall not wage his Law See there that the Default shall not be taken against him therefore that book seems rather against it then for it Vide 6. H. 8. Br. Saver Default 50. That Error lieth upon a Recovery by default against an Infant otherwise if it be upon an Action tried so is 2 Mar. Br. Judgment 147. It was said That a generall Act of Parliament shall bind an Infant if he be not excepted The Justices did seem to incline That if Judgement be given by default that it shall bind an Infant but there was no rule given in the Case Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 95 A Clark of the King's Bench sued an Officer of the Common Pleas and he of the Common Pleas claimed his Priviledge and could not have it granted to him for it is a generall rule That where each of the persons is a person able to have Priviledge he who first claimes it viz. the Plaintiffe shall have it and not the Defendant As if an Atturney of the Common Pleas sueth one of the Clarks of the Kings Bench yet he of the Kings Bench shall not have Priviledge although the Kings Bench be a more high Court because the other is Plaintiffe and first claimeth it Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 96 AM Action upon the Case upon a Promise was brought but the Case was so long that I could not take it But in that Case Tanfield who argued for the Defendant said That it is not lawfull for any man to meddle in the cause of another if he have not an Interest in the thing for otherwise it will be Maintenance But if a Custome be in question betwixt the Lord of the Manor and Copy-holder all the other Copy-holders of the Manor may expend their money in maintenance of the other and the Custome and the Master may expend the money of the servant in maintenance of the servant So he in the Remainder may maintain him who hath the particular Estate Maintenance is an odious thing in the Law for it doth encrease troubles and Suites He argued also How that Bonds Obligations and Specialties might be
For there the Jury found a dying seised after Judgement in a Recovery whereas a dying seised was alledged and did not say after a Recovery Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 99 EGLINTON and AUNSELL'S Case IN an Action upon the Case for Words the words were these Thou art a Cosening Knave Crowner and hast cosened many of thy Kindred of their Lands Cook It is adjudged That Cosener will bear no Action for the words are too generall And the word Cosener doth not go to the Office in the Principall Case also the word Cosening is a word abused 30. H. 8. Br. Action upon the Case 104. False perjured man bears an Action but false man without Perjured will bear no Action and is nothing else but false and fraudulent There was a Case as Cook said betwixt Osborne and Frittell You did robb me and took away my Evidences and a Sub pena And it was ruled That no Action did lie for them And there it was holden That the word And was a Copulative Kirâ—yâ—'s Case Thou art a crafty cosening Knave and hast cosened many of thy Kindred Adjudged not Actionable Snagg Serjeant contrary That the Action lieth for he said That a Crowner is sworn to do his Office and if he be false and deceitfull in his Office then he is forsworn and the word And here begins a new sentence and doth not expound the precedent words as the words because or in that c. Clench Justice If the word Cosener had been left out it had been a cleer Case that the words would not have born an Action And if one do call him cosening Crowner it is cleer the words are Actionable Gaudy Justice We are to go strongly against these kind of Actions If the words Cosening shall go and extend to the word Crowner then cleerly an Action doth lie in respect of the Office And then if And and all the subsequent words had been left out yet the Action would lie Suit Justice If there were words sufficient before the word And to maintain an Action the subsequent words shall not overthrow those that went before But if the words had been Thou art a Cosening Knave Crowner in cosening of thy Kindred the Action had not been maintainable but the word And is not a word explantory as the word in is The better Opinion of the Court was That the words were not Actionable Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 100 A Man brought an Action upon the Case for speaking these words of him viz. He hath aided Pirats contrary to the Lawes of the Realme and against a Proclamation in that behalfe Snag said That the words are not Actionable because there wants the word Scienter for an honest man may unwittingly do so And if a man chargeth one in an Action upon the Statute of 5. Elizabeth and declare that he said That he was perjured contrary to the forme of the Statute hee also ought to say That hee did it willingly and corruptly Cook True if a man bring an Action upon the Statute of 5. Elizabeth But if he saith Such a one is a perjured man generally an Action upon the Case will lie without saying willingly and corruptly Also those words viz. Contrary to the Lawes of the Realm do imply Scienter for if it were not Scienter it could not be contrary to the Lawes of the Realme Clenche Justice I conceive that the word Scienter is a materiall word in this Case and vouched the Lord Shandoes Case where one said That he was a maintainer of Theeves and it was adjudged that the Action would lie It was one Sidenhams Case Where one said That a Robbery was done and that such a one smelt of it and an Action was brought for the words and adjudged That an Action would lie And the words here are as forcible as if he had said Scienter and the Case was adjourned for the search of presidents untill the next Terme Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 101 IF two men be partners of Merchandizes in one Ship and one of them appoints and makes a Factor of all the Merchandizes It was moved by Godfrey and not denyed by the Justices That both of them may have severall Writs of Account against him or they may joine in one Writ of Account if they please Quaere of that Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench 102 A Man made a Contract with another man when he dwelt in the City of London and afterwards he who made the Contract went from the City and dwelt within the cinque Ports and he being afterward impleaded in the Kings Bench upon the Contract claimed the priviledg of the cinque Ports which according to 12. E. 4. is That those of the cinque Ports shall not be sued elswhere then within the cinque Ports Suit Justice said That that was true for any matter or cause arising within the cinque Ports But otherwise if a man do enter upon a Bond of One hundred or One thousand Pound and then go and dwell in the cinque Ports perhaps so the Obligee might lose his Debt And it was adjudged That the Defendant should not have Priviledge Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 103. Sir JERVIS CLIFTON's Case IN a Quo Warranto The Information was That where the Defendant was seised of a Mannor and of a House within it That he claimed to have a Court or View of Frankpledge infra messuagium praedictum and further it was that Sine aliqua Concessione sive authoritate usurpavit Libertates praedictas The Defendant pleaded That Non usurpavit Libertates praedict ' infra Messuagium praedictum modo forma Piggot The Plea is not good for the naturall Answer to a Quo Warranto is either to claime or disclaime and he doth do neither of them And if a man will tender a generall issue he ought so to tender it as the Nature of the Action doth require That he was never seised after time of memory is no plea in Rescous In Debt rein arere is no plea but he ought to answer to the Debet The speciall matter alledged in the Action ought to be answered and the generall not to be pleaded as it is pleaded here Non usurpavit c. as in 21. E. 3. Detinue of Charters was pleaded in a Writ of Dower and she said That such a one was seised and did enfeoffe her and her Husband and so the Deeds did belong unto her The Partie shall not traverse that they did not belong unto her but must answer unto the especiall matter viz. the Feoffment Also he said Quod non usurpavit c. infra Messuagium praedictum where he ought to have said Infra Manerium praedictum An Account was brought upon a Receipt for seven years and the Defendant pleaded to two of the years and issue was joyned upon it And it was adjudged error Godfrey He ought to say Non usurpavit Libertates praedictas nec earum
the Person and to that purpose he cited 15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord improve part of the Common that he shall not have common for the Residue because of the same Land newly improved for he cannot prescribe for that which is improved by 5. Ass 2. But here he doth prescribe not in the person or in or for a new thing but that the usage of the Towne hath been That the Inhabitants shall have common and that common is not appendent nor appertinent nor in grosse by Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. Besides he said That if the house of a Freeholder who hath used to have such common fall down and he build it up again in another place of the Land that he shall have common as before And he put a difference betwixt the case of Estovers and this Case where a new Chimney is set up for that makes a new matter of charge and he much stood upon the manner of the Prescription Gaudy Serjeant contrary and he took Exception to the Prescription for he saith that it is antiqua villa and doth not say time out of mind and such is the Prescription in 15. E. 4. 29. a. and if it be not a Town time out of mind c. he cannot prescribe that he hath used time out of mind c. And he said That if it should be Law that every one who builds a new house should have common it should be prejudiciall to the Ancient Tenants or impaire the common And so one who hath but a little land might build 20 houses and so an infinite number and every house should have common which were not reason Anderson chief Justice He who builds a new house cannot prescribe in common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted upon the generall loss to the ancient Tenants Pâ—riam Justice If it should be Law that he should have common then the benefit of improvement which the Statute giveth to the Lord shall be taken away by this means by such new buildings which is not reason So as all the Justices were of opinion That he should not have common but Judgement was respited untill they had copies of the Record And Hillary Term following the Case was moved again and Anderson and Periam were of Opinion as they were before and for the same reasons But Windham Justice did incline to the contrary But they did all allow That he who new bulids an old Chimney shall have Estovers so a house common So if a house fall down and the Tenant build it up again in another place Periam If a man hath a Mill and a Watercourse time out of mind which he hath used to cleanse if the Mill fall down and he set up a new Mill he shall have the liberty to cleanse the Watercourse as he had before And that Terme Judgement was given for the Defendant to which Windham agreed Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 111 IN a Replevin the parties were at Issue upon the Property and it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages intire were assessed and not for the taking by it self and for the value of the Cattell by themselves for the Judgement upon that is absolute and not conditionall and also if the Plaintiffe had the Cattell the Defendant might have given the same in Evidence to the Jury and then they would have assessed Damages accordingly viz. but for the taking Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 112 A. bargaines with B. for twenty Loads of Wood and B. promises to deliver them at D. if he fail an Action upon the Case lieth But Periam Justice said That upon a simple contract for wood upon an implicative promise an Action upon the Case doth not lie Rodes Justice If by failer of performance the Plaintiff be damnified to such a sum this Action lieth Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 113 A Lease of Lands is made excepting Timber-Woods and Under-woods And the question was Whether Trees Sparsim growing in Hedge rowes and Pastures did passe And difference was taken betwixt Timber-wood being one Wood and Timber Woods being severall Words although it bee Arbor dum crescit lignum dum crescere nescit yet in common speech that is said Timber which is fit to make Timber Then it was moved Who should have the Lops and Fruits of them and the Soile after the cutting of them downe and also the Soile after the Under Woods and as to that a difference was taken where the words are generally All woods and where they are his woods growing And in speaking of that case another case was moved viz. If a stranger cut down woods in a Forrest and there is no fraud or collusion betwixt him and the owner of the Land Whether the King should have them or the owner of the Soile And it was holden That the owner of the Soile should have them and yet the owner could not cut them downe but is to take them by the Livery of one appointed by the Statute Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 114. A. makes a Lease of Lands to B. for ten years rendring rent And B. covenants to repaire c. Afterwards A. by his Will deviseth that B. shall have the Lands for thirty years after the ten years under the like Covenants as are comprised in the Lease Fenner moved it as a question If by the Devise those which were Covenants in the first Lease should be Conditions in the second for they cannot bee Covenants for want of a Deed And if they should not be Conditions the heir of the Lessor were without remedie if they were not performed A Devise for years paying ten pounds to a stranger is a Condition because the stranger hath no other remedy Gaudy Justice By the Devise to him to do such things as he was to do by the Lease makes it to be a Condition which was in a manner agreed by all the other Justices Yet Periam and Rodes Justices said That the first Lease was not defeisable for not performance of the Covenants nor was it the intent of the Devisor that the second should be so notwithstanding that his meaning was that he should do the same things Periam The Covenant is in the third person viz. Conventum Aggreatum est And see 28. H. 8. Dyer where the words Non licet to the Lessee to assigne make a Condition Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 115. BARBER and TOPESFEILD'S Case A. being Tenant in taile of certain Lands exchanged the same with B. B. entred and being seised in Fee of other Lands devised severall parcels thereof to others and amongst the rest a particular estate unto his heir Proviso That he do not re-enter nor claim any of his other Lands in the destruction of his Will And if he do that then the estate in the Lands devised to him to cease A. dieth his issue entreth into the Lands in
it is not shewed that he used any other rite or Ceremony c. for there ought to be some Positive thing 3. He doth not shew the Place or Parish where he persisted in it and that is materiall and issuable The fourth Exception was Because it was Inquisitio câ—pta coram Johanne Peter Waltero Mildmay and so named four of them by vertue of a Commission directed to them and to others and doth not shew what others nec quod illi fuerunt praesentes and then if the Commission were to them all jointly and two only were present then it was coram non judice and so void 5. The Statute saies That if any Parson or Vicar but doth not say being Minister Dei. The sixth was That it was at another Church c. Wray Chief Justice If this Evasion should be allowed the Statute were not to the purpose The seventh was That it doth not shew where the persisting was for that is a speciall thing and materiall and issuable Wray Chief Justice conceived That that only was a materiall Exception and that the other Exceptions were but frivolous and were not good Hill 29. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 138 WARREN's Case ONE Warren demanded by a Writ of Debt in the Common Pleas Forty Pound and upon his Declaration did confess himselfe satisfied of Twenty Pound and thereupon Error was brought in the King's Bench And the Judgement reversed because by his Declaration he had abated his Writ and he ought to have Judgement according to his Writ and not according to his Declaration The Error assigned was in the Outlawry and it was holden by all the Justices That if the principall Record be reversed for Error that the Outlawry which is grounded upon it shall be reversed also Hill 29. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 139 ROOTE 's Case THE Case was in a Prohibition touching Tithes and the libell in the Spirituall Court was for Corn and Hay and other things and the Tenant of the land did prescribe to pay in one part of the land the third part of the tenth and in another part the moity of the tenth of Corn for all manner of Tithes And the Court did incline that the same was a good prescription And a Prohibition was granted to the Ecclesiasticall Court Hill 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 140 A Man was possessed for the terme of six years of a Tavern in London and leased the same unto another for three years and it was convenanted betwixt them that during the three years quolibet mense monthly the lessee should give an Account to the lessor of the Wine which he sold and should pay unto him for every Tun sold so much money And afterwards the lessor granted the three years which were remaining of the six years to another and he did request the lessee to account and he would not whereupon he brought an Action of Covenant and the Defendant pleaded That he had accounted to the Assignee of the three years and upon that there was a Demurrer joyned And the better opinion of the Court was that it was no Plea because it was not a Covenant which did go with the land or the Reversion but was a collaterall thing and did not pass by the assignment of the three years Hill 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 141 IT was adjudged That the bringing of a Writ of Error to reverse a Fine by an Infant during his nonage is not sufficient but the Fine by Judgement in the Writ of Error must be reversed during his Nonage Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 142 WIDALL and Sr. JOHN ASHTON's Case A Writ of Error was brought by Widall against Sr. John Ashston because in the other action being an action of Wast The Plaintiff there did declare that he was seised and so seised demisit pro termino annorum c. and did not shew of what estate he was seised And yet he did suppose that it was ad exhaeredationem ejus c. And the same by Beamount was taken for an exception as 7. H. 6. A man pleaded a Feoffment to two haeredibus and doth not say suis it is uncertain And in the principal Case it shall be supposed that he hath but an estate for life for it shall not be intended that he hath an estate of Inheritance without expressing of words to carry an Inheritance As 7. Ass If I grant a Rent to I. S. and do not name what estate he shall have in it he shall have but an estate for life But he said that the Presidents are that if the word seised had been left out it had been good enough For by the Book of Entries a man may say demisit without saying that he was seised demisit But if a man will plead a thing which is not necessary to be pleaded and mistake it it shall make his Plea naught as in Patridges Case Where a suite was upon the Statute of Maintenance It is sufficent to say contra formam Statuti But if he will plead specially the day and place of the Statute and mis-plead it it makes all naught Suit Justice I conceive that that is a fault incurable But upon the other side it was argued that in 21. H. 7. It is holden that he might plead quod demisit without that that he was seised and demisit as there in an Action of Debt And therefore it is but surplusage in the principal Case Vide 15. E. 4. A good Case where surplusage shall not hurt because it is not traversable And he urged that by the Statute of 18. El. the Declaration doth not abate for matter of form And he said that Counts and Declarations shall be taken by Intendment and it shall be intended that if bringeth Wast that he hath such an estate that he may maintain such Action In Adams Case in the Commentaries One shewed that such an Abbot was seised and that the Land came unto the King by Dissolution and that the King being seised did grant the same and did not shew of what estate the King was seised and yet it was holden good See a good Case to this purpose 18. E. 3. Formedon 58. And he said that the Defendant had pleaded Nul wast fait and therefore he had by his Plea affirmed the Declaration to be good Beamount He ought to have said reversione inde sibi haeredibus c. Clenche Justice I conceive that the Statute of 18. El. helps that Suit Justice No truly It was adjourned Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 143 AN Action of Covenant was brought by a Man against another who had been his Apprentize The Defendant pleaded that he was within age The plaintiff did maintain his Action by the Custome of London Where one by Covenant may binde himself within age And Exception was taken to it That that was a Departure Daniel It is no Departure for by 18. R. 2. an Infant brought an Action against Gardian in Socage and the
yet in the interim during the life of Brenne and his wife it is one entire Manor For if Blackborow had levied a Fine thereof before entry his Interest in the Land had not passed And if a Fine be levied of the Manor and the Conusee render back part to one for life and another part to another for life the remainder of the whole to a third until the Two enter it is one entire Manor in the hands of the Conusee If I devise that my Executors shall sell such Lands which are parcell of a Manor and dye untill they sell it remains parcell of the Manor So if the heir selleth the Manor that Land shall passe for it is but executory and remains parcell untill it be executed Wherefore in the principall Case here the Copy-hold is good The reason of the Case 33. H. 8. Dyer 48. is because before the grant the advowson was not appendant to that acre onely but to the whole Manor and to that acre as parcell of it Also he said that the Copy-hold shall be good against the Lessee being granted before execution of his term when as the Manor was entire For he who hath a Manor but for one year may grant Copies and the grant shall be good to bind him in the Reversion And if one recovereth an acre parcell of a Manor before execution it is parcell of the Manor and by grant of the Manor shall passe Periam Justice But yet now being executed by the death of the Lessor and his wife it is no part of the Manor if they be severall Leases Walmesley But the Defendant is in by Custome by one who is Dominus pro tempore Anderson Chief Justice The Case of 48. E. 3. is like our Case And I conceive clearly here is no severance but if there had been any severance it had been otherwise but I doubt of the other point Periam Justice In 13. H. 4. the difference is taken betwixt a grant of a Manor una cum advocatione and a grant of a Manor et ulterius a grant of the Advowson In 14. Eliz. Dyer 311. in the Case of the Lord Cromwell and Andrews it is moved If a man bargain and sell give and grant a Manor and Advowson to one and afterwards levieth a Fine or inrolleth the Deed Dyer held that the Advowson shall passe by the Bargain and Sale as in gross before that the Deed be enrolled But I conceive that it cannot pass if the Deed be not enrolled and then it shall pass as appendant by reason of the intent of the parties and so in this Case And for the last matter I conceive very strongly that when the Lease which is executory takes effect that it shall avoid the Copy-hold for although at once viz. during the expectancy of the said Lease to begin at a day to come the Copy-hold be not extinct yet now he may say That all times as in respect to him the Copy-hold Custome was broken I hold That a Tenant in Dower shall not avoid a Copy-hold made during the Coverture and so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench. But I conceive there is a difference betwixt that Case and the Case in question for in that Case the title of the wife to have Dower is not consummate till the death of the Husband Anderson Chief Justice I can shew you an Authority That if I grant unto you such Land and the Manor of D. there the Land shall pass as parcell of the Manor Periam True there for it doth enforce the first grant But here the intent of the parties doth appear and the same is to be respected Anderson But their intent ought to be according to the Law as in 19. H. 8. it is holden it shall be in a Devise Anderson upon the Argument of this Case said That if a Warranty be to a whole Manor and also to an Advowson the party cannot have Two Warrantia Chartae Periam If he had further said in the Deed That his intent was that it should be severall the same had altered the Case Anderson No truely because his intent did not stand with the rule of Law As if a man devise that his Lands shall be sold and doth not say by whom it is void and yet the intent is expressed If the Lease had been by severall Deeds Periam said The Copy-hold had beene severed Windham denied that If both the Deeds bee delivered at one time It was adjourned Hill 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 148 AN Information was upon the Statute of 5. 6. E. 6. for buying of seed Corn having sufficient of his own and not bringing so much unto the Market of his own corn and a generall issue was found upon it And it was delivered for Law to the Jury by the Justices That a Contract in Market for corn not in the Market or which was not there that day is not within the Branch of the Statute But if corn or graine be in the Market although that the Contract be made in a house out of the Market and delivered to the Vendee out of the Market yet it is within the Statute And in the Argument of that Case Anderson said That the Market shall be said The place in the Town where it hath used to be kept and not every place of the Town And a Sale in Market overt in London ought to be in a Shop which is open to the street and not in Chambers or inward rooms otherwise the property is not altered And so it is of all Statutes in open Markets And the Recorder of London said That such was their Custome in London Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 149 It was holden by Anderson chiefe Justice That if one deviseth Lands to the heirs of I. S. and the Clerk writes it to I. S. and his heirs that the same may be holpen by averrment because the intent of the Devisor is written and more And it shall be naught for that which is against his intent and against his will and good for the residue But if a Devise be to I. S. and his heirs and it is written but to the heirs of I. S. there an averrment shall not make it good to I. S. because it is not in writing which the Statute requires anâ— so an averrment to take away surplusage is good but not to encrease that which is defective in the Will of the Testator Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 150 A Feoffment was made unto A. unto the use of him and his wife dis-punishable of Wast during their lives one died and the Survivor committed Wast It was the opinion of the whole Court that an Action of Wast would not lie by him in the Reversion for it is a Priviledge which is annexed to the Estate which shall continue as long as the Estate doth continue Mich. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 151 A. grants annualem redditum out of Lands in which he hath nothing The opinion of
be out of his Apprentiship and he died within the time the Executors shall not have the money otherwise if the Bond had been to pay money after the expiration of ten years Adjudged Mich. 5. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 200 GAGE and PEACOCK's Case IT was adjudged in this case That if Lessee for years of a Manor take a Lease of the Bailiwick of the Manor that it is no surrender of his term because it is of a thing which is collaterall Mich. 5. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 201 IF a Parson have a Benefice above the yearly value of eight pound and afterwards he taketh another Benefice with a dispensation and afterwards he taketh a third Benefice his first Benefice is onely void Adjudged per Curiam Mich. 5. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 202 A Man in consideration of Marriage doth assure and promise to do three severall things For the not performance of one of them the party to whom the promise is made bringeth an Action upon the case and to enable him to the Action sayes That the Defendant in consideration of Marriage did promise him to performe the said thing for which the Action is brought without speaking of the other two things The Defendant by plea in barre said Non assumpsit modo formâ And the opinion of the Court was that it was a good issue For the Contract being entire if it be not a good plea the Defendant might be charged for the severall things which cannot be being but one contract by word But it is otherwise of severall contracts in writing Trinit 5. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 203 Sir JOHN SPENCER and POYNT's Case SIr John Spencer made a Lease for years unto Sir John Poynts rendring rent by Indenture The Lessee covenants that if the rent be behind at any time of payment according to the forme of the Indenture that the Lessor shall have two hundred pound Nomine poenae for such default The rent is behind Sir John Spencer brought Debt for the Nomine poenae The Question was Whether without Demand of the rent debt did not lie for the Nomine poenae And the better opinion of the Court was that the Action of Debt did not lie Vide Fitz N. B. 120. seems contrary 5. Jacobi at the Sessions at Newgate 204 IT was adjudged upon the Statute of 1 Jacobi of desperate Stabbing to be Felony without Clergy That because that the party had a cudgell in his hand That that was a weapon drawn within the intent of the Statute And the party was thereupon arraigned of Felony and not of Murder and admitted to his Clergy Mich. 5 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 205 NOte It was holden by the whole Court That if a man appeareth upon a Scire facias That he shall not have an Audita Quereba because he had notice in facto otherwise if he had appeared upon the 2. Nichil returned which amounts to a Scire feci for there he hath not notice in fact But it was said That the course is otherwise in the Common Pleas. Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 206 JOHNSON's Case IN an Accompt the Defendant was adjudged to account and the parties were at issue before Auditors and the Plaintiffe was Non-suit The Question was Whether he should have a Scire facias against the Defendant to account upon the first Originall and the better opinion of the Court was That he should not but should be put to a new Writ of Account according to the opinion of Townsend in 1. H. 7. against 21. E. 3. and 3. H. 4. Mich. 6. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 207 NOte It was holden by Justice Williams and not denied by any other of the Justices That if Lands be given to one and his heir that the same is a Fee-simple because the word Heir is Collectivum Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 208 HARLOW and WOOD's Case IN an Action of Trover and Conversion the Case was A stranger delivered the Horse of Harlow to an Inholder Harlow came to him and demanded his horse who refused to deliver it to him if hee would not save him harmelesse and indamnified But because the pleading was Quod quidem homo did deliver to him and did not shew his name certain The Plea was adjudged not to be good Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 209 Sir ROBERT BARKER and FINCHE'S Case A Man made a Lease for years rendring Rent at Michaelmas and the Annunciation of our Lady he in the reversion bargained and sold the same to a Stranger who gave notice thereof to the Lessee The day of the payment came the Lessee paid the rent to the Bargainor and then the Deed was enrolled The question was Whether the Bargainee should have the rent by relation so as the Bargainor should be charged in account to the Lessee for the rent first paid And the Court was of opinion That the Bargainee should not have the rent Dodderidge Serjeant If the rent be paid to an administrator who hath right for a time and afterwards a Will is found and proved so as it appeareth upon the matter that there was an Executor and by consequence no administration could be the rent shall be paid by him again to the Executors Quaere Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 210 Grissell and Sir Christopher Hodsdens Case IN this Case it was agreed for Law That if two Lords be Tenants in Common of a Waste and each of them hath a Court in which are divers By-lawes made it ought to be presented by the Homage That such a one hath not any thing in the Common ad exhaeredationem Domini and no Dominorum notwithstanding that they are Tenants in common Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 211 LEE and SWAN'S Case AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking of these words viz. The Plaintiffe being a Town Clark took forty shillings for a Bribe And by the whole Court the words adjudged Actionable Mich. 6. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 212 BRIGG'S Case ACtion for the Case for words You have bought a Roan stollen Horse knowing him to be stollen It was adjudged That the words were Actionable Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 213 IT was adjudged in this Court That an Ejectione firme doth lie de aquae cursu Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 214 A Man was indicted for a common Barrator Anno Regni Domini nostri Jacobi sexto and the word Regis was left out of the Indictment and for that cause the Indictment was quashed It was Nelson and Toyes Case Mich. 6. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 215 IT was adjudged in this Court That if the Wife of a Lessee for years doth assent a to Livery made of the house in the absence of her Husband although that the servants and children be and continue in the house that it is a good Livery Quaere If the wife notwithstanding her assent doth continue in the house But if a man doth
therefore the Commoner shal be excluded But it will be objected that the Statute is that the Owners of the Ground may enclose But Sir Francis Barrington is not Owner for the Lord Rich is the Owner of the Ground I say that Sir Francis Barrington is the Owner for he hath the Herbage and the Trees so as he hath all the profit and he who hath the profit shall be said to have the Land it self and he vouched Paramour and Yardleys Case in Plow Com. Dyer 285. and 37. H. 6. 35. and 17. E. 4. 16. Also the Statute is in the disjunctive viz. the Owner or the Vendee and although he be not Owner of the soil yet he is Vendee of the Trees Secondly It will be objected that the same is not a general Law of which the Judges are to take notice and therefore he ought to plead it I hold it to be general enough of which you are to take knowledge although it be not pleaded he cited Hollands Case Thirdly It will be objected that by such general Law the particular interest of a private man shall not be destroyed To that I say that such general Statutes will include such particular interests and therefore the Case betwixt Sir Foulke Grevill and Stapleton was adjudged that where Willoughby Lord Brookes had Lands to him by Act of Parliament with authority to make Leases for one life and no more By the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Leases that authority is enlarged and he might make Leases for three lives Haughton Serjeant Although he be Owner of the profits he is not Owner of the soil and there is a difference betwixt the same and the soil And the Statute speaks of Trees growing in his own soil Foster Justice The Arbitrament the Assurance and the especial Act of Parliament is nothing to the purpose in this Case and to plead them was more then was needfull For by the Arbitrament and the Assurance the Commoner being a third person cannot be bounden in which he was not a party And by the special Act of Parliament he shall not be bound because the Act is against the Lord Rich and his Heirs so as a stranger shall not be bound by the Act And therefore upon the Statute of 18. Eliz. cap. 2. of Patents the Case was That the Queen made a Lease for years which was void for not reciting of a former Lease and afterwards she granted the Inheritance unto another And then came the Statute of 18. Eliz. which confirmed all Patents against her her Heirs and Successors by that Statute the Grantee in Fee was not bounden but he might avoid the Lease for years for the Statute is against the Queen and her successors and that case was adjudged But our case is without doubt as to that point for the right and interest of estrangers is saved by the Act then all rests upon the Statute of 22. E. 4. and I conceive that the same is a speciall Act and ought to be pleaded for it is not generally of all Woods but only of Woods in Forrests and Chases But admitting it to be a generall Act yet I conceive That it was not the meaning of it to exclude a Commoner and that appears fully by the later words of the Statute viz Without licence of c. which excludes only the Owners of the Forrest and it was not the meaning that he might inclose without the leave of the Commoner One thing hath troubled me in the Statute because it is said that before that time he could not inclose more then for 3. years so as before that statute he might enclose for 3 years as it seems without Licence and now by the Statute for 7 years Also for another cause I conceive that the Defendant shall not take advantage of the Statute as he hath pleaded for he hath pleaded that he did enclose and cut whereas the statute saies that he shall enclose after the Cutting so as I hold cleerely that he hath not pursued the authority of the Stat. for upon the St. of 35. H. 8. which is penned contrary to this Stat. scil that the Owner of the wood shall make enclosure and division for the Cōmoner and then he is to cut I hold cleerly that after the felling he cannot make any enclosure Also admitting that by the Stat. the Cōmoner shall be excluded I hold that by the Stat. of 35. H. 8. that that Stat. is repealed in that point for the Stat. of 35. H. 8. is That no man shall fell woods wherein Commoners have Interest by Prescription until he hath divided the fourth part so that the Authority if any were is restrained by that Stat. if he be a Cōmoner by Prescription as he is in our Case But if it had been a Common by grant it had not been within the Clause of Restraint And Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant especially the Stat. being in the Negative as it is here For by a Negative Statute the Cōmon Law shall be restrained otherwise if the Stat. were in the affirmative for these reasons I conclude That the plaintiff ought to have Judgment Warburton Justice contrary All the matter rests upon the Statute of 22. E. 4. First I hold that the same is a general act although it be particular in some things So you may say of all statutes which are particular in some one point or other I hold also That the Stat. of 22. E. 4. is not repealed in this point by the Stat. of 35 H. 8. because they were made to several purposes The one was for Forrests and Chases the other onely for other particular Woods And I hold that the Cōmoner shall be excluded for otherwise the Stat. should be void and contrary viz. to give power to one to enclose and exclude all beasts and yet to permit another to put in his cattel And by the words of the Statute which exclude all beasts and cattell the Deer shall not be excluded or intended for they shall not be said beasts or cattel As in 30. E. 3. One who chaseth a cow in a Park shall be said within the Statute de Malefactoribus in Parcis And then if the authority of enclosure be not to exclude the Deer it shall be to exclude the cattell of the Commoner and other the like estrangers or otherwise it should be to no purpose As to that which hath been said That there is not a person who may inclose by the Statute the Statute is that the Owner shall inclose or he to whom the Wood shall be sold so that although that hee be not Owner yet he is to have the Trees and the profits and the Statute doth intend that he may inclose who ought to have the profit and although the sale be not for monie yet such a person may be said Vendee well enough Wherefore I conclude that Judgment ought to be for the Defendant Walmesley Justice I hold that he hath not authoritie by the
Statute to enclose For the Statute is When any man fels trees in his proper soile so that he not being owner of the ground he is not within the Statute and that was the effect of his argument And as to the other point he did not speak at all Cook chief Justice I hold that the plaintiffe ought to have judgment all the matter doth consist upon the Statute of 22. E. 4. which is to be considered And first is to be considered what was the common Law before that Statute and that was That one who had a Wood within a Forrest might fell it as it appeareth by the Statute de Forresta and the Statnte of 1 E. 3. 2. by licence and also he might enclose it for three yeers as it appeareth by the Statute of 22. E. 4. but the enclosure was to be cum parvo fossato haia bassa as it appeareth by the Register in the Writ of Ad quod damnum so as before that Statute there was an enclosure But the Law is cleer That before that Statute by the enclosure the Commoner shall not be excluded Then wee are to consider of the Statute And first Of the persons to whom the Statute doth extend and that appeareth by the preamble to be betwixt the King and other owners of Forrests and Chases and the owners of the Soil so as a Commoner is not any person within the meaning of the Statute And for the body of the Statute you ought to intend that the sentence is continued and not perfected untill the end of the Statute and the words Without licence c. prove That no persons were meant to be bounden by the statute but the Owners of the Forrests and Chases and not the Commoners Like the case in Dyer And although you will expound the words of the bodie of the Statute generally yet they shall be taken according to the intent of the preamble and therefore the Case of 21. H. 7. 1. of the Prior of Castleacre although it be not adjudged in the Book yet Judgment is entred upon the Roll which Case is Pasch 18. H. 7. Rot. 460. By which case it appeareth that although that a Statute be made which giveth Lands to the King yet by that statute the Annuity of a stranger shall not be extinguished And the Case which hath been put by Justice Foster upon the Statute of 18. Eliz. was the case of Boswel for the Parsonage of Bridgwater That although that one who hath a lease for years of the King which was void for misrecitall might by the said Statute hold it against the King yet the Patentee in Fee shall not be prejudiced by the said Statute So I conclude That the Commoner is not a person within this Statute of 22. E. 4 Secondly It is to be considered if a Wood in which any one hath Common be within the Statute and I hold it is not but onely severall Woods For as I have said the Wood which before the Statute might be enclosed for three years was onely a severall Wood and not such a Wood in which any one had common And the statute of 22. E. 4. doth extend onely to such Woods which might be felled and enclosed for three yeers and I conceive contrary to my Brother Warburton That the Deer of the Forrest shall well enough be said to be beasts and cattell And whereas by the common Law before this statute the enclosure was onely to be as I have said cum parvo fossato haia bassa by which the Deer were not excluded now by this statute I hold that they may make great hedges to exclude aswell the Deer as other beasts And I agree with Justice Foster that if he will take advantage of the Statute that hee ought to have pleaded that first hee felled and afterwards enclosed and è contrà upon the Statute of 35. H. 8. scil that hee ought first to divide and afterwards to fell c. And also I agree with him that in that point the Statute of 35. H. 8. being contrary doth repeal the Statute of 22. E. 4. if by that Statute the Commoner shall be excluded But I am of opinion with my Brother Warburton cleerly That hee is a Vendee of the Trees and so within the Statute for it is not neeessary that in the Grant there be the word Sell or that money by given nor that it be a contract for a time onely and not to have cantinuance as it is in our case But he who hath the Trees to him and his heirs shall be said to be a Vendee well enough As to the other matter which hath been moved Whether the Statute of 22. E. 4 be a generall law or not I hold cleerly that we are to take knowledg of it although it be not pleaded because it concerneth the King for it is made for the Kings Forrests and of all the Acts made between the King and his subjects wee ought to take knowledg for so was Stowel's Case And also it was adjudged that wee ought to take knowledg of the act concerning the Creation of the Prince because it concerneth the King And Cook in his argument said That if there had not been a speciall proviosin for the Commoner in the Statute of 35. H. 8. the Commoner had not been excluded by that Statute And afterwards Judgment was entred for the plaintiffe Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 236 NOte That it was holden by three of the Justices viz. Walmâ—sley Warburton and Foster Cook and Daniel being abâ—ent for law cleerly That a Tenant at will cannot by any custome make a Lease for life by licence of the Lord and that there cannot be any such custome for a lease for life as there is for a lease for years Pasch 8. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 237 BERRY's Case NOte That upon an Evidence given to a Jury in a Case betwixt Berry and New Colledg in Oxford it was ruled by Walmesley Warburton Foster Justices in an Action of Trespass If it appear upon the Evidence that the plaintiff hath nothing in the land but in common with a stranger yet the Jury ought to finde with the Plaintiff and if the Defendant will have advantage of the Tenancy in common in the plaintiff he ought to have pleaded it Nichols Serjeant was very earnest to the contrary and took a difference where the Plaintiffe and Defendant are Tenants in common and where the Plaintiff is tenant in common with a stranger But he was over-ruled the action was an action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit c. Cook and Daniel were absent Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 238 IT was holden by Walmesley Warburton and Foster Justices That if a Rent be granted to one and his heirs for the life of another man and the grantee dieth that his heir shall not be an occupant of the Rent And Foster said that the reason was because he cannot plead a Que estate of a Rent
because that the particular estate was determined The cause of forfeiture was because that the Copiholder had made a lease for life Pasch 8. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 242 Dr. NEWMAN's Case IN this Case it was said by Cook Chief Justice That it had of late time been twice adjudged that if Timber trees be oftentimes topped and lopped for fuell yet the tops and lops are not Tithable for the body of the trees being by law discharged of Tithes so shall be the branches and therefore he that cutteth them may convert them to his own use if he please Pasch 8. Jacobi In the Exchequer Chamber 243 KERCHER's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought in the Common Pleas upon a simple contract made by the Testator which afterwards came into the Exchequer Chamber before all the Judges Cook in the Common Pleas was of opinion that the Action would lie Tanfield Chief Baron said That in these cases of Equitie it were most reason to enlarge and affirme the Authoritie of the Common law then to abridge it and the rather because the like Case had been oftentimes adjudged in the Kings Bench and there was no reason as he said that there should be a difference betwixt the Courts and that it would be a Scandall to the Common Law that they differed in opinion Afterwards at another day the Case was moved in this Court And Walmesley Justice doubted if as before But Foster held that the Action was maintainable And Cooke desired that Presidents might be searched And he said That he could not be perswaded but if the Executor be adverred to have Assetts in his hands sufficient to pay the specialties but that he should answer the debt Note the money demanded was for a Marriage portion promised by the Testator Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 244 ADAMS and WILSONS Case Note It was said That when a false Judgement passeth against the Defendant he may pray the Court that it be entred at a day peremtory so as he may have Attaint or a Writ of Error And Cook Chief Justice said That if Judgment in the principall Action be reversed the Judgment given upon the Scire facias shall also be reversed because the one doth depend upon the other Walmesley in this Case said That it had been the usual course of this Court That if one deliver a plea unto An Aturney of the Court as the Last Terme and it is not entred that now at another Terme the Defendant might give in a new plea if he would because the first is not upon Record Pasch 8. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 245 CULLINGWORTH's Case IF one be bounden in an Obligation That he will give to J. S. all the Goods which were devised to him by his father in Debt brought upon such an Obligation the Defendant cannot plead that he had not any Goods devised unto him for the Bond shall conclude him to say the contrary Vide 3. Eliz. Dyer 196 Rainsford Case Pasch 8. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 246 QUOD's Case QVod had Judgement in an Action upon the case at the Assizes and damages were given him to Thirty Pound Hutton Serjeant moved in Arrest of Judgement That the Venire facias was de duodecim and that one of them did not appear so as there was one taken de circumstantibus and the entry in the Roll was That the said Jurour exactos venit but the word Juratus was omitted And for that cause the Judgement was stayed Mich. 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 247 STONE 's Case STone an Atturney of the Court was in Execution in Norfolk for One thousand Pound and by practice procured himself to be removed by Habeas corpus before Cook Chief Justice at the Assizes in Lent and escaped to London and in Easter Terme the Bailiffe took him again and he brought an Action of false Imprisonment against the Bailiffe and it was holden by the Court That the fresh Suit had been good although he had not taken him in the end of the year if enquiry were made after him and so by consequence the Action was not maintainable Mich. 8. Jacobi in the Star-Chamber 248 MARRIOT's Case NOte It was agreed in this Case for Law That the Sheriffe cannot collect Fines or issues after a generall pardon by Parliament and therefore one Thorald the under Sheriffe of N. who did so was questioned and punished in the Star-Chamber Mich. 8 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 249 JOLLY WOOLSEY's Case JOlly Woolsey of Norfolk brought an Action of Trespass against a Constable of Assault and Battery and Imprisonment the Defendant as to the Assault and Battery pleaded Not guilty and justified the imprisonment by reason of a Warrant directed unto him by a Justice of Peace for the taking and to imprison the Plaintiffe for the keeping of an Ale-house contrary to the Statute 12 Feb. 5. El. whereas the Statute was 12 Feb. 5. Ed. 6. and the matter was found by speciall Verdict And it was holden by all the Justices That the misrecitall of the Act was not materiall for it being a generall Act the Justices ought to take knowledge of it And Cook Chief Justice said That a man cannot plead Nul tiel Record against an Act of Parliament although that in truth the Record be imbezelled if the Act be generall because every man is privy to it Mich. 8. Iacobi In the Common Pleas. 250 NEWMAN and BABBINGTON's Case IT was resolved in this Case That if Debt be brought against an Executor who pleads that he hath fully administred and it is found that he hath Assets to 40l. whereas the Debt is 60l l that a Judgement shall be given for the 60l. against the Defendant and upon that Judgment if more Assets come after to the Executors hand the Plaintiffe may have a Scire facias Mich. 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 251 WALLER's Case NOte It was said by Cook Chief Justice That if the King present one to a Benefice and afterwards presenteth another who is admitted instituted and inducted the same is a good repeal of the first presentation And he said That if the Lord doth present his Villain to the Church the same is no enfranchisement of him for that presentation is but his commendation And if the King will present a French man or a Spaniard they shall not hold the Benefice within this Realm for that the same is contrary to a special Act of Parliament Mich. 9. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 252 NOte It was holden by all the Justices That Perjury cannot be commited in the Court of the Lord of Copy-holds or in any Court which is holden by Usurpation otherwise is it in a Court Leet or Court Baron which is holden by Title Trinit 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 253 BURY and TAYLOR's Case IN an Ejectione firme brought upon Not guilty pleaded by the Defendant it was given in Evidence to the Jury to this effect viz. That one J. S. who did
afterwards he granted the Reversion for eighty years reserving the ancient rent The question was Whether he had pursued his Authority because by the meaning of the Proviso a Power was That the Conusor should have the rent presently or when the Term did begin But the opinion of the Court was That he had done lesse then by the Proviso he might have done for this Grant of the Reversion doth expire with the particular estates for life But if he had made a Lease to begin after the death of the Tenants for life the same had been more then this grant of the Reversion And Cook chief Justice said That the Grantor may presently have an Action of debt against the Grantee of the Reversion for the rent But because it was not averred that any of the Cestuy que viei were alive at the time when the Grantor did distrain for the rent Judgement in the principall case was respited Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 282 UPon the Statute of Bankrupts this Case was moved to the Court If a Bankrupt be endebted unto one in Twenty Pounds and to another in Ten Pounds and he hath a Debt due to him by Bond of Twenty Pounds Whether the Commissioners may assigne this Bond to the two Creditors jointly or whether they must divide it and assigne Twenty Marks to the one and Twenty Marks to the other And the Court was of opinion That it was so to be divided as the words of the Statute are viz to every Creditor a portion rate and rate like c. And then it was moved How they might sue the Bond whether they might joine in the Suit or not ad quod non fuit responsum by Cook Warburton Justice said That when part of the Bond is assigned to one and part to another that now the Act of Parliament doth operate upon it and therefore they shall sue severally for he said That by the custome of London part of a debt might be attached And therefore he conceived part might be sued for Trinit 10. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 283 SPRAT and NICHOLSON's Case SPrat Sub-Deacon of Exeter did libel in the Spiritual Court against Nicholson Parson of A. pro annuali pensione of Thirty Pound issuing out of the Parsonage of A. and in his Libel shewed How that tam per realem compositionem quam per antiquam laudabilem consuetudinem ipse predecessores sui habuerunt habere consueverunt praedictam annualem penfionem out of his Parsonage of A. Dodderidge Serjeant moved for a Prohibition in this Case because he demands the said Pension upon Temporall grounds viz. prescription and reall composition But Cook Chief Justice and the other Justices were of opinion That in this Case no Prohibition should be granted for they said That the party had Election to sue for the same in the Spirituall Court or at the common Law because both the parties were Spirituall persons but if the Parson had been made a party to the Suit then a Prohibition should have been granted Vide Fitz. Nat. Brev. 51. b. acc And they further said That if the party sueth once at the common Law for the said Pension that if he afterwards sue in the Spirituall Court for the same that a Prohibition will lie because by the first Suit he hath determined his Election And Cook cited 22. E. 4. 24. where the Parson brought an Action of Trespass against the Vicar for taking of Under-Woods and each of them claimed the Tithes of the Under-Woods by prescription to belong unto him and in that Case because the right of the Tithes came in question and the persons were both of them Spirituall persons and capable to sue in the Spirituall Court the Temporal Court was ousted of Jurisdiction But he said That if an issue be joined whether a Chappel be Donative or Presentative the same shall be tryed by a Jury at the common Law And in this case it was said by the Justices That the Statute of 34. H. 8. doth authorize Spiritual persons to sue Lay-men for Pensions in the Spiritual Courts but yet they said That it was resolved by all the Judges in Sir Anthony Ropers case That such Spiritual persons could not sue before the High Commissioners for such Pensions for that Suits there must be for enormious Offences only And in the principall case the Prohibition was denyed Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 284 Sir BAPTIST HIX and FLEETWOOD and GOT's Case FLeetwood and Gots by Deed indented did bargain and sell Weston Park being three hundred Acres of Lands unto Sir Baptist Hix at Eleven Pound for every Acre which did amount in the whole to Two thousand five hundred and thirty Pounds and in the beginning of the Indenture of Bargain and Sale it was agreed betwixt the parties That the said Park being much of it Wood-land should be measured by a Pole of eighteen foot and a halfe And further it was covenanted That Fleetwood and Gots should appoint one Measurer and Sir Baptist Hixe another who should measure the said Park and if upon the measuring it did exceed the number of Acres mentioned in the Indenture of Sale that then S. Baptist Hixe should pay to them acording to the proportion of 11l. for every Acre and if it wanted of the Acres in the deed that then Fleet ' and Gots should pay back to S. Baptist the surplusage of the mony according to the proportion of 11. l. for every Acre And upon this Indenture Sir Baptist Hixe brought an Action of Covenant against Fleetwood and Gots and assigned a Breach that upon the measuring of it it wanted of the Acres mentioned in the Deed 70 Acres And upon the Declaration the Defendants did demurre in Law and the cause of the Demurrer was because the Plaintiff did not shew by what measure it was measured And therefore Sherley Serjeant who was of Councel with the Defendants said that although it was agreed in the beginning of the Deed that the measure should be made by a Pole of 18 feet and a half Yet when they come to the covenants there it is not spoken of any measure at all and therefore he said it shall be taken to be such a measure which the Statute concerning the measuring of Lands speaks of viz. a measure of sixteen foot and a half to the Pole and he said that by such measure there did not want any of the said three hundred Acres mentioned in the Deed. Dodderidge Serjeant contrary for the Plaintiff and he layed this for a ground That if a certainty doth once appeare in a Deed afterwards in the same Deed it is spoken indefinitely the same shall be referred to the first certainty and to that purpose he vouched the case in Dyer Lands were given by a Deed to a man haeredibus masculis and afterwards in the same Indenture it appeared that it was haeredibus masculis de Corpore and therefore it was holden but an estate in
man and his heirs such Seat and he and his heirs have used to repair the said Seat If another will libell against him in the Spirituall Court for the same Seat he shall have a Prohibition And he said That he had seen a Judgement in 6. E. 6. That if Executors lay a Grave Stone upon the Testator in the Church or set up his Coat-armour in the Church If the Parson or Vicar doth remove them or carry them away that they or the heir may have their Action upon the Case against the Parson or Vicar Note in the principall no Prohibition for the reasons before Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 287 The Archbishop of York Sedgwick's Case THe Archbishop of York and Doctor Ingram brought and exhibited a Bill in the Exchequer at York upon an Obligation of seven hundred pound and declared in their Bill in the nature of an Action of Debt brought at the common Law which matter being shewed unto the Court of Common Pleas by Sedgwick the Defendant there A Prohibition was awarded to the Archbishop and to the said Court at York And Cook chief Justice gave the reasons wherefore the Court granted the Prohibition 1. He said because the matter was meerly determinable at the common Law and therefore ought to be proceeded in according to the course of the common Law 2. Although the King hath granted to the Lord President and the Councel of York to hold pleas of all personall Actions yet he said they cannot alter the form of the proceedings For as 6. H. 7. 5. is The King by his Grant cannot make that inquirable in a Leet which was not inquirable there by the Law nor a Leet to be of other nature then it was at the common Law And in 11. H. 4. it is holden That the Pope nor any other person can change the common Law without a Parliament And Cook vouched a Record in 8. H. 4. That the King granted to both the Universities that they should hold plea of all Causes arising within the Universities according to the course of the Civil Law and all the Judges of England were then of opinion That that grant was not good because the King could not by his Grant alter the Law of the Land with which case agrees 37. H. 6. 26. 2. E. 4. 16. and 7. H. 7. But at this day by a speciall Act of Parliament made 13. Eliz. not printed The Universities have now power to proceed and judge according to the Civil Law 3. He said That the Oath of Judges is viz. You shall do and procure the profit of the King and his Crown in all things wherein you may reasonably effect and do the same And he said That upon every Judgement upon debt of forty pound the King was to have ten shillings paid to the Hamper and if the debt were more then more But he said by this manner of proceeding by English Bill the King should lose his Fine 4. He said That if it was against the Statute of Magna Charta viz. Nec super eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae And the Law of the Land is That matters of fact shall be tried by verdict of twelve men but by their proceedings by English Bill the partie should be examined upon his oath And it is a Rule in Law That Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere And also he said That upon their Judgement there no Writ of Error lyeth so as the Subject should by such means be deprived of his Birth-right 5. It was said by all the Justices with which the Justices of the King's Bench did agree That such proceedings were illegall And the Lord Chancellor of England would have cast such a Bill out of the Court of Chancery And they advised the Court of York so to do and a Prohibition was awarded accordingly Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 288 Doctor HUTCHINSON's Case DOctor Hutchinson libelled in the Spirituall Court against one of his Parishioners for Tithes The Defendant there shewed that the Doctor came to the Parsonage by Symony and Corruption And upon suggestion thereof made in the Common Pleas prayed a Prohibition Doctor Hutchinson alledged that he had his pardon and pleaded the same in the Spirituall Court And notwithstanding that the Court granted a Prohibition because the Pardon doth not make the Church to be plena but maketh the offence onely dispunishable But in such case If the King doth present his presentee shall have the Tithes Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 289 NOte by Cook Chief Justice that these words viz. Thou wouldest have taken my purse from me on the high way are not actionable But Thou hast taken my money and I will carry thee before a Justice lay felony to thy charge are actionable Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 290 HATCH and CAPEL's Case IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit brought against the Defendant The Plaintiffe declared How that one Hallingworth who was the Defendants Husband was indebted unto the Plaintiffe eight pound ten shillings for beer and that he died and that after his death the Plaintiff demanded the said mony of the Defendant his wife and she in consideration that he would serve her withbeer promised that she would pay unto the said Plaintiff eight pound ten shillings and for the rest of the beer at such a day certain And the Plaintiffe did averr That he did sell and deliver to her Beer and gave her day for the payment of the other money as also for the Beer delivered unto her and that at the day she did not pay the Money Cook and all the other Justices agreed That the Action would well lie and that it was a good Assumpsit and a good consideration for they said That the forbearance of the money is a good consideration of it selfe and they said That in every Assumpsit he who makes the promise ought to have benefit thereby and the other is to sustain some losse And judgement was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 291 NORTON and LYSTERS Case IN the Case of a Prohibition the Case was this Queen Elizabeth was seised of the Manor of Nammington which did extend into four Parishes viz. Stangrave and three other And the Plaintiff shewed That he was seised of three Closes in Stangrave and prescribed That the said Queen and all those whose Estate he hath in the said Closes had a Modus decimandi for the said three Closes and for all the Demeanes of the said Manor in Stangrave And whether the Venire facias should be de parochia de Stangrave or of the Manor was the question And it was resolved by the whole Court That the Visne should be of the Parish of Stangrave and not of the Manor And the Difference was taken when one claimes any thing which goes unto the whole Manor and when only to
Escheat lieth yet the Land is in him in the nature of an Escheat And the principall Case was That a prescription was shewed of a discharge of Tithes in an Abbot Prior and Covent and that the Corporation was afterwards dissolved because all the Monks died and the Abbot also And it was holden by the Court That he who is now Owner of it and holdeth the Lands shall pay Tithes for a Lay man cannot prescribe in Non decimando and the Prescription continues no longer then the Lands continued in the Abbot and Covents hands And in this Case it was said by Cook That there are only three manner of Escheats 1. Abjurat Regnum 2. Quia suspensus per collum 3. Quia utlagatus But because they sued for the treble value in the Spiritual Court a Prohibition was awarded but the Parson may sue for the double value in the Spirituall Court and no Prohibition will lie for that is given by the expresse words of the Statute of 2. E. 6. and so it was adjudged in Manwoods Case in the Exchequer And the word Forfeiture in the Statute doth not give the treble value to the King but to the Parson himself Also it was holden by Cook and Warburton Justices That if a Rent be granted to one and his Successors and the Corporation be dissolved that the Rent shall revert to the Donor and there is no difference as to the matter betwixt things which lie in Prender and things which lie in render Nichols Justice contrary That the Rent extinguishes in the Land it selâ— And in the principall Case because they sued in the Spirituall Coâ—â— for the treble value a Prohibition was granted 〈…〉 Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 302 PORTER's Case IN a Writ of Dower brought the Defendant was essoygned and had the view and afterwards pleads tout temps prist to render Dower and they were at issue which was found for the Plaintiff and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff It was holden by the whole Court That before Execution be awarded the Plaintiff in Dower may aver That her husband was seised to have Damages and therewith agrees the books 14. H. 8. 25. 22. H. 6. 44. b. Mich. 11. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 303 Sir DANIEL NORTON and SYMM's Case AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond which was conditioned to performe Covenants in an Indenture and it was shewed there were divers Covenants in the Deed some of which were Covenants against the Law and some not and for breach the Plaintiff alledged That it was covenanted by the Indenture that Chamberlain for whom the Defendant was a Surety being under Sheriff to the Plaintiffe should save the Plaintiffe harmelesse and should discharge all manner of escapes and should also save him harmeless from all Fines and Amercements to which he should be liable by reason of any escape And shewed â—ow that one was arrested in execution by the said Chamberlain evasit And another Covenant was That hee should not serve any Execution above Twenty Pounds without Warrant from the Plaintiffe and also that he should not return any Juries without his Privity Hutton Serjeant argued for the Defendant and said That this Indenture of Covenants was against the Law for it is as much as if he had said That he should not he under Sheriff And by the Statute of 27. El. under Sheriffs are â—â—orn to return Juries and process of Courts and therefore these Covenants are both against the common Law and Statute Law also the Covenants are in delay of Justice for Non constat when the Sheriffe will give him warrant to return Juries or to execute the Kings Writs Also the Covenant is too generall viz. That he shall save him harmelesse from all Escapes and of any other matters whatsoever and there the Bond taken to performe such Covenants is void Vide 7. H. 7. and 8. â— 4. 13. where a Bond taken to save â—â—man harmelesse against all men is voâ—id but contrary if it be to save â—â—rmelesse against one particular person so here to save harmeless from all matters whatsoever is void but if it had been only from Escapes then it had been good Vide 2. H. 4. 9. If a man be bound to save another harmlesse against all the world the Bond is void Vide 4. H. 4. 2. Will. Rices case And he compared these Covenants against the Law to Perpetuities which kill themselves Then he argued That although some of the Covenants were lawfull yet the Bond was void in all and that he said is the better opinion of the book in 14. H. 8. 25. And if A. be bounden to enfeoff J. S. of the Manor of D. and to disease J. N. of another Manor the Bond is void for the whole 3. He said That there was not a sufficient breach laid by the plaintiffe for it is only layed That such a one in Execution evasit and it is not said That the under Sheriff did suffer him to escape 4. It is not layed That the plaintiff did request the under Sheriffe to pay the Money upon the escape but he went and paid the Money voluntarily of himself and request and notice are needfull 46. E. 3. 27. 22. E. 4. 14. 40. E. 3. 20 Non damnificatus is a good plea generally and the other side ought to come and shew specially how he is damnified 5. It is not layed That he gave him warning to arrest the party in Execution for Fifty pounds and therefore as to that he was not under Sheriff because as Sheriff without warning by his former Covenants hee was not to serve any Executions but such as were under Twenty pounds and therefore he ought to have layed it That he gave him a Warrant to arrest the party upon this Execution otherwise there is no breach Harris Serjeant contrary and he said The Covenants are sufficient in part and ought to be performed and so the Bond good And as Kâ—ble said in 13. H. 7. 23. so he said That there are three conditions which are not allowable but the Case at Bar is not within the compasse of any of them and the words here Discharge and save harmelesse shall be meant from all escapes suffered by the under Sheriff himself and the words from all Amercements whatsoever shall be intended by reason of his Office And he said That when an Indenture of Covenants is good in part and void in part those Covenants which are good shall stand and ought to be performed and the book of 14. H. 8 by four Justices is that all legal and lawful Covenants ought to be performed and he vouched Lee and Golshills Case 39. Eliz. which Vide c. 5. part 82. to that purpose and he said that this Case is not like the case in 9. Eliz. Dyer of Raiâ—ure Also he said that the Defendant hath pleaded That he hath performed all the Covenants and if these Covenants be void and no Covenants then the Defendants plea is not good Also
there are divers Covenants in the Negative and to those he ought in pleading to shew in certain that he hath not broken them The Court said nothing at all to the case but yet Cook chief Justice seemed to be cleer or opinion That the Bond was void and so he said he conceived it had been adjudged before in this Court in the same Sir Daniel Nortons case against Chamberlain 〈◊〉 9. Jacob◠〈◊〉 And it was adjourned Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 304 AN Action upon the Case was brought by an Attorney of the Court against another Man for speaking these words of him viz. Thou art an Ambodexter and the words were adjudged actionable because the same slandred him in his Profession for it is as much in effect as if he had said that he was corrupt in his Office Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 305 IT was Ruled by the whole Court that a Fieri facias or Capias ad satisfaciendum or other Judicial Process did not run into Wales But it was agreed that a Capias utlagatum did run into Wales And Brownloe one of the Pronothories said that an Extent hath gon into Wales Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 306 HUGHE's Case A Man who dwelt in Somersetshire made his Will and by his said Will did bequeath to each of his children being Enfants a Legacy of 20. pound a piece the Procurators of the Enfants did Libel in the Court of Arches against the Executors of the Testator for the said Legacies being out of the Diocess and a Prohibition was awarded and in this Case it was said by Justice Warburton to have been agreed by all the Justices that the exception in the Statute of 23. H. 8 cap. 9. doth extend onely to probate of Wills It was also holden in this case That an Averrment might be that the parties were sued out of there proper Deocess if the same doth not appeare in the Libel as it may be in like case where one sueth in the Court of Admiralty for a thing done upon the land and Averrment may be that the contract was made infra Corpus Comitatus And in this case it was also agreed by the Court that if an Infant bringeth an action against his Gardian for mony and recovereth and he bringeth the mony into Court and there deposite it that the same is a good discharge against the Enfant and he shall not answer the Suit again in an account Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 307 Sir THOMAS SEYMORE's Case MOuntague Serjeant shewed to the Court that the Wife of Sir Thomas Seymore did Libel against her Husband in the Spiritual Court for that he did threaten her and beat her and in the end of the Libel she prayed allowance of Allimony and a Prohibition was prayed by him because the Suit in that Court was for a force which was not triable in that Court and to that purpose he remembred the case of 11 H. 4. 88. Where a Clark sued in the Spiritual Court for a battery and laying of violent hands upon him and because in such case an action of Trespas of assault and battery did lye at the Common Law a Prohibition was awarded Vide. 22. E. 4. 29. pl. 9. the Abbot of St. Albans case and 12. H. 7. 23. Cook Chief Justice agreed all those Cases And said that if a Clark sueth in the Spiritual Court for damages a Prohibition shall be awarded and no damages are given in the Spiritual Court if not for repairing of the Church as appeareth by the Statute of Articuli Cleri Quaere Vide. 20. E. 4. 10. professione Fidei c. And Linwood saith that if a Clark walketh in his doublet and hose non habet habitam Clericalem but goeth in colours if another man doth beat him he shall not sue for the same in the Spiritual Court But in the principal Case it was agreed by the whole Court that no prohibition should be awarded because the Wife cannot have remedy against the Husband at the Common Law for the beating of her because she is sub virga viri and also because the Suit there is but by way of inducement to have a Divorce causâ metus And Warburton said that she should recover there expensas litis against her Husband Cook held that the Husband could not give correction to his Wife But Nicols and Warburton Justices held the contrary and that the Wife may have a Writ de securitate Pacis against the Husband as appeareth by F. N. B. 80. f. quod benè honestè tractabit gubernabit nec malum aliquod ei aliter quà m ad virum suum causa regiminis castigationis vxoris suae licitè rationabiliter pertinet non faciet c. And F. N. B. 238. s acc Cook vouched 31. E. 3. Fitz. Tit. Attachment for Prohibition 8. where the Wife Libelled against her Husband in the Spiritual Court for beating and imprisoning of her and no Prohibition was granted and the Suit in the Spiritual Court was there as an Inducement to have a Divorce Mich 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 308 PAYNE's Case IT was moved by Hutton Serjeant for a Prohibition to the Court of Requests The Case was this A man in consideration That Alice S. would obtain the good will of his Master that hee the Defendant might have a shop in his Masters house did promise her that when she was married that he would give unto her ten pound And the Plaintiff shewed That she did get the good will of her Master and that the Defendant had a shop in his Masters house and that she the said Alice was afterwards married to the Plaintiff Payn. And the opinion of the whole Court was That a good Action upon the Case would lie upon such promise And a Prohibition was awarded unto the Court of Requests a Suit being there brought for the same matter which matter being a thing meerly triable at Law and not in a Court of Equity that Court had no Jurisdiction of it Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 309 MOuntague Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Justices in a Case upon the Statute of 3. Jacobi of Recusants in the behalfe of the University of Oxford viz. That if a Recusant convict do avoid the said Statute doth grant his Patronage for years to one of his friends in trust Whether the same were void or not within the said Statute The Justices did deny to deliver any opinion in the case for they said perhaps it might be that that point and case might come judicially before them and such they said was the answer of Hussey in 1. H. 7. in Humfrey Staffords case which was King Henry the seventh came in Bance and demanded a queston of the Justices But yet the Court tacitè seemed to agree That such a Lease of the Patronage was void by the said Statute of 3. Jacobi And they said That they would not have the University discouraged in
were these viz. Thou usest me now as thy Wife did when she stole my goods Mich. 11. Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 332. ROES and GLOVE 's Case AN action of Debt was brought upon a Bond in Mich. Term 9 Jac and in Hillary Term after the parties were at issue upon the Statute of Usurie and it was found against the Defendant Afterwards Ter. Trin. a Writ of Error was brought retornable Mich. 10. Jacobi in which Term no Errors were assigned And afterwards in Hillary Term following two Errors were assigned the one That there was no such Statute as the Statute of 37 H. 8. of Usurie which was against what he had before confessed by his Plea the second Error was That whereas J. S. of Exeter was retorned of the Jury it was assigned for Error that J. S. of another place was sworn upon the Inquest and in this Case the Court advised the Defendant in the Writ of Error to plead In nullo erratum est By which the Court did seem to incline that they were no Errors Mich. 11. Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 333. BRADLEY and JONES Case IN an action upon the Case the case was That the Defendant did exhibite Articles against the Plaintiff in the Chancery before Dr. Cary and there swore the Articles and afterwards he sued in the Kings Bench and had Process out of that Court upon the Articles sworn in Chancery and for this an action upon the Case was brought and it was adjudged that the action would lie The articles exhibited in the Chancery were That the Plaintiff being an Attorney at Law was a Mainteinor of Juries and Causes and a Barretor and the Defendant prayed the Peace against him in the Kings Bench. And in this Case it was resolved 1. That a man might pray the Peace or Good Behaviour of any other man in any of the Kings Courts but then it must be done in due form of Law and if he do it so no action upon the Case will lie as it was resolved 27 Eliz. in Cutler and Dixons case in the Kings Bench. But it was agreed that if a man sueth in a Court which hath not jurisdiction of the Cause an action upon the Cause will lie but not where the Court hath jurisdiction of the Cause 2. It was resolved That the action did lie in the Case at Bar because he did exhibite the articles in Chancery and did not pursue them there For when he had sworn the articles in the Chancery he could not have a Supplicavit out of the Kings Bench and the Oath and Affidavit in the Chancery doth remain as a Scandal upon Record And Hobart Chief Justice said That every Court ought to intermeddle with their own proper causes and that two Courts are not to joyn in one punishment for punishment is not to be by parcels And he said That if a man claimeth right to the Land of another he is not punishable for it but if he make title vnto a Stranger then he shall be punished for every one ought to meddle with his own business 3. It was resolved That when a thing doth concern the Commonwealth the same doth concern every one in particular And so it is lawful for any man to require the Good behaviour of another for the publique good Interest etenim reipublicae ut maleficia punientur 4. It was resolved that the action did lie because the Defendant made the articles in Chancery but a colour of the Good Behaviour and although that the Kings Bench might grant the Good Behaviour without any articles preferred yet when first they begin in another Court they ought to follow the cause there And Hobart the Chief Justice in this case said that an Attorney may not labour Jurors in the behalf of his Client for that is Imbracery Mich. 11. Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 334. FIAL and VARIER's Case IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit the Case was this A man did promise to stand to the Arbitrement of J. S. J. D. if they made their Arbitrement and Award within ten dayes and if they do not make their Award within ten dayes that if they nominate an Umpier and he make an Award within the said ten dayes that then c. J. S. J. D. did not make any Award within ten dayes but the fourth day after the Submission they did nominate J. N. to be Umpier who made an Award within the said ten dayes and the Defendant would not perform the Award wherefore the Plaintiffe brought the action Sherley Serjeant It is repugnant For the first Arbitrators had the whole ten dayes to make their Award and then cannot the Umpier make an Award within the said ten dayes But the opinion of the whole Court was that the action would lie and that it should be construed thus viz. That if an arbitrement and award be made within ten dayes by the first Arbitrators or by the Umpier For the first Arbitrators may examine the matter for two or three dayes and if they cannot make any award then the Umpier shall have the rest of the ten dayes to make the award and so it was adjudged Mich. 11. Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 335. COLT and GILBERT's Case AN action upon the Case brought for these words He is a Thief and stole a Tree adjudged that the action would lie for the later words do not extenuate the former But Thou art a Thief for thou hast robbed my Orchard are not actionable v. C. 4 par Bretridges Case Mich. 11. Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 336. BROOK's Case AN action upon the Case was brought for words The Plaintiffe set forth in his Declaration That he was a Mercer by his trade and did sell wares and commodities in his shop and did keep divers Books of his trade and Debt-books and that the Defendant said unto Mr. Palmer being the Plaintiffs Father-in-law these words of the Plaintiffe viz. Your Son-in-Law Brooks deceived me in a Reckoning and he keepeth in his shop a false Debt-book And I will shame him in his Calling Nichols Justice and Hobart Chief Justice were of opinion that the action would not lie for those words 1. Because the words single of themselves are not any â—lander and when words will bear an action it ought to be out of the force and strength of the words themselves 2. The first words Thou hast deceived me in a Reckoning will bear no action because it is impossible but that Tradesmen and Merchants which keep Debt-books will sometimes mistake one Figure for another and so the same doth turn to the prejudice and damage of another against the will of the party himself And so the subsequent words He keepeth a false Debt-book are not actionable because it may be falsified by the Servants of the party and not by the Defendant himself and also it may be false written Et interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium and it should be a cause of many Suits if such a nice construction
in the Kings Bench is Judicium affirmetur stet in pleno robore effectu And it is not as the Judgment is in 20 E. 4 44. Judicium stet in aeternum And so that not being the fundamental Judgment the Reversal thereof is but the beginning of another suit 38 H. 6. 3. And admit that the VVrit of Error be a Supersedeas for the second Judgment yet it is a Question whether it shall be for the first which is not touched by the VVrit And whether they may grant Execution upon it or not Vide 13 E. 4. 4 43 E. 3. 3. 8 H. 7. 20. And therefore the Court advised Sir Christopher Heydon to sue unto the Kings Majesty by Petition to have a new Writ of Error for without Petition he cannot have the Writ 32 E. 3 1. 8 E 2. Error 88. And the Justices gave him warning to do it in time convenient otherwise they would award Execution if they did perceive the same to be meerly for delay according to the Cases in 6 H 7. 8 â— 7. And afterwards the Parliament being upon a sudden dissolved without any thing done therein Execution was awarded Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 346. BLITHMAN and MARTIN's Case IOhn Blithman brought an Action upon the Case against Martin upon an Assumpsit and recovered And it was moved That because the Consideration which was the Cause of the Action was against Law that the Judgment might be stayed For the Plaintiffe did alleadge the same to be in consideration That if the Plaintiff being Goaler of such a Prison in Devâ—nshire would deliver one who was in Execution for Debt he promised to give him Twenty pounds And he alleadged in facto that he did deliver him the Debt not being satisfied And because the Consideration was to do a thing which was against the Law the opinion of the Court was that it was void and that the Plaintiffe should not have Judgment Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 347. SHERLOE's Case SHerloe brought an Action of Assault and Battery and declared Quod eum the Defendant verberavit And did not shew certain nor alleadge precisely in his Declaration That the Defendant did beat him Exception was taken unto it For there is a difference betwixt a Declaration in an Ejectione Firme Debt and this Action for in those Actions such Declaration is good but not in this Action And to prove the same one Sheriffe and Bridges Case in 39 Eliz. was cited where such Declaration was adjudged void But yet the opinion of the Justices was That the Declaration was good enough notwithstanding the said Judgment in 39 Eliz. Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 348. GRUBE's Case IT was moved in Arrest of Judgment upon issue joyned inter Mathiam Grub and in the Venire facias he was called Matheum Grub. And Cook Chief Justice said That the Venire facias was vitious but because that the Jury did appear upon the Habeas Corpora the Trial was well enough Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 349. CROOK and AVERIN's Case CRook Merchant brought an Action upon the Case against Averine for speaking these words viz. Mr. Crook came into Cornwal with a blue Coat but now he hath gotten much wealth by trading with Pirats and by cosening by tale of Pilchers and by Extortion And Cook Chief Justice said That the Law giveth no favour to those verbal Actions and we see there is not any such Action brought in our old Law-books And therefore he said Words ought to be certain And he examined the words in this Case by themselves and said That the first words are not actionable because they are not material And the other words by trading with Pyrats are too general for an honest man might trade with a Pyrate not knowing him to be a Pyrate and so no damage might come to him But as to the other words he gave no opinion Pasch 12 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 350. CLAYDON Sir JEROM HORSEY's Case CLaydon brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Jerom Horsey for erecting of a house in a certain place called Risborough Common and alleadged in certain That every one who had Common in Risborough pred c. and did not alleadge That the Common is in the Mannor of Risborough But he declared That there is such a Custome within the Mannor of Risborough And the opinion of the Court was That the Declaration was good because there is but one Risborough alleadged and therefore of necessity it must be meant de Manerio Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 351. The CLOTHWORKERS of IPSWICH Case THe Masters and Wardens of the Clothworkers of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk brought an Action of Debt for 3l. 13s. 4d. against D. and declared That the King who now is had incorporated them by the same name c. And had granted unto them by Charter Quod nullus exerceat artem sive occupationem in aliqua shoppa domo sive camera infra villam predict of a Clothworker or Tailor nisi ante eos vel duos eorum probationem faceret quod Apprentic fuit per spacium 7 annorum per eos sive duos eorum sit approbat sub paena 3l. 13s. 4d. pro qualibet septimana qua exerceat predict artem contra hanc constitutionem And layed in facto That the Defendant had used the Trade of a Tailor for the space c. against c. The Defendant pleaded That he was retained in service with one Mr. Pennel Gen of Ipswich and had been an Apprentice for the space of seven years in tali loco c. And that he made garments for his said Master and his wife and their children infra c. quae quidem exercitio est eadem exercitio artis which is supposed by the Plaintiffs in their Declaration Upon which the Plaintiffs did demur in Law Goldsmith for the Plaintiffs That the Plea in Bar is void For every Plea in Bar ought to confesse and avoid traverse or deny that which is alleadged in the Plaintiffs Declaration But this Plea in Bar had not done any of them and therefore was void For the exercising of the Trade which he hath confessed in his Bar cannot be intended the same matter with which the Plaintiffs have charged him in their Declaration and therefore it is no good bar at all And to prove the same vide 14 H. 6. 2. 35 H. 6. 53. 12 H. 7. 24. 27 H. 8. 2. Sir Robert Hitcham for the Defendant And he held that the matter is well confessed and avoided because that usage which he hath confessed in the Bar is colourable the same usage with which the Plaintiffs have charged him in their Declaration As in a Writ of Maintenance the Defendant saith That he was of Councel with the party being a Serjeant at Law c. which is the same Maintenance which is supposed by the Plaintiffe vide 28 H. 6. 7. 12. 19 H.
6. 30. 18 E. 4. 2. 36 H. 6. 7. Also he said When a Declaration is general the Defendant need not traverse 1 E. 4. 9. 2 E. 4. 28. And further he said That the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 5. of Demurs helped that defect for that it is but only in matter of form But the Justices did not argue that point But the Question which they made was Whether the Constitution or Ordinance were lawful or not And as to that it was holden by the whole Court That the said Ordinance was unlawful And it was agreed by the Court That the King might make Corporations and grant to them that they may make Ordinances for the ordering and government of any Trade but thereby they cannot make a Monopoly for that is to take away Free-trade which is the birthright of every Subject And therefore the Case was in 2 H. 5. 5. in Debt upon a Bond upon Condition That one should not use his Trade of a Dyer in the Town where the Plaintiffe did inhabit for one year And there said That the Obligation was void because the Condition was against the Law And he swore by God if the Plaintiffe were present that he should go to prison till he had paid a Fine to the King Yet regularly Modus Conventio vincunt legem 2. It was resolved That although such Clause was contained in the Kings Letters Patents yet it was void But where it is either by Prescription or by Custome confirmed by Parliament there such an Ordinance may be good Quia Consuetudo Legalis plus valet quam Concessio Regalis The King granted unto the Abbot of Whitny the Custody of a Port which is as it were a Key of the Kingdom and therefore the Grant was void and so adjudged And such Grants are expresly against the Statute of 9 E 3. cap. 1. And the Charter granted by King Henry the 8. to the Physitians of London hath the same Clause in it But if it had not been confirmed by Act of Parliament made 33 H. 8. it had been void The King granted unto B. that none besides himself should make Ordnances for Battery in the time of war Such Grant was adjudged void But if a man hath brought in a new Invention and a new Trade within the Kingdom in peril of his life and consumption of his estate or stock c. or if a man hath made a new Discovery of any thing In such Cases the King of his grace and favour in recompence of his costs and travail may grant by Charter unto him That he only shall use such a Trade or Trafique for a certain time because at first the people of the Kingdom are ignorant and have not the knowledge or skill to use it But when that Patent is expired the King cannot make a new Grant thereof For when the Trade is become common and others have been bound Apprentices in the same Trade there is no reason that such should be forbidden to use it And Cook Chief Justice put this Case The King granted to B. That he solely should make and carry Kersies out of the Realm and the Grant was adjudged void which Crook concessit 3. It was resolved That this Charter was void because of the words viz. Nisi ante eos vel duos eorum probationem fecerit c. And therefore it was considered what proof should be sufficient for the party And as to that it was agreed That the proof cannot be upon Oath for such a Corporation cannot admidister an Oath unto the party And then the proof must be by his Indentures and Witnesses and perhaps the Corporation will not allow of any of them For which the party hath no remedy against the said Corporation but by his Action at the Common Law and in the mean time he should be barred of his Trade which is all his living and maintenance and to which he had been Apprentice for seven years Another reason was given because that by this way they should be Judges in their own cause which is against the Law And the King cannot grant unto another to do a thing which is against the Law And afterwards Trin. 12 Jacobi Judgment was entred Quod Querentes nihil capiant per Billam And Judgment was then given for the Defendant Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 352. LINSEY and ASHTON's Case LInsey brought an Action of Debt against Ashton upon a Bond the Condition of which was to perform an Award The Defendant said that the Award was That the Defendant should surcease all suits depending betwixt them which he had done The Plaintiffe in his Replication said That the Arbitrators made such Award ut supra and also that the Defendant should pay unto the Plaintiffe 25l. at the house of J. S. absque hoc that they made the other Award only Upon which the Defendant did rejoyn and said That well and true it is that they made those Awards c. But they further awarded that the Plaintiffe should release unto the Defendant which he had not done And upon the Rejoynder the Plaintiffe did demur in Law And the opinion of the Court was without question That the Plea was a departure 19 H. 6. 19. But it was argued by Finch That the Replication was insufficient For the Plaintiffe ought not to have traversed as this Case is because that a man ought not to traverse a thing alleadged by Implication but ought to traverse that which is alleadged de facto upon which there may be an issue joyned And to prove the Traverse void the Case in 11 H. 6. 50. was put But the Exception was not allowed by the Court Another Exception was taken because the Award it self was void because it was to do a thing upon the Land of another man which he might not lawfully do And although the Arbitrators might award him to do the thing which is inconvenient yet they cannot award him to do a thing which is impossible and against the Law as in 17 E. 4 5. Two were bound to stand to the Arbitrement of J. S. of all Trespasses who awarded that the one should pay unto the other 40. and that he find Sureties to be bounden for the payment of it And by the opinion of the Justices the Award was void because he could not award a man to do that which did not lie in his power and he hath no means to compel the stranger to be bound for him But the opinion of the whole Court was against Finch For first the mony is to be paid apud domum J. S. and not in domo And it might be for any thing that appeareth that the said House is adjoyning to the High-way so as every Stranger might lawfully come unto it although he might not come into it without being a Trespassor But admit it be not adjoyning to the High-way yet he might come as neer unto the house as he could or he might get leave to come thither Secondly It was
the time of King Henry the 8. said That if the King should arrest him of High-Treason that he would stab him with his dagger and it was adjudged a present Treason So was it also adjudged in the Lord Stanley's Case in the time of King Henry the 7. who seeing a Young-man said That if he knew him to be one of the Sons of E. 4. that he would aid him against the King In the like manner a woman in the time of Hen. 8. said That if Henry the 8. would not take again his wife Queen Katherine that he should not live a year but should die like a dog So if discontented persons with Inclosures say That they will petition unto the King about them and if he will not redress the same that then they will assemble together in such a place and rebell In these Cases it is a present Treason and he said That in point of Allegiance none must serve the King with Ifs and Ands. Further Cook Chief Justice said That Faux the Gunpowder Traitor being brought before King James the King said to him Wherefore would you have killed me Faux answered him viz. Because you are excommunicated by the Pope How said the King He answered Every Maunday-Thursday the Pope doth excommunicate all Herâ—tiques who are not of the Faith of the Church of Rome and you are within the same Excommunication And afterwards Owen was found guilty and Judgment of Treason was given against him Mich. 13 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 364. SIMPSON'S Case RIchard Simpson a Copy-holder in Fee jacens in extremis made a Surrender of his Copyhold habendum to an Enfant in ventrefamier and his heirs and if such Enfant die before his full age or marriage then to John Simpson his brother and his heirs The Enfant is born and dieth within two moneths Upon which John was admitted and a Woman as Heir-general to the Devisor and to the Enfant is also admitted and entreth into the Land against whom John Simpson brought an Action of Trespasse and it was adjudged against the Plaintiffe And two points were resolved in this Case 1. That a Surrender cannot begin at a day to come no more then a Livery as it was adjudged 23 Eliz in this Court in Clarks Case 2. That the Remaindor to John Simpson cannot be good because it was to commence upon a Condition precedent which was never performed And therefore the Surrender into the hands of the Lord was void for the Lord doth not take but as an Instrument to convey the same to another And it was therefore said That if a Copy-holder in Fee doth surrender unto the use of himself and his heirs because that the Limitation of the use is void to him who had it before the Surrender to the Lord is void Trin. 13 Jacobi in the Chancery 365. The Lord GERARD'S Case IT was holden in the Chancery in the Lord Gerards Case against his Copyholds of Aâ—dley in the County of Stafford That where by antient Rolls of Court it appeareth that the Fines of the Copyholds had been uncertain from the time of King Hen. the 3 to the 19 of H. the 6. and from thence to this day had been certain Except twenty or thirty That these few antient Rolls did destroy the Custome for certainty of Fine But if from 19 H. 6. all are certain except a few and so incertain Rolls before the few shall be intended to have escaped and should not destroy the Custome for certain Fines Hill 13 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 366. BAGNAL and HARVEY'S Case IN a Writ of Partition it was found for the Plaintiffe And a Writ was awarded to the Sheriffe that he should make the partition And the Sheriffe did thereupon allot part of the Lands in severalty and for other part of the Lands the Jurors would not assist him to make the partition All which appeared upon the Retorn of the Sheriffe And an Attachment was prayed against the Jurors who refused to make the Partition and a new Writ was prayed unto the Sheriffe And the Court doubted what to do in the Case whether to grant an Attachment or not and whether a new Writ to the Sheriffe might be awarded And took time to advise upon it and to see Presidents in the Case Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 367. BLANFORD'S Case A Man seised of Lands in Fee devised them unto his Wife for life and afterwards to his two Sons if they had not issue males for their lives and if they had issue males then to their issue males and if they had not issue males then if any of them had issue male to the said issue male The wife died the sons entred into the lands and then the eldest son had issue male who afterwards entred and the younger son entred upon the issue and did trespasse and the issue brought an Action of Trespasse And it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Action was maintainable because by the birth of the issue male the lands were devised out of the two sons and vested in the issue male of the eldest Crook Justice was against the three other Justices Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 368. BROOK and GREGORY'S Case IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow the taking of the Cattle damage feasants And upon issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiffe in the Court at Winsor being a Three-weeks Court And the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That the Entry of the Plaint in the said Court was the 7. day of May and the Plaintiffe afterwards did Declare there of a taking of the Cattel the 25. day of May. And whether the same was Error being in a Three-weeks Court was the Question and 21 E. 4. 66. was alleadged by Harris that it was no Error But the Court held the same to be Error because no Plaint can be entred but at a Court and this Entry of the Plaint was mesne betwixt the Court dayes and so the Declaration is not warranted no â—ustome being alleadged to maintain such an Entry 2. It was holden by the Court in this Case That 〈…〉 est erratum is pleaded the Defendant cannot alleadge Dimâ—â—â—tion because there is a perfect issue before 3. It was holden That a 〈◊〉 cannot alleadge Diminution of any thing which appeareth in the Râ—â—â—d to be 〈◊〉 And because the Defendant â—id alleadge Diminution 〈◊〉 Case of the Record and by the Record it was certified that the 〈◊〉 was entred the 25 day of May the same was not good after issue joyned and after Judgment is given upon the â—â—â— Record upon the first Dâ—â—â—aration and Pleading in the said Court of Winsor And therefore the Judgment was reversed by the opinion of all the Justices Hill 13 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 369. BISSE and TYLER'S Case IN an Action of Trover and Conversion of goods the Defendant said That J. S. was possessed of the said goods and sold them unto him in open market
â—uaere whether it be a good Plea because it doth amount to the general issue of Not guilty Curia avisare vult And v. Tompsons Case 4 Jac. in the Kings Bench It was adjudged that it was no good Plea Hill 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 370. PAGINTON and HUET'S Case IN an Ejectione Firme the Case was this That the Custome of a Manor in Worcestershire was That if any Copyholder do commit Felony and the same be presented by twelve Homagers That the Tenant should forfeit his â—opyhold And it was presented in the Court of the Mannor by the Homage That Hâ—â—t the Defendant had committed Felony But afterwards at the Asâ—ises he was acquitted And afterwards the Lord seised the Copyhold And it was adjudged by the Court that it was no good Custom because in Judgment of Law before Attaindor it is not Felony The second point was Whether the special Verdict agreeing with the Presentment of the Homage That the party had committed Felony did entitle the Lord to the Copyhold notwithstanding his Acquital Quaere For it was not resolved Mich. 7 Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 371. THe Custom of a Mannor was That the Heirs which claimed Copy-hold by Discent ought to come at the first second or third Court upon Proclamations made and take up their Estates or else that they should forfeit them And a Tenant of the Mannor having Issue inheritable beyond the Seas dyed The Proclamations passed and the Issue did not return in twenty years But at his coming over he required the Lord to admit him to the Copyhold and proffered to pay the Lord his Fine And the Lord who had seised the Copyhold for a Forfeiture refused to admit him And it was adjudged by the whole Court That it was no Forfeiture because that the Heir was beyond the Seas at the time of the Proclamations and also because the Lord was at no prejudice because he received the profits of the Lands in the mean time Mich. 14 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 372. A Copyholder in Fee did surrender his Copyhold unto the use of another and his heirs which surrender was into the hands of two Tenants according to the custome of the Mannor to be presented at the next Court. And no Court was holden for the Mannor by the space of thirty years within which time the Surrenderor Surrenderee and the two Tenants all dyed The heir of the Surrenderor entred and made a Lease for years of the Copyhold according to the Custome of the Mannor And it was adjudged per Curiaâ—â— That the Lease was good Mich. 14 Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 373. FROSWEL and WEICHES Case IT was adjudged That where a Copyholder doth surrender into the hands of Copy-Tenants That before Presentment the Heir of the Surrenderor may take the profits of the Lands against the Surrenderee For no person can have a Copyhold but by admittance of the Lord. As if a man maketh Livery within the view although it cannot be countermanded yet the Feoffee takes nothing before his entry But it was agreed That if the Lord doth take knowledge of the Surrender and doth accept of the customary Rent as Rent due from the Tenant being admitted that the same shall amount unto an Admittance but otherwise if he accept of it as a duty generally Mich. 5 Iacobi in the Exchequer 374. IT was adjudged in the Exchequer That where the King was Lord of a Mannor and a Copyholder within the said Mannor made a Lease for three lives and made Livery and afterwards the Survivor of the three continued in possession forty years And in that case because that no Livery did appear to be made upon the Endorsment of the Deed although in truth there was Livery made that the same was no forfeiture of which the King should take any advantage And in that case it was cited to be adjudged in Londons case That if a Copy-Tenant doth bargain and sell his Copy-Tenement by Deed indented and enrolled that the same is no forfeiture of the Copyhold of which the Lord can take any advantage And so was it holden in this Case Pasch 14 Iacobi in the Kings Bench 375. FRANKLIN'S Case LAnds were given unto one and to the heirs of his body Habendum unto the Donee unto the use of him his heirs and assignes for ever In this â—ase two points were resolved 1. That the Limitation in the Habendum did not increase or alter the Estate contained in the premisses of the Deed. 2. That Tenant in Tail might stand seised to an use expressed but such use cannot be averred Hill 13 Iacobi in the Chancery 376 WINSCOMB and DUNCHES Case VVInscomb having issue two sons conveyed a Mannor unto his eldest son and to the daughter of Dunch for life for the joynture of the wife the Remainder to the 〈…〉 The son having no issue his Father-in-law Dunch procured him by Deed indented to bargain and sell to him the Manner The Bargâ—ynor being sick who died before enrolment of the Deed within the 〈…〉 Deed â—ot being acknowledged And 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 coming to be enrolled the Clark who enrolled the same did proâ—â—â—e Waâ—â—â—nt from the Master of the Rolls who under-â—â—â— upon the Deâ—◠〈◊〉 the Deed be enrolled upon Affidavit made of the delivery of the Deed by one of the Witnesses to the same And afterwards the Deed was eâ—â—â—â—d within the six moneths And the opinion of the Court wasâ— That 〈◊〉 Conveyance was a good Conveyance in Law And therefore the younger brother exhibited his Bill in Chanchery pretending the Conveyance to be made by practice without any Consideration Mich. 15 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 377 LUDLOW and STACIâ—S Case A Man bargained and sold Land by Deed indented bearing date 11 Junii 1 Jacobi Afterwards 12 Junii The same year Common was granted â—nto the Bargainee for all manner of Cattell commonable upon the Land 15 Junii theâ— Deed of Bargain and Sale was enrolled And it was adjudged a good grant of the Common And the Enrolment shall have Relation as to that although for collaterall things it shall not have relation Hill 15 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 378. NOte that it was held by Dodderidge Justice and Mountagu Chief Justice against the opinion of Haughton Justice That if Lessee for years covenanteth to repair and sustein the houses in as good plight as they were at the time of the Lease made and afterwards the Lessee assigneth over his Term and the Lessor his Reversion That the Assignee of the Reversion shall maintain an Action of Covenant for the breach of the Covenants against the first Lessee Hill 15 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 379. SMITH and STAFFORD'S Case A Man promised a Woman That if she would marry with him that if he dyed and she did survive him that he would leave unto her 100â— They entermarried and then the husband dyed not performing his promise The wife sued the Executor of her husband upon the said promise And whether the
and where not For in the principal Case notwithstanding that the Jury find the Assumpsit yet the same doth not reach to the Request and without that the Assumpsit is void Dodderidge Justice cited 5 E. 4. That if the Declaration be vitious in a point material and issue is taken upon another point there the finding of it by the Jury doth not make the Declaration to be good And so in the principal Case Judgment was given for the Defendant In this Case it was agreed That if a man bring an Action of Trover and Conversion and not alleadge a place where the Conversion was Although the issue for the Trover be found for the Plaintiff yet he shall not have Judgment Hill 16 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 388. GODFREY and DIXON'S Case COrnelius Godfrey brought an Action of Debt upon a Lease against Dixon and declared That Cornelius Godfrey his Father being an Alien had issue Daniel Godfrey born in Flanders the Father is made a Denizen and hath issue the Plaintiffe his second son born in England The Father dieth Daniel is Naturalized by Act of Parliament and made the Lease to Dixon for years rendring Rent and dyed without issue And the Plaintiffe his brother brought an Action of Debt for the Arrearages as heire and upon that it was demurred in Law And George Crook in his Argument said That Inheritance is by the Common-Law or by Act of Parliament And that three persons cannot have heirs in travnsersali linea but in recta linea viz. 1. A Bastard 2. A person Attainted 3. An Alien see for that 39 E. 39. Plow Dom. 445. 17. E. 4. 1. 22 H. 6. 38. 3 E. 1. sitz t' Cousinage 5. Dr. Student And he said That Denization by the Kings Charter doth not make the heir inheritable 36 H. 8. Br. to Denizen and C. 7. part 77. And he said That he who inheriteth ought to be 1. Next of blood 2. Of the whole blood and 3. He ought to derive his Pedigree and discent from the stock and root Bracton lib. 2. fol. 51. And he said That if a man doth covenant to stand seised to the use of his brother being an Alien that the same is not good and the use will not rise But that was denyed by the Court. And he said That an Alien should not have an Appeal of the death of his brother And he took a difference betwixt an Alien and a person Attainted and said that the one was of corrupt blood the other of no blood and cited 9 E. 4. 7. 36 Eliz. Hobby's Case Dodderidge upon the argument of this Case said That if a man claim as Cousin and Heir he must shew how he is Cousin and Heir but not when he claims as Brother or Son and Heir The Case was adjourned Hill 16 Iacobi in the Kings Bench 389 GRAY'S Case AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond with Condition to stand to an Arbitrement and also that he should not begin proceed in or prosecute any suit against the Obliger before such a Feast The Obliger did continue a Suit formerly brought George Crook said That the Bond was forfeited because it is the act of the Obliger to continue or discontinue a suit and profit accrues to him therefore it shall be adjudged his act But it is otherwise of an Essoin because that that may be cast by a stranger And he cited the books of 36 H. 6. 2. 5 H. 7. 22 14 E. 41. 18 H. 6. 9. And he held That it was a good Award to continue or discontinue a suit because it is in the power of the party to do it or not Hill 16 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 390 SLYE'S Case IN a Scire facias to have Execution the Sheriffe retorned That by vertue of a Writ of Fieri facias he took the goods in Execution ad valentiam of 11l. which remained in his custody for want of buyers and that they were rescued out of his possession Mountagu Chief Justice and Dodderidge Justice The Plaintiffe shall have an Execution against the Sheriff relyed upon the book of 9 E. 4. 50. 16 E. 4. Faulconbridge Case 7 Eliz. Dyer 241. 5 E. 3. t' Execution C. 5. par Pettifers Case And Dodderidge said That by this Retorn he had concluded himself and was liable to the value of 11l. And he took this difference where the Sheriffe by vertue of the Writ Venditioni exponas sels the thing under the value there he shall be discharged but otherwise where he sels the goods ex officio Crook and Haughton Justices The Plaintiffe shall not have a Scire facias against the Sheriffe but where he hath the money in his purse And they said That the Plaintiffe must have a Distringas directed to the new Sheriffe or a Venditioni exponas Note the Court was divided in opinion But the Law seems to be with Crook and Haughton and the books before cited prove their difference and warrant it Hill 16 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 391 Sir JOHN BRET and CUMBERLAND'S Case IN an Action of Covenant brought by Sir John Bret against Cumberland Executor of I. C. the Case was this Q. Eliz. by her Letters Patents did demise a Mill unto the Testator for 30 years reserving Rent and these words were in the Letters-Patents viz. That the Lessee his Executors and Assignes should repair the Mill during the Term. The Lessee assigned over all his interest unto Fish who attorned Tenant and paid the Rent to the Queen and afterwards the Queen granted the Reversion to Sir John Bret and Margaret his wife The Assignee is accepted Tenant the Mill came to decay for want of Reparations and Sir John Bret brought an Action of Covenant against the Executor of the first Lessee And it was adjudged for the Plaintiffe And Dodderidge Justice gave the reasons of the Judgment 1. Because that by the Statute of 32 H. 8. all the benefit which the Queen had was transferred to the Grantee of the Reversion 2. It might be parcel of the Consideration to have the Covenant against the Lessee For a Mill is a thing which without continual Reparations will be ruinous and perish and decay And he said That the Assignee had his election to bring his Action against the Lessee or against the Assignee because it was a Covenant which did run with the Land Mountagu Chief Justice said That the reason of the three Cases put in Walkers Case is in respect of the Interest And took a difference where there is privity of Contract and where not It was adjourned Hill 16 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 392. WEBB and TUCK'S Case IN an Action of False Imprisonment it was agreed That a Fine may be assessed for Vert and Venison And it was said in this Case by the Justices That a Regarder is an Officer of whom the Law takes knowledge and so are Justices in Eyre 2. It was agreed That such things of which the Law takes notice
Execution the Defendant A secretè fraudulenter vendidit amovit disposuit of all the Testators goods For which cause the Sheriffe was constrained to retorn Nulla bona c. Ley Chief Justice said That the Action would well lie because the Sheriffe could not retorn a Devastavit because the goods were secretly conveyed away so as the Sheriffe could not tell whether he had sold or otherwise disposed of the said goods and also because the Plaintiffe is destitute of all remedy by any other Action To which Dodderidge Justice did agree But Haughton Justice was against it For he said That if one be to bring an action of Debt against the Heir if the Heir selleth the Land which he hath by discent from his ancestors before the action brought an action upon the Case will not lie against him for so doing Dodderidge said That the Case which was put by Haughton was not like to this Case For in this Case if the Sheriffe had or could have retorned a Devastavit the action upon the Case would not have lien But here the Sheriffe hath not retorned any Devastavit And the sale being secretly made the Sheriffe could not safely retorn a Devastavit for so perhaps he might be in danger of an action upon the Case to be brought against him for making of such a Retorn The Case was adjourned till another day Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 409. WILLIAMS and GIBB's Case NOte in this Case it was said by Ley Chief Justice That whatsoever is allowed for Divine service or whatsoever cometh in lieu of Tythes and Offerings the same is now become a thing Ecclesiastical And Dodderidge Justice also said That no Law doth appoint that the Vicar or Parson should read Divine Service in two several Parish-Churches but only the Ecclesiastical Law Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 410. STEWRY and STEWRY'S Case A Bill was exhibited into the Court of Chancery for the traversing of an Office who found one to be in Ward to the King and the parties were at issue super seperales exitus And a Venire facias was awarded out of the Chancery retornable in the Kings Bench directed to the Sheriffe Quod venire faciat 12 homines triare placita traversiae super seperales exitus And it was moved That the several Issues ought to be expressed in the Venire facias Dodderidge Justice It ought not to be Placita traversiae For it shall never be called Placitum but when it is at 〈◊〉 Kings suit And the opinion of the Court was That the Venire facias should be amended and that the several Issues should be expressed therein and Young's Case 20 Jacobi was cited for a President in the very point Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 411. ASTLEY and WEBB'S Case IN an Ejectione Firme the words vi armis were omitted out of the Plaintiffs Declaration And although this was the default of the Clark yet the same could not be amended but it made the Declaration not to be good Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 412. WHITE and EDWARD'S Case IN Trespasse Edwards the Defendant being a Clark of the Chancery after an Imparlance could not be suffered to plead his Priviledge It was moved in this Case That the Declaration was viginti opali vocatè Wythies And it was said it should have been anglicè and not vocatè But the opinion of the Court was that vocatè was as good as anglicè Then it was moved that the Declaration was That the Defendant had felled twenty Pearches of Hedging whereas it ought to have been that the Defendant had felled a Hedge containing twenty Pearches for a man cannot cut a Mathematical Pole But the Court said That the Declaration was good notwithstanding that and cited 17 E. 4. 1. where a man sells twenty Acres of Corn and there Exception was taken to it as it is here viz. That it ought to have been twenty Acres sowed with Corn but it was no good Exception there No more was it as the Court said in this Case for it is the common speech to say Twenty perches of hedging A pint of wine An acre of corn c. And therefore the Declaration was ruled to be good notwithstanding these Exceptions which were taken to it by Serjeant Headley Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 413. BRIDGES and MILL's Case AN action upon the Case was brought for speaking of these words viz. Thou inuendo the Plaintiffe hast ravished a woman twice And I will make thee stand in a white sheet for it Henden Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgment That the action would not lie for the words For he said That by the Common-Law Rape was not Felony but Trespass v. Stamford 23. 6. But now by the Statute of West 2. cap. 34. it is made Felony And he said That the later words viz. stand in a white sheet doth mitigate the former words by reason that in the former words the word Felonice was omitted as the Case is in C. 4. par 20. Barhams Case where the words Thou didst burn my Barn and did not say My Barn full of Corn nor that it was parcel of his Mansion-house and therefore the action would not lie For unlesse the Barn were full with corn or part of a dwelling-house it is not Felony Like unto Humfries Case adjudged in the Common-Pleas where an action upon the Case was brought for these words Thou hast pick'd my Pocket and taken away ten shillings And it was adjudged that the action would not lie For he did not say that he had stollen ten shillings But if he had said nothing but Thou hast pick'd my pocket then the action would have been maintainable Ley and Dodderidge Justices By the Common-Law Rape was Felony and in the said Statute the word Felony is not although it be used in the Indictment It was adjourned But the opinion of the Court seemed to be That the action would lie for the words Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Star-Chamber 414. Sir HENRY FINES Case IN the Case of Sir Henry Fines in the Star-Chamber Exception was taken to one of the Witnesses viz. to Dr. Spicer because that he stole Plate and had been pardoned for it But notwithstanding the Exception the Court did allow of the Testimony of the said Dr. Spicer And then Hobart Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas cited Cuddingtons Case Hill 13 Jacobi to be adjudged Cuddington brought an action upon the Case for calling him Thief The Defendant justified that such a day and year he stole a Horse The Plaintiffe replied That the King had given him a Pardon for all Felonies And it was adjudged that the Action did lie Afterwards at another day Jones and Dodderidge Justices put the Case more largely viz. Cuddington committed Felony 44 Eliz. and 1 Jacobi by the General Pardon he was pardoned And they said That he who procures a Pardon confesseth himself to be guilty of the offence But by the general Pardon
And if Rent be due and payable unto me by my Lessee for years the same may be taken for the Kings Debt and the special matter shall be a good barr in an Avowry for the Rent 38. E. 3. 28. A Prior Alien was indebted to the King for his Farm Rent And being sued for the same he shewed That there was a Parson who held a certain portion of Tythes from him which were part of the Possessions of the same Priory which he kept in his hands so as he could not pay the King his Farm-Rent unlesse he might have those Tythes which were in the Parsons hands Wherefore a Writ was awarded against the Parson to appear in the Exchequer and to shew cause why he should not pay the same to the King for the satisfying of the Kings Rent And there Skipwith Justice said That for any thing which toucheth the King and may turn to his advantage to hasten the Kings business that the Exchequer had jurisdiction of it were it a thing Spiritual or Temporal V. 44 E. 3. 43 44. the like Case but there it is of a Pension And the Case of 38 Ass 20. was the Case for Tythes See also 12 E. 3. Swalds Case to the same purpose If two Coparceners be in ward to the King upon a suggestion that one of them is indebted to the King the staying of his Livery shall be for his moytie untill the King be satisfied his debt but the other sister shall have Livery of the other moytie which belongs unto her Fitz. N. 5. 263. a. Mich 19 E. 3. and Hill 20. E. 3. which was one and the same Case The Kings Debtor brought a Quo minus in the Exchequer against his Debtor the Defendant appeared And the Plaintiffe afterwards would have been Nonsuit but the Court would not suffer him so to be And it was there said That a Release by the Kings Debtor unto his Debtor would not discharge the Kings Debtor as to that Debt In a Quo minus in the Exchequer upon a Debt upon a simple Contract the Defendant cannot wage his Law because the King is to have a benefit by the suit although the King be no party to the suit C. 4. par 95. The fourth Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have an Accompt against Executors because the Law there maketh a privity it being found by matter of Record that the Testator was indebted to the King which Record cannot be denied But in the Case of a common person an Accompt will not lie against Executors for want of privity The Accompt which the King brings is ad computandum ad Dominum Regem c. without setting forth how the party came liable to accompt But a common person in his accompt brought ought to shew how that the party was Receiver Bailiff c. If a man doth entermeddle with the Kings Treasure the King pretending a title to it he shall be chargeable for the same to the King C. 11. part 89. the Earl of Devonshire's case The Master of the Ordnance pretending that the old broken and unserviceable Ordnance belonged unto him by reason of his Office procured a Privy-seal c. and afterwards disposed of them to his own use and dyed And his Executor was forced to accompt for them Sir Walter Mildmay's Case Mich. 37. 38 Eliz. Rot. 312. in the Exchequer Sir Walter Mildmay was Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggested unto the Lord Treasurer of England That his Office was of great attendance and desired the Lord Treasurer that he would be pleased to allow unto him 100l. for his dyet and 40l. per annum for his attendance which the Lord Treasurer did grant unto him and he enjoyed it accordingly and afterwards dyed and his Executors were forced to accompt for it and to pay back the mony for all the time that their Testator received it C. 11. part 90 91. there is cited That Sir William Cavendish was Treasurer of the Chamber of King H. 8. E. 6. and Queen Mary and that he was indebted to K. E. 6. and to Q. Mary and that being so indebted he purchased divers lands and afterwards aliened them and took back an estate therein to himself and his wife and afterwards dyed without rendring any Accompt the Terre-Tenants of the land were charged to answer to Q. Elizabeth for the monies to which they pleaded the Queens special Pardon and it was in conclusion said That the Pardon was a matter of grace ex gratia but in Law the Terre-Tenants were chargeable to the said Queen for the monies v. Com. 321. 5 Eliz. Dyer 244 245. in the Exchequer Mich. 24. E. 3. Rot. 11. ex parte Rememb Regis Thomas Farel Collector of the Fifteenths and Tenths being seised of lands in Fee and being possessed of divers goods and chattels at the time when he entred into the said Office being then indebted to the King did alien them all and afterwards dyed without heir or Executor And a Writ went out unto the Sheriffe to enquire what lands and tenements goods and chattels he had at the time he entred into the said Office and Processe issued forth against the Terre-Tenants and the Possessors of his goods and chattels ad computand pro collectione predict ad respondendum satisfaciendum inde Domino Regi V. Dyer 160 50 Ass 5. A notable Case to this purpose Mich. 30. E. 3. rot 6. William Porter Mint-Master did covenant with the King by Indenture enrolled That for all the Bullion which should be delivered ad Cambium Regis pro Moneta faciend that mony should be delivered for it within eight dayes which Covenant he had broken and therefore the King paid the Subject for the Bullion And afterwards because John Walweyen and Richard Piccard duxerunt praesentaverant dict William Porter in officium illud tanquam sufficientem and that they offered to be Sureties for him but were not accepted of which they did confesse Ideo consideratum est quod predict Walweyen Piccard onerentur erga Dominum Regem And they afterwards were charged to satisfie the King for all the monies which the King had paid for the said Porter And although that none of the Kings treasure came to their hands nor they had not any benefit as appeared by any matter in the Case yet because they were the means and causers that the King sustained damage and losse they were adjudged to be chargeable to the King C. 11. par 93. this Case is there cited Upon these Cases vouched by me I make divers Observations 1. I observe That from Age to Age what care the Judges had for the Advancing and the recovering of the Kings Debts because Thesaurus Regis est vinculum Pacis Bellorum nervus And it is the slowing fountain of all bounty unto the Subject 2. I observe That the King hath a Prerogative for the Recovery of Debts due unto him 3. I observe That although the Debt due to the King be
Execution of Justice is no wrong when it is for the King The King hath the precedency for the payment of his Debts to him as it appeareth in Stringfellows Case cited before by Justice Dodderidge And when Lands are once lyable to the payment of the Kings debts let the Lands come to whom you will yet the Land is lyable â—o his debt as it appeareth in Cavendishes Case Dyer 224 225. which was entred Pasc â— Eliz. Rot. 111. in the Exchequer 50. Ass 5. A man bindeth himself and his heirs and dieth and the heir alieneth the Land the Land is discharged of the Debt as to the Debtee But in the Kings Case if at any time the Land and Debt meet together you cannot sever them without payment of the Kings debt Vid. Littleton Executors and soe Administrators are chargeable in an Account to the King and the Saying of Mr Littleton are adjudged for Law and are Judgments A sale in Market over nor a Fine and Nonclaim shall not bind the King and so it is of things bought of the Kings Villeyn because Nullum tempus occurrit Regi A common person in London by Custom may attach a Debt in anothers hands As he may come into Court and shew that his debtor hath not any thing in his hand to satisfie his debt but only that debt which is in the hands of another man and that Custom is allowable and reasonable And if it shall be reasonable for a Subject so to attach a Debt will you have it unreasonable for the King Before the Statute of 25. E. 3. cap. 19. The King might protect his Debtor as it appeareth by the Register 281. and Fitz. 28. 6. But the Statute of 25. E. 3. gave the Partie a liberty to proceed to Judgement but doth barr him from taking forth of Execution upon the Judgment untill the King be satisfied his Debt In Dyer 296 297. a man condemned in the Exchequer for a Debt due to the Queen was committed to the Fleet and being in Execution he was also condemned in the Kings Bench at the Suit of a Subject upon a Bill of Debt in Custodia Mariscalli Marisâ—alciae Afterwards upon prayer of the Partie a Habeas Corpus cum causa was awarded out of the Kings Bench to the Warden of the Fleet who retorned the Cause ut supra and he was remanded to the Fleet in Execution for the Debt Afterwards a Command was given by the Lord Treasurer upon the Queens behalf to suffer the Prisoner to go into the Countrie to collect and levie monie the sooner to pay the Queen her Debt In that Case the Subject brought an Action of Debt against the Warden of the Fleet upon the Escape who justified the Escape by the said Commandment It was holden in that case That although the Partie was in Execution for both the Debts yet before the Queen was satisfied the Execution for the Subject did not begin For the King cannot have equall to have interest in the Body of the Prisoner Simul cum illo But if the Case were as Lassels case 3. Eliz Dyer then he might be in Execution for the King and for the Subject Lassels was taken in Execution at the Suit of a Subject and before the Writ was retorned a Writ for the Queen came to the Sheriffe and Lassels was kept in Execution for the Queen In that case Lassels was in Execution for them both viz. the Queen and the Subject So there is a difference where the Partie is first taken for the King and where he is first taken for the Subject Now I will consider of the Case at Barr Whether the Land might be extended notwithstanding the Conveyance made The Kings Debt is to be taken largely and so Goods in such case are to be taken largely and so is it likewise of Lands viz. any Land be it Land in Use upon Trust by Revocation By the Law Debts are first to be paid then Legacies then childrens preferments There is a difference where the Land was never in the man and where it was once in him C. 8. Part. 163. Mights Case Might Purchased lands to him and to his heir It was resolved that this original Purchase could not be averred to be by Collusion to take away the Wardship which might accrue after the death of Might for they were Joynts and the survivor shall have the whole Note that there was no fraud for that it was never in him but if it had once been the Lands only of Might and then Might had made the conveyance to him and his heir then it would have been fraud to have deceived the King of the Wardship In the Case at Barr Hatton hath not aliened the land For an Alienation is alienum facere and here he hath not made it the land of another having a power of Revocation Sir John Packington Mortgaged his lands for 100l The Mortgagee enfeoffed W. and within the time of Redemtion Packington and he to whom the money was to be paid agreed that Packington should pay him 30l of the said 100l and no more and yet in appearance for the better performance of the Condition it was agreed that the whole 100l should be paid and that the residue above 30l should be repaid back to Packington which was done accordingly It was resolved in that Case that the same was no performance of the Condition because it was not a payment animo solvendi And so in this Case there was not any allienation animo 〈◊〉 For Sir Christopher Hatton gave the Lands but yet he kept the possession and received the profits of them And if Sir Christopher Hatton had given the land with power of Revocation or reserving as in this Case he did an Estate for his own life it had been all one If a man deviseth the profits of such lands the lands themselves do pass And a Conveyance of lands upon Condition not to take the profits is a void condition in Law Lit. 462 463. A Feoffment is made upon confidence and the Feoffor doth occupie the land at the will of the Feoffees and the Feoffees do release unto the Feoffor all their right Litt. 464. there it was said that such a Feoffor shall be sworn upon an Inquest if the lands be of the value of 40s per annum and that by the Common Law Therefore it seemeth that the Law doth intend That when a man hath Feoffees in Trust that the lands are his own and then if in such case the Commonwealth shall be served shall not the King who is Pater reipublicae be served so as he may be satisfied his debts If the Case of Walter de Chirton had never been yet I should now have the same opinion of the Law in such Case as the Judges then had The King is not bound by Estopels nor Recoveris had betwixt strangers nor by the fundamental Jurisdiction of Courts as appeareth 38. Ass 20. where a Suit was for Tythes in the Exchequer being a meer spiritual
is in the wife but the cause thereof is because it was once coupled with a possession C. 7. part Nevils Case There was a question whether an Earldom might be entailed and forfeited for Treason which is a thing which he hath not in possession nor use but is inherent in the blood And there resolved that the same cannot be forfeited as to be transferred to the King but it is forfeited by way of discharge and exoneration 12 Eliz. Dyer the Bishop of Durhams Case There if it had not been for the saving the Regal Jurisdiction of the Bishop had been given to the King by the Statute of 26 H. 8. This Statute of 26 H. 8. was made for the dread of the Traitor For the times past saw how dangerous Traitors were who did not regard their lives so as their lands might discend to their issue It was then desperate for the King Prince and Subject For the time to come it was worse The Law doth not presume that a man would commit so horrid an act as Treason so it was cited by Mr. Crook who cited the case That the King cannot grant the goods and lands of one when he shall be attainted of Treason because the Law doth not presume that he will commit Treason If the Law will not presume it wherefore then were the Statutes made against it If the Land be forfeited by the Statute of 26 H. 8. much stronger is it by the Statute of 31 H. 8. But then admit there were a Remitter in the Case yet by the Office found the same is defeated Without Office the Right is in the King Com. 486. c. 5. part 52 where it is said There are two manner of Offices the one which vests the estate and possession of the Land c. in the King where he had but a Right as in the case of Attaindor the Right is in the King by the Act of Parliament and relates by the Office Com. 488. That an Office doth relate 38 E. 3. 31. The King shall have the mean profits The Office found was found in 33 Eliz. and the same is to put the King in by the force of the Attaindor which was 29 H. 8. and so the same devests the Remitter Tenant in tail levieth a Fine and disseiseth the Conusee and dyeth the issue is remitted then proclamations pass now the Fine doth devest the Remitter C. 1. part 47 Tenant in tail suffereth a common Recovery and dyeth before Execution the issue entreth and then Execution is sued the Estate tail is devested by the Execution and so here in our Case it is by the Office C. 7. part 8. Tenant in tail maketh a Lease and dyeth his wife priviment ensient without issue the Donor entreth the Lease is avoided afterwards a Son is born the Lease is revived Com. 488. Tenant in capite makes a Lease for life rendring rent and for non-payment a re-entry and dyeth the rent is behind the heir entreth for non-payment of the rent and afterwards Office is found of the dying seised and that the land is hoâ—den in capite and that the heir was within age In the case the Entry for the Condition broken was revived and the Estate for life revived 3 E. 4. 25. A Disseisor is attainted of Felony the Land is holden of the Crown the Disseisee entreth into the Land and afterwards Office is found that the Disseisor was seised the Remitter is taken out of the Disseisee which is a stronger case then our Case for there was a right of Entire and in our Case it is but a right of Action which is not so strong against the King And for these Causes he concluded That the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas ought to be reversed And so prayed Judgment for the Lord of Sheffield Plaintiffe in the Writ of Error This great Case came afterwards to be argued by all the Judges of England And upon the Argument of the Case the Court was divided in opinions as many having argued for the Defendant Ratcliffe as for the Plaintiffe But then one new Judge being made viz. Sir Henry Yelverton who was before the Kings Sollicitor his opinion and argument swayed the even ballance before and made the opinion the greater for his side which he argued for which was for the Plaintiffe the Lord Sheffield And thereupon Judgment was afterwards given That the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas should be reversed and was reversed accordingly And the Earl Lord Sheffield now Earl of Mulgrave holdeth the said Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave at this day according to the said Judgment Note I have not set here the Arguments of the Judges because they contained nothing almost but what was before in this Case said by the Councel who argued the Case at the Bar. Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 418. IT was the opinion of Ley Chief Justice Chamberlain and Dodderidge Justices That a Defendants Answer in an English Court is a good Evidence to be given to a Jury against the defendant himself but it is no good Evidence against other parties If an Action be brought against two and at the Assises the Plaintiffe proceeds only against one of them in that case he against whom the Plaintiffe did surcease his suit may be allowed a Witnesse in the Cause And the Judges said That if the Defendants Answer be read to the Jury it is not binding to the Jury and it may be read to them by assent of the parties And it was further said by the Court That if the party cannot find a Witnesse then he is as it were dead unto him And his Deposition in an English Court in a Cause betwixt the same parties Plaintiffe and Defendant may be allowed to be read to the Jury so as the party make oath that he did his endeavour to find his Witnesse but that he could not see him nor hear of him Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 419. THe Husband a wife seised of Lands in the right of the wife levied a Fine unto the use of themselves for their lives and afterwards to the use of the heirs of the wife Proviso that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the husband and wife at any time during their lives to make Leases for 21 years or 3 lives The wife being Covert made a Lease for 21 years And it was adjudged a good Lease against the husband although it was made when she was a Feme Covert and although it was made by her alone by reason of the Proviso Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 420. NOte that Hobart Chief Justice said That it was adjudged Mich. 15 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas That in an Action of Debt brought upon a Contract the Defendant cannot wage his Law for part and confesse the Action for the other part And it was also said That so it was adjudged in Tart's Case upon a Shop-book And vide 24 H. 8. Br. Contract 35. A Contract cannot be divided
38 H. 6. 14. If the Law doth not lie for parcel then it is suspended for the whole where the debt is an entire debt And so it was adjudged in this Case Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 421. NOte it was cited by Chamberlain Justice 15 Jacobi to be adjudged That where a man brought an Action upon the Case against another man for calling of him Bastard that the Action was maintainable The Defendant brought a Writ of Error and shewed for Error That the Plaintiffe did not claim any Inheritance or to be heir to any person certain But notwithstanding that Error assigned the Judgment was affirmed And he said That if one saith of J. S. that his Father is an Alien that an Action upon the Case will lie because it is a disability to the Son Quaere Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 422. YOUNG and ENGLEFIELD'S Case Intratur Pasch 21 Jac. Rot. 102. YOung brought an Action of Trespass for entring his Close c. abutted upon one side with Pancras and butted on the other side with Grayes-Inne-Lane Upon Not guilty pleaded the parties were at issue Aud the Record of Nisi prius was Graves-Inne-Lane And thereupon the party was Nonsuit And now it was moved to have a Venire facias de novo And a Case was cited expresse in the point betwixt Farthing and Dupper 9 Jacobi Rot. 1349. Where in an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Plea-Roll was Six weeks and the Record of Nisi prius Six moneths And the Jury being sworn the Plaintiffe was Nonsuit and a Venire facias de novo was awarded and the Nonsuit was recorded Ley Chief Justice You cannot have a new Venire facias if the Nonsuit be recorded And if the Record of Nisi prius varieth from the Record then it can be no Nonsuit because there is no Record upon which the Nonsuit can be and the Nisi prius was prosecuted without warrant Judicial Procss are of Record because they are by the Award of the Court But if the Transcript of a Record be mistaken by a Clark it issueth out by the Award of the Court and if it vary then it is no Record The president cited is direct in the point There was a Venire facias de novo But I conceive there is a difference where the Jury is sworn as it is in the President and then the Plaintiffe is Non-suit but in our Case the Plaintiffe was Nonsuit before the Jury was sworn But per Curiam the Case is the stronger to have a new trial Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 423. PRITCHARD and WILLIAMS Case IN an Ejectione Firme the Jury found for the Defendant Now it was moved for the Plaintiffe That the Defendant might not have Costs because the Venire facias is mistaken And the Defendants Councel cited a President in the Case viz. Mich 18 Jacobi betwixt Done and Knot where the Defendant had Judgment for his Costs notwithstanding that the Plaintiffe mistooke his Venire facias in an Ejectione Firme where the Jury found for the Defendant Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 424. WISEMAN and DENHAM'S Case Wiseman brought an Action upon the Case against Denham Parson and declared that there is a Custom within the Town and Parish of Landone of which the Defendant is the Parson That every Parishoner who keeps so many Kyne within the said Parish should give and pay to the Parson for his Tythe-Milk so many Cheeses at Michaelmas and shewed how that he kept so many Kyne viz. 20 c. within the said Parish and that he did tender apud Landone so many Cheeses at Michaelmas to Denham the Defendant being Parson who refused them and to take them away but suffered them to be and continue in the Plaintiffs house for which cause he brought the Action The Defendant did demur upon the Declaration George Crook the Action will lie for the Plaintiffe hath a damage by reason that the Parson doth not take away his Tythe-Cheese And it is like unto the Case in 13 H. 4. Action sur le Case 48. Where a man sold unto another Hay and because that the Vendee took not away his Hay an Action upon the Case did lie for it was a damage to the Plaintiffe to let it stand upon his ground for he durst not put his Cattel into his ground to feed lest they should eat the Hay and spoil it and so he should be lyable to an Action to be brought by the Vendee So if Tythe be lawfully seâ—forth and the Parson refuseth the Tythe but will sue in the Spiritual Court for the Tythe an Action upon the Case will lie à fortiori in this Case for the Cheeses may be cumbersome and troublesome to the Partie so as he cannot make the best use or benefit of his house Paul Crook contrarie and he took exception because the tender is alledged to be apud Landone and it is not shewed that it was at his house at Landone or in any place certain and he said that the Action will not lie because here is no damage to the Plaintiffe and it is like the Case when a man makes a Lease rendring Rent Cheese or Corn and the Tenant tendreth it and the Lessor refuseth it the Lessee cannot have an Action upon the Case against his Lessor but he may plead the matter in barr in an Action brought by the Lessor And the Case of 13 H. 4. before put is not to the purpose for there it was part of the Bargain to take it away by such a time And in our Case the Plaintiffe may plead the matter in barr to the Plaint ' 43 Eliz. betwixt Crispe and Jackson an Action upon the Case was brought for suing in the Ecclesiatical Court for Tythes which were due and he recovered damages Secondly Admit that the Action doth lie then it is because it is a damage unto him that they remain in his house but it doth not appear that the tender was made at his house but apud Landone which might be a mile from the house and so because it was his own fault the Action will not lie as this Case is by reason of the tender George Crook It was adjudged in a Cornish Case that an Action upon the Case lieth against a Parson which doth not take away his Tythe corn or hay because it spoyles the ground upon which it stands and because the partie cannot have the free use of his Land So in our Case he cannot have the free aâ—e of his house the cheeses cumbring his house and offending him with their smell Haughton Justice If the Action were well laid it would lie for the Cause but in this Case it is not well laid If any thing makes the Action to lie it is the damage which the Plaintiffe doth sustain by the cheeses being in his house but here it is laid to be tendred apud Landone and it is not said at his house and non constat how the
then the tender is good But if he be not there but at another place the notice is sufficient Dodderidge The Law requires certainty in a Declaration and the matter cannot be taken by intendment so we ought to have a certainty set forth otherwise no certain Judgment can be given It was adjourned for Dodderidge and Haughton Justices were against Ley Chief Justice But as I have heard the Case was afterwards adjudged for the Plaintiffe There quaere the Record of the Judgment Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 425. A Man made a Lease for life and covenanted for him and his heirs That he would save the Lessee harmless from any claiming by from or under him The Lessor dyed and his wife brought a Writ of Dower against the Lessee and recovered and the Lessee brought an Action of Covenant against the heir And it was adjudged against the heir because the wife claimed under her husband who was the Lessor But if the woman had been mother of the Lessor who demanded Dower the Action would not have layen against the heir because she did not claim by from or under the Lessor And so it was adjudged v. 11. H. 7. 7. b. Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 426. SNELL And BENNET'S Case A Parson did contract with A. his Executors and Assigns That for ten shillings paid to him every year by A. his Executors and Assigns that he his Executors or Assigns should be quit from the payment of Tythes for such Lands during his life viz. the life of the Parson A. paid unto the Parson ten shillings which the Parson accepted of And made B. an Enfant his Executor and dyed The mother of the Enfant took Letters of Administration durante minori aetate of the Enfant and made a Lease at Will of the Lands The Parson libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tythes of the same Lands against the Tenant at Will who thereupon moved for a Prohibition Dodderidge During the life of the Parson the Contract is a foot but the Assignee cannot sue the Parson upon this Contract yet he may have a Prohibition to stay the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court and put the Parson to his right remedy and that is to sue here This agreement is not by Deed and so no Lease of the Tythes The Parson shall have his remedy against the Executor for the ten shillings but not against the Tenant at Will and the Executor hath his remedy against the Tenant at Will Crook 21 H. 6. A Lease of Tythes without Deed is good for one but not for more years v. 16 H. 7. And afterwards a Prohibition was granted Trin. 16 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 427. PHILPOT and FEILDER'S Case THe Parties are at issue in the Chancery and a Venire facias is awarded out of the Chancery to try the issue and the Venire facias was Quod venire facias coram c. duodecim liberos legales homines de vicineto de c. quorum quilibet habeat quatuor lib. terrae tenementorum vel reddituum per annum ad minus per quos rei veritas melius sciri poterit c. And it was moved in arrest of Judgment That the Venire facias is not well awarded for it ought to be Quorum quilibet habeat quadraginta solidos terrae tentorum vel reddit per an ad minus according to the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 6. which appoints that every one of the Jurors ought by Law to expend forty shillings per annum of Freehold and it ought not to be quatuor libras terrae c. according to the Statute of 27 Eliz cap. 6. which Statute of Elizabeth doth not speak of the Chancery but only of the Kings Bench Common-Pleas and the Exchequer or before Justices of Assise Before the Statute of 35 H. 8. no certain Land of Jurors was named in the Venire facias but since the Statute of 35 H. 8. it was quadragint solidos untill the said Statute of 27 Eliz. and now it is quatuor libras in the Kings Bench Common-Pleas and Exchequer It was adjourned At another day the Case was moved again That the Venire facias ought to be 40 solidos c. according to the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 6. And 10 H. 7. 9. 15 were vouched That if a Statute appoint that the King shall do an act in this form the King ought to do it in the same form and manner So if a Letter of Attorney be to make a Bill in English and the same is made in Latine it is not good although it be the same in form and matter Cook lib Entries 578. Waldrons Case is That in the Chancery the Venire facias was but 40 but that Case was between 35 H. 8. and 27 Eliz. cap 6. Dodderidge and Haughton Justices It is a plain case For the Venire facias ought to be according to 35 H. 8. cap. 6. because the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 6. speaks nothing of the Chancery Quod nota Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 428. HEWET and BYE'S Case IN an Ejectione Firme of a house in Winchester the Ejectment was laid to be of a house which was in australi parte vici Anglice the High-street Ley Chief Justice If it had been ex australi parte vici then the South part had been but a Boundary but here it is well laid Then it was moved That the Venire facias is Duodecim liberos legales homines de Winton and doth not say of any Parish in Winton But notwithstanding it was holden good For Dodderidge Justice said That it is not like unto Arundels Case C. 6. part 14. For there the Offence was laid to be done in paroechiae Sanctae Margaret de Westminster therefore the visne ought to be of the Parish but in this case it being laid generally in Winton it is sufficient that the visne come out of Winton Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 429 WATERER and MOUNTAGUE'S Case A Man made a Lease for six years and the Lessor covenanted That if he were disposed to lease the said lands after the expiration of the said term of six years that the Lessee should have the refusal of it The Lessee within the six years made a Lease thereof to J. S. for 21 years Dodderidge Haughton and Ley Chief Justice The Covenant is not broken because it is out of the words of the Covenant But Dodderidge said Temp. E. 1. Covenant 29. The Lessee covenanted to leave the houses trees and woods at the end of the term in as good plight as he found them and afterwards the Lessee cut down a tree that in that case the Covenant was broken and the Lessor shall not stay untill the end of the term to bring his action of Covenant because it is apparant that the tree cannot grow again and be in as good plight as it was when he took the Lease Trin. 21
they devise the assurance for her jointure 2. Heer is no place named where the Notice was for it is issuable whether he gave Notice or not and then there being no certain place named no visne can be upon it 3. He doth not shew where the Lands are for it might be as in truth it was the Lands were out of England and by the Covenant they ought to be within England 4. He doth not shew that the Lands were of the value of 500l per annum over and above all Reprises as they ought to be by the Articles 5. He sheweth that they were his Freehold but doth not shew that the lands were his lands of Inheritance of which a Jointure might be made The opinion of the whole Court was that the Exceptions were good and that the Plea in bar was no good plea. Dodderidge If the word had been Such as his Councel shall devise then the Notice ought to have been given to the party himself and he is to inform his Councel of it 6 H. 7. 8. But here two Councellors were named in certain and therefore the Notice ought to be given to them for he hath appointed Councellors The whole Plea in bar is naught For if he hath an estate in tail then there ought to be a Fine in making of the Jointure and if there be a Remainder upon it then there ought to be a Recovery So because that Lane hath not informed the party what estate he had in the lands they could not make the Assurance Ley Chief Justice Where a man is bound to make such Assurance of lands as J. S. shall advise here he need not shew his Evidences but he ought to shew to the party what the land is and where it lieth and the Obligee is to seek out the estate at his peril And then J. S. may advise the Assurance conditionally viz. That if he hath Fee then to have such an assurance and if an Estate in tail then such an assurance and if there be a Remainder over then to devise a Recovery Curia All the Errors are material The Bail for Lane before any Judgment given against him brought Lane into Court and prayed that they might be discharged and Lane taken into custody Dodderidge Justice said There is a difference betwixt Manucaptors which are that the party shall appear at the day for there the Court will not excuse them to bring the party in Court before the day But in case of Bail there they may discharge themselves if they bring the body of the Defendant into Court at any time before the Retorn of the 2. Scire facias against the Defendant For when one goeth upon Bail it is intended that he notwithstanding that is in â—â—stodia Mariscalli For the Declarations are in custodia Mariscalli Marschalsiae Quod hota so is the difference Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 434. WHEELER and APPLETON'S Case AN Action upon the Case was brought for these scandalous words viz. Thou hast stollen my Peece and I will charge thee with suspition of Felony Which were found for the Plaintiffe It was moved for the staying of Judgment That the Action was not maintainable For the Declaration is A Peece innuendo a Gun And here the innuendo doth not do its part for it might be a peece of an Oak or a 225. peece of Gold which is commonly called a Peece and in this Case the words may be intended such a Peece 17. Jacobi in the Kings Bench betwixt Palmer and Râ—ve Thou hast the Pox and one may turn his finger in the holes of his legs Adjudged that for these words the Action would lie because it cannot be meant otherwise then of the French pox 41 Eliz. in the Kings Bench the Defendant said of the Plaintiffe Thou art forsworn and thou hast hanged an honester man then thy self the Action did lie For the first words Thou art forsworn no Action will lie C. 4. part 15. but the later words prove that it was in course of Justice and that he was perjured So in this Case admitting that the first words will not bear an action yet the later words make them actionable For the first words ought to be meant of a thing which is Felony Heck's Case C. 4. part 15. there it was adjudged for the Plaintiffe although the first words would not bear action yet the later words make them actionable I will charge thee with suspition or flat Felony an Action doth not lie Hecks Case proves it Another Councellor argued that the Action would not lie The first words are not actionable For so many things as there are in the world so many peeces there may be and here it might be a peece of a thing which could not be Felony Betwixt Roberts and Hill 3 Jacobi in the Kings Bench it was adjudged Roberts hath stollen my wood the words were not actionable for it might be wood standing and then to cut and take it away it is not Felony but Trespass Ley Chief Justice I charge thee with flat Felony If the words be spoken privately to a man no Action lieth for them but if they be spoken before an Officer as a Constable or in a Court which hath conusance of such Pleas then the Action will lie for the party by reason of such words may come into trouble But if a man charge one with flat Felony and chargeth the Constable with him then an Action will not lie because it is in the ordinary course of Justice C. 4. part 14. If a man maketh a Bargain with another to pay him twenty Peeces for such a thing it shall be taken by common intendment twenty 22s. peeces of gold which vulgarly are called Peeces But to endite a man for 20 Peeces is not certain and therefore such Indictment is not good and the Action in our Case will not lie for my Peece is an incertain word Dodderidge Thou hast stollen my Peece What is that For we call 22s. in gold a Peece You ought to tell it in certain And here the innuendo will not make the scandal but the words of scandal ought to proceed out of the parties own mouth and an Innuendo cannot make that certain which was uncertain in the words of the speaker And therefore the Action here will not lie Haughton Justice If the whole matter had been set forth in the Declaration as to have shewed that the parties before this speech had had speeches of a Gun then the Action in this case would have been maintainable but here the word Peece is incertain and the Action will not lie Chamberlain Justice If the speeches had been concerning a Gun lost then upon these words spoken the Action would have lien but not as they are here spoken For the two words there ought to have been matter subsequent as upon the charging with Felony to have delivered him to an Officer And so by the whole Court it was adjudged Quod querens nihil capiat per
by prescription have used to have and dig clay there The first point is found for the Defendant and the last issue is found against the Defendant and damages are given generally All the question is upon the Declaration Coepit asportavit the clay which implies a propertie and interest in the clay to be to the Plaintiffe It is not said that the clay was carried over the land I conceive that the property of the clay is in issue and the Commoner hath nothing to do with that So damages being given to him for that which doth not belong unto him I hold the Judgment to be Erroneous and that it ought to be reversed Dodderidge The Declaration is well enough and of necessity it cannot be otherwise Here the Plaintiffe challengeth nothing but Common In an Action upon the Case there ought to be injurie and damage which is the consequent upon injurie For an Action upon the Case will not lie for an injurie without damage Here Bullen doth not complain for any thing but the loss of his Common which is the first wrong The second wrong is the digging of the pit in the which his cattel may fall and perish The third wrong is for carrying away of six loads of clay over the Common which is a great detriment to the Common to carrie it either by Carts or otherwise and for these three wrongs he concludes his damages ratione cujus he could not have his Common in as ample manner as before he was used to have it and he doth not conclude any damage for the clay Every one of these injuries doth increase the damages and so it would have been if he had left the clay to lie upon the land by the pit for thereby so much Common would have been lost Here he makes himself title only to the Common and these Acts do increase the damages only 2. E. 4. 7 E. 4. Where one was unlawfully and falsly imprisoned and being imprisoned compelled to levie a Fine or make a Feoffment or other Deed. In an Action of false Imprisonment the Jurie gave damages by reason of his restraint of his Liberty and increased them by reason of the levying of the Fine or making the Feoffment or other Deed which he then made The Jurie found that he is not to have any clay and coepit asportavit doth not alter the Case for that is a special Action of trespass And by three of the Justices against Haughton the Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 438. CAlthrope Councellor cited this Case to have been adjudged 25 Eliz. The husband seised in the right of his wife of Copyhold Land made a Lease for years and it was holden by the Court then That by the death of the husband the forfeiture of the Copyhold was purged and that the wife should have the land again notwithstanding this forfeiture by the husband by making a Lease for years without Licence And the Court seemed to allow of the said Case to be Law And afterwards this very Term the like Case came in question in this Court betwixt Severn and Smith where in an Ejectione firme a special Verdict found That a Copyholder seised in the right of his wife made a Lease for years and it was a question whether it were a forfeiture of the inheritance of the wife Hitcham Serjeant said it was no forfeiture Dodderidg Justice took this difference Where a Feme Sole is a Copyholder and she takes a husband who makes a lease for years without licence the same is a forfeiture because it is her folly to take such a husband as will forfeit her Land But where a Copyhold is granted to a Feme Covert and the husband maketh a Lease without Licence in such case it is no forfeiture and so in the Case of a Feme Lessee for life at the Common Law against Whitinghams Case C. 8. part 44. It was adjourned Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 439. NOte It was the opinion of all the Justices and so declared That if the Plaintiffe in an Ejectione firme doth mistake his Declaration That the Defendant in such Case shall have his Costs of the Plaintiffe by reason of his unjust vexation Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 440. FOur several men were joyntly Indicted for erecting and keeping of four several Inns in Bathe It was moved that the Indictment was insufficient because the offence of the one is not the offence of the other like unto the Case in Dyer 19. Where two joyn in an Action upon the Case for words 't is not good but they ought for to sever in their Actions because the wrong to the one is no wrong to the other Dodderidge Iustice One Indictment may comprehend several offences if they be particularly laid and then it is in Law several Indictments It may be intended that the Inns were lawfull Inns for it is not laid to be ad nocumentum and therefore not punishable but if they be an anoyance and inconvenient for the Inhabitants then the same ought particularly to appear otherwise it is a thing lawfull to erect an Inn. An Action upon the Case lyeth against an Inn-keeper who denies lodging to a Travailer for his money if he hath spare lodging because he hath subjected himself to keep a common Inn. And in an Action upon the Case against an Inn-keeper he needeth not to shew that he hath a Licence to keep the Inn. If an Inn-keeper taketh down his Signe and yet keepeth an Hosterie an Action upon the Case will lie against him if he do deny lodging unto a Travailer for his money but if he taketh down his Signe and giveth over the keeping of an Inn then he is discharged from giving lodging The Indictment in the principal case is not good for want of the words ad Nocumentum Haughton and Ley Iustices argreed Ley If an Indictment be for an Offence which the Court ex Officio ought to take notice to be ad Nocumentum there the Indictment being general ad Nocumentum contra Coronam dignitatem is sufficient without shewing in what it is ad Nocumentum But for Inns it is lawfull for to erect them if it be not ad Nocumentum c. and therefore in such Indictments it ought to be expressed that the erecting of them is ad Nocumentum c. and because in this Case there wants the words ad Nocumentum the Indictment was quashed Vi. The Lord North and Prat's Case before to this purpose Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 441. BRIDGES and NICHOLS's Case THey were Indicted for the not repairing of such a Bridg and the Indictment was debent solent reparare pontem c. It was moved that the Indictment was insufficient because it is not alledged in the Indictment that the the Bridg was over a Water and no needfull that it be amended Secondly It did not appear in the Indictment that
house and then by his Will deviseth his houses called the Swan The rooms of the Lyon which A. occupied with the Swan shall pass by the Devise although of right those rooms do belong to the Lyon-house Pasc 36 Eliz. Ewer and Heydon's Case A man hath a house and divers lands in W. and also a house and lands in D. And by his Will he deviseth his house and all his lands in W. D. there the house which is in D. doth not pass for his intent and meaning plainly appears that his house in D. doth not pass But if he had devised all his lands in W. and had not spoken of the house the house had passed A Case was in the Common-Pleas betwixt Hyam and Baker The Devisor had two Farms and occupied parcel of one of the Farms with the other Farm and devised the Farm which he had in his possession The part of the other Farm which he occupied with it did pass with the Farm devised Dodderidge Justice The Devise is in the Case at Bar All his Farm called Locks to his eldest Son and all his Farm called Brocks to his younger Son And the Land in question was purchased long after that the Devisor purchased Brocks but that Land newly purchased was not expresly named in the Will and therefore it shall discend to the heir viz. the eldest Son Land is not parcel of a house and in strictness of Law cannot appertain to a house Yet Land is appertaining to the Office of the Fleet and the Rolls but that is to the Office which is in another nature then the Land is For the Land newly purchased the Jury did not find the same to be usually occupied with Brocks it shall not pass with Brocks although it be occupied together with Brocks I do occupie several Farms together and then I devise one of the Farms called D. and all the lands to the same belonging the other Farms shall not pass with it although they be occupied all together Haughton Justice What time will make lands to belong unto a house All the profits of the lands used with the house for a small time will serve the turn Ley Chief Justice There are two manner of belongings One belonging in course of Right and another belonging in case of Occupation To the first belonging there ought to be Prescription viz. time out of mind But in our Case Belonging doth borrow some sense from occupying for a year or a time And then another year to occupie it will not make it belonging in the later sense In strictness of Law Land cannot be said to belong to a house or land but in vulgar reputation it may be said belonging And in such case in case of grant the Land will not pass as appertaining to Land C. 4. part Terringham's Case But in our Case it is in case of a Will Usually occupied is not to be meant time out of mind Here other lands were belonging to Brocks and so the words of the Will are satisfied But it might have been a Question if there had been no other lands belonging to it Dodderidge Justice If the Devisor had turned all the profits thereof to Brocks then it had passed by the Will Ley Chief Justice This occupying of it promiscuously doth make it belong to neither At another day Ley Chief Justice said Here is nothing which makes it appear to us that this Land doth belong to Brocks For the Jury find not that it was occupied either with Brocks or Locks and so this Land belongs to neither of them Dodderidge There is not any Question in the Case It is not found that it doth belong And then we must not judge it belonging The ground of this question ariseth out of the matter of fact and it ought to be found at the least that it is appertaining in Reputation Haughton The Jury find that Knight was seised of Brocks and of lands belonging to it And that he was seised of Locks and of lands belonging to that And lastly they find that he was seised of this Land in question but they do not find that it was any wayes belonging to Brocks or Locks It was adjudged for the Plaintiff and that the Land did not pass by the Devise but that it did discend to the heir Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 448. SELY against FLAYLE and FARTHING IN an Ejection Firme the Verdict was found for the Defendant Three of the Jurors had Sweet-meats in their pockets and those three were for the Plaintiffe untill they were searched and the Sweet-meats found with them and then they did agree with the other nine and gave their Verdict for the Defendant Haughton Justice It doth not appear that these Sweet-meats were provided for them by the Plaintiffe or Defendant and it doth not appear that the said three Jurors did eat of the Sweet-meats before the Verdict given And so I conceive there is not any cause to make void the Verdict given but the said three Jurors are fineable Dodderidge Justice Whether they eat or not they are fineable for the having of the Sweet-meats with them for it is a very great misdemeanour And now we cannot tell which of the Jurors the three were and because it was not moved before the Jurors departed from the Bar it is now too late to examine the Jurors for we do not know for which three to send for The nine drew the three which had the Sweet-meats to their opinions and therefore there is no cause to stay Judgment But if the three Jurors had drawn the nine other to them then there had been sufficient cause to have stayed the Judgment but as this case is there is no cause And therefore per Curiam Judgment was given for the Defendant according to the Verdict Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench 449. NOte It was vouched by George Crook and so was also the opinion of the whole Court That by way of Agreement Tythes may pass for years without Deed but not by way of Lease without a Deed. But a Lease for one year may be of Tythes without Deed. Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 450. THe Plaintiffe recovered in Debt in the Kings Bench and a Capias ad Satisfaciendum was awarded and immediately upon the awarding of the Capias the Defendant dyed Quaere if in such case an Action of Debt lieth against the special Bail The Executors having nothing a Scire-facias doth not lie against the Bail And in the Common-Pleas in that case the Court was divided two Judges being against the other two Judges Ideo quare Trin. 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 451. LEONARD's Case IN a Scire facias to have Execution of a Recognizance the Case was That a special Supplicavit for the Peace was directed out of the Chancery to A. and B. Justices of the Peace and to the Sheriffe of the County of c. to take a Recognizance of L. M. N. for the Peace and good behaviour and the
Commission was to A. B. and the Sheriff cuilibet eorum The Supplicavit was delivered to the two Iustices who took a Recognizance from L. but M. N. could not be found The Sheriffe was afterwards out of his Office because his year of Sheriffwick expired The new Sheriffe made a Retorn That M. N. non sunt inventi in balliva mea And also Retorned That A. B. had taken a Recognizance of L. as appeareth per quandam schedulam huic annex in haec verba c. This Case was argued and 21 H. 7. 20. 21. vouched That if the Writ be first delivered to the Sheriffe then he only is for to execute the Writ and retorn the Supplicavit But if it be first delivered to the Iustices then they ought to execute it and retorn it 9 E. 4. 31. A Supplicavit is a Iudicial Writ and cannot be executed by a Deputy but a Ministerial Writ may be executed by a Deputy In this case the succeeding Sheriffe did retorn the Writ and it was not directed unto him And the same being delivered to the Chancellor whether the same should be a Record or not was the Question 4 H. 7. 17. Debt was brought upon an Obligation The Kings Serjeant prayed the Bond for the King because that the Plaintiffe was a person Outlawed Bryan Iustice You ought to bring a Writ of Detinue to recover the Bond which is a legal course for the King And so in this case here is no Record for the King because the Recognizance comes not in by a legal course viz. a lawful Retorn for it was retorned by the new Sheriffe and also by him who did not execute the Commission Heath said cleerly There was no Record for the King and vouched 21 H. 7. 20 21. Note the whole Case there 1. Where it is said In casu superiori ipse Justiciarius qui primo illud breve de Supplicavit recepit tota executione ejusdem Brevis tantummodo tenetur reliqui sociorum suorum tangent dictum Breve exonerentur Justiciarius hanc recipiens nomine suo proprio illud retornabit And in our Case it was directed to the Sheriffe and Iustices and being delivered to the Iustices the Sheriffe had not to do to make Certificate of it and in this case he is but as a private man This suit is a Scire facias to have Execution upon the said Recognizance A Dedimus potestatem is directed to two and one of them doth execute it the other cannot certifie it for the Execution of it ought to be upon his own knowledge A Record taken by one cannot be certified by another for if it be it is not any Record upon which a Scirefacias can be awarded In our Case the Justices made the Record and the Sheriffe did certifie it Ley Chief Justice When the Recognizance is put to writing or Notes of Remembrance taken of the Recognizance before the Commissioners it is immediately a Record One takes Notes of a Recognizance and dyeth He to whose hands the Notes come may certifie the same for it is a perfect Record by the taking of the Notes of Remembrance But that is to be understood when no Writ is directed to Commissioners but when a Justice takes is In our Case the Sheriffe may retorn the Writ ex officio and also retorn That executio istius brevis patet in quadam schedula annexa And it doth not appear but that the now Sheriffe was at the Execution of this Commission But admit that he was not yet now the Writ being retorned into the Chancery your pleading and taking issue upon another matter hath made it a good Record And therefore I hold that the Judgment ought to be given for the King according to the Verdict Haughton Justice Judgment cannot be for King If the Record doth not come duly into the Chancery according to course of Law it is not any Record upon which there can be any Procution If a Judge take a Fine and dyeth before it be certified a Certiorari ought to be directed to the Executors of the Judge v. 2 H. 7. 10. but the Certiorari ought not to be to a stranger If two Iustices of Peace have Commission to take a Recognizance and one of them taketh it and dyeth the Certiorari must be to his Executors and not to the other Iustice In this Case the Record came into the Chancery by undue course The Commission was several Cuilibet eorum and those who took upon them the Execution thereof are now made Officers by the express words of the Writ and it is not so here retorned and therefore Iudgment ought to be against the King A Dedimus potestatem is directed to four to take a Fine of Lands in several Counties Two of them take it in one County and they certifie it and the two other take it in another County and they certifie it None of the Certificates are good Dodderidge Iustice Iudgment ought to be against the King There are two Questions in the Case 1. Whether the Sheriffe as this Case is may onely make the Retorn 2. Admitting that he cannot but the same being retorned and the Chancery accepting of it and sending it to this Court whether we can damn the Record 1. This is a special Recognizance upon the grievance of the party and by the Kings Commission they are made especial Iudges in this case And when the party who sues delivers the same to the two Justices the Sheriff cannot entermeddle therewith for then the Justices ought to retorn the Recognizance by vertue of that Commission 21 H. 7. 20 21. there the Case is direct in the point That they to whom the Writ is first delivered they only are to execute it and retorn it for they only have power by vertue of the special Commission The Writ was against three and two of them are not to be found The Sheriff cannot retorn Non sunt inventi for the two by force of this Commission and he is not to make his Retorn as a Minister or Officer to the other because the Writ is Judicial If a Challenge be to the Sheriff and Coroners and process is directed to Esliors they are to execute the process as particular Officers by vertue of the Writ and they are to retorn the same and not the Sheriff because their authority is by vertue of a special Writ To the 2. point it hath been said That the Record is in the Chancery and the partie hath pleaded to it to issue and it is now sent into this Court and now fault is found with it but not before Though all this be so yet we cannot accept of it here if it have not due proceedings If process be directed to the Coronors for Challenge to the Sheriff and then a new Sheriff is made against whom there is no cause of challenge yet the Coronors must execute and finish the process and not the new Sheriff for the Law will not endure that Offficers do
make a mingling of their Offices Vi. 13 E. 4 10 E. 3. By Hill and Herle For Trials out of the Chancery the Chancery and Kings Bench are but as one Court and if the Record come not in duely as it should the Court was never well seised of the Record Ley Chief Justice The coming of the Writ to the hands of one or two of the Commissioners shall not stay the Commission but the receipt of the one of them is the receit of them all having notice of it and the others may joyn with him to whom the Commission is delivered So it is in all cases every one of the Commissioners are interessed therein upon notice and not he only to whom the Commission is delivered If one Justice of peace taketh a Recognizance and dieth before it be certified the Certiorari shall be directed to the other Justice to certifie it if it come to his hands and he may retorn the Recognizance and it shall not be directed to the Executors of the Iustice who have not the Recognizance for the Certiorari is but the hand for the Court to receive it for otherwise the King might lose the benefit of the Recognizance And in our Case the Sheriff by a special Commission hath Authority to take the Recognizance and to retorn it upon Record One may do part of the Office as to make and take the Recognizance and the other may retorn it but one cannot execute a thing in part and another in another part the taking of the Recognizance by the two Justices doth exclude the Sheriff from medling with the taking or making of it but it doth not hinder him but that he may retorn it well enough and the Writ or Commission is general Vicecomiti which may extend as well to the new Sheriff as to the old Sheriff The Case was adjourned for by two Iudges the Supplicavit and Recognizance were not well retorned by the new Sheriff but Ley Chief Justice was against them Quaere Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 452. RANDAL and HARVEY's Case THe Case was Harvey in consideration that Brown might go at large who was arrested at the suit of Randal gave his word that Brown should pay the money at such a day certain and for non-payment of the money Randal brought his Action against Harvey and being at issue upon the promise it was found for the Plaintiff Yelverton moved in arrest of Iudgment that the arrest of Brown was not warrantable by Law and that being the consideration the Promise was void and he said A man cannot make another his Attorney to arrest another man without Deed neither can the Sheriff give Warrant to his Baylie to arrest another without a Deed sealed And in the principal case Randal gave one a VVarrant to T. being an Attorney to demand receive and recover money from Brown but it did not appear by the Declaration that the VVarrant was by Deed in writing George Crook said that it was no Exception For be the Arrest lawfull or unlawfull yet he said the consideration was good Randal gave to his Attornie Authority to receive demand and recover thereby he gave him Authority to arrest Brown because the arrest is incident to the Recoverie 2 R. 2. Grants One grants to another all the Fish in his Pond he may fish with Nets For when he giveth the principal the incidents do follow VVhen Brown had yieldded himself to be lawfully arrested and then Harvey in consideration that Brown might go at liberty made the promise the same was good The Declaration was That Randal gave Authority to T. being an Attorney to receive deliver and recover the Debt by force of which Letter of Attorney T. did arrest Brown and so in the Declaration it is shewed that the Warrant was a Letter of Attorney Yelverton 34 H. 6. In Debt upon a Recoverie in the 5 Ports If a man will declare and set forth a thing in particular if he faileth in any thing it overthroweth his Action But if a man alledge generally a Recoverie in the 5 Ports then the same is good enough I agree the Case of 9 E. 4. Where a man gives leave to another to lay Pipes of Lead through his Lands that he may dig the ground to lay them there because it is incident to it And I agree the Case of 2 R. 2. for there the one thing cannot be done without the other viz. the Fish cannot be taken without Nets but in this Case the partie might have come by his money by Outlawrie and so there needed no arresting of the partie Ley Chief Justice If he had declared debito modo arrestatus it had been generally good and it must be intended that the Arrest was by vertue of a Letter of Attorney For he alledges that he gave him Authority to recover and then he shall have and use the means to recover as to arrest the partie or to outlaw him Haughton Justice Things incident and accessary may be comprehended in the principal as to dig for to mend the Pipe 9 E. 4. Because he grants him leave to lay them in the ground and so he may dig and justifie the same for the amending of the pipes If A. Licence B. to hunt in his Park and to kill a Deer yet B. cannot carry away the Deer for that is not incident to the thing granted In this case the Declaration is not good for he ought to set forth that the VVarrant was by Deed in writing and yet one may plead a Judgment generally quod debito modo he recovered and the same is good but here in this case he ought to set forth and shew the VVarrant and Authority by which he was arrested but not so in the case of pleading of a Judgment because there it doth refer to matter of Record Dodderidge Justice The promise was to free him from the arrest and if the arrest was unlawfull then there was no consideration and so by consequent the promise was void It ought to be shewed that Brown was lawfully arrest and if the arrest had been only matter of inducement and no cause of the Action then it had been sufficient to have said debito modo arrestatus but in this case the arrest it self is material and the Plaintiff hath shewed that the arrest was per debitum legis Cursum by vertue of a VVarrant of Attorney and it doth not appear but that it was a Letter of Attorney to deliver Seisin and so because the Plaintiff hath not shewed the arrest to be lawfull there was no good consideration whereupon to ground the promise and so no cause of Action Yelverton took another Exception viz. That the Plaintiff doth not shew that the arrest was per breve Regis or how it was Chamberlain Justice If the partie had brought an Action of false Imprisonment this Plea had not been good and in this case there appeareth to be no good consideration for it doth not appear that it was a
Statute of West 2. First they said That Copyholds are not within the letter of the Statute which speaks onely de tenementis per chartam datis c. Secondly they are not within the meaning of it 1. Because they were not untill 7 E. 4. 19. of any accompt in Law because they were but Estates at will 2. The Statute of West 2. provides against those who might makeâ— a dissen heresin by Fine or Feoffment which Copyholders could not do 3. Because if Copyholders might give lands in tail by the Statute then the Reversion should be left in themselves which cannot be 4. The Makers of the Statute did not intend any thing to be within the Statute of Donis whereof a Fine could not be levied For the Statute provides Quod sinis ipso jure sit nullus 5. Great mischiefs would follow if Copyholds should be within the Statute of West 2. because there is no means to dock the estate and no customary conveyance can extend to a Copyhold created at this day 37 Eliz Lane and Hills case adjudged in the Common-Pleas was cited by Justice Harvey where a Surrender was unto the use of one in tail with divers remainders over in tail The first Surrenderee dyed without issue And first it was agreed and adjudged That it was no discontinuance 2. If it were a discontinuance yet a Formedon in the Remainder did not lie because there ought to be a Custom to warrant the Remainder as well as the first Estate tail For when a Copyholder in Fee maketh such a gift no Reversion is left in him but only a possibility And the Lord ought to avow upon the Donee and not upon the Donor And there is a difference when he maketh or giveth an estate of inheritance and when he maketh a Lease for life or years for in the one case he hath a Reversion in the other not 2. A Recovery shall not be without a special custom as it was agreed in the Case of the Mannor of Stepney because the Warrantie cannot be knit to such an Estate without a Custom And for express authority in the principal Case he cited Pits and Hockleâ—'s ase which was Ter Pasc 35 Eliz. rot 334. in the Common-Pleas where it was resolved That Copyholds were not within the Statute of Donis for the weakness and meanness of their estates For if they were within the Statute of West 2. the Lord could not enter for Felony but the Donor and the Services should be done to the Donor and not to the Lord of the Mannor And so and for these mischiefs he conceived That neither the meaning nor the words of the said Statute did extend to Copyholds Hill 34 Eliz. Rot. 292. in the Kings Bench Stanton and Barney's Case A Surrender was made of a Copyhold within the Mannor of Stiversden unto one and the heirs of his body and after issue he surrendred unto another And it was agreed by all the Justices That the issue was barred And Popham did not deny that Case but that it was a Fee conditional at the Common-Law and that post prolem suscitatam he might alien And so it was agreed in Decrew and Higdens case Trin. 36. Eliz. rot 54â— in the Kings Bench and in Erish and Ives case 41 42 Eliz. in the Common-Pleas in an Evidence for the Mannor of Istleworth That no Estate tail might be of Copyhold without a Custom to warrant it Mich. 36 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench it was adjudged That a Copyholder could not suffer a common Recovery and the reason was because that the Recovery in value is by reason of the Warrantie annexed to the Estate at the Common-Law which could not be annexed to a Customary estate And another reason was given because that he who recovers in value shall be in by the Recovery and the Copy of the Court-Roll only should not be his Evidence as Littleton and other books say it ought to be And Crook said That the Statute of Donis was made in restraint of the Common-Law And it should be very disadvantagious to the Lord if Copyhold should be construed to be within that Statute And therefore he conceived that the said Statute did not extend to Copyholds by any equitable construction And such difference was taken by Popham Chief Justice 42 Eliz. in the Kings Bench rot 299. in Baspool and Long 's Case For he said That a Custom which did conduce to maintain Copyholds did extend to them But a Statute or a Custom which did deprave or destroy them did not As if one surrender to the use of one for life the Remainder in Fee where the Custom is to surrender in Fee the Custom doth not extend thereunto because a Custom which goes in destruction of a Copyhold shall be taken strictly But if a man be Copyholder in Fee he may grant a Fee conditional Harvey Justice put some Cases to prove the small account the Law had of Copyholds at the time of the making of that Statute as 40 E. 3. 28. 32 H. 6. br Copyhold 24. And he said That there is not any book in the Law but only Mancels case in Plow Comment That the Statute of West 2. doth extend to Copyholds Hill 2 Caroli rot 235 in the Kings Bench. 459. LITFIELD and his Wife against MELHERSE A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgment given in an Action upon the Case brought by Husband and Wife in the Common-Pleas for words spoken of the Plaintiffs wife And the Judgment in the Common-Pleas was That the husband and wife should recover And that was assigned for Error in this Court because the Husband only is to have the damages and the Judgment ought to be That the Husband alone should recover But notwithstanding this Error assigned the Judgment was affirmed by the opinion of the whole Court Pasch 2 Caroli rot 362. in the Kings Bench. 460 HOLMES and WINGREEVE's Case A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Lincoln in an Action of Trespass there brought for taking away a Box with Writings And four Errors were assigned 1. Because the Plaintiffe did not appear by Attorney or in person at the retorn of the Attachment against the Defendant so as there was a discontinuance for the Plaintiffe ought to appear de die in diem 2. Because in his Declaration there he saith That the Defendant took a Box with Writings and doth not make any title to the Box nor shews that the same was lockt nailed or sealed 2 H. 7. 6. a. The certainty of the writings ought to be shewed that a certain issue may be taken thereupon Com. 85. 22 H. 6. 16. 14 H. 6. 4. 21 E. 3. He ought to shew the certainty of the writings 18 H. 1. Charters in a Box sealed C. 9. part Bedingfields case C. 5. part Playters case The Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiffe therein did not name the certain number of the Fishes 3. He pleaded That he made a
of Ely and divers Errors were assigned First that he did not shew in the stile of the Court how Ely hath power to hold plea either by Charter or by prescription Secondly because he said That at such a place in Ely he did promise but did not shew that it was within the Jurisdiction of Ely Thirdly that it was upon a Consideration to â—urâ—ease a Suit in the Chancery that the Defendant did promise but did not shew that at the time of the promise there was a Suit depending Fourthly it was said That the Defendant did promise to surrender certain Customary Lands and it is not shewn what the Lands were and so no certainty for the Jurie to give damages Jermyn argued for the Defendant in Writ of Error and said The Declaration is good in substance Diversas terras Customarias proxim adjacend lib. tenem ' of the Defendant and the Defendant pleaded that he had offered predict tenem ' Customaria and so no difference is betwixt them for that Tenement is sufficiently known and although it be not so certainly laid as it ought to be in a real Action yet it is certain enough in an Action upon the Case Dyer 355 356. Only who was Sollicitor to the Councel of D. did spend 1500l circa diversa secta negotia there the Declaration was sufficient by two Judges there the Lands are certain viz. proxim ' lib. tenem ' Secondly Ely is in the Margent which is as much as the County in the Margent and then when no County is named in the Declaration wherein the land doth lie it shall be intended to lie in the County which is in the Margent Hetley Our Case differs from Onlyes Case in Dyer 355. for there 1500l was received But if I bring an Action upon the Case pro diversis merchandisis the same is not good but if I bring the Action for 10â— pro diversis merchandisis then it is good Jones Justice Chester and Durham are generally known and therefore it is good to say Placita tent apud Chester c. and the party need not shew how Chester hath Jurisdiction but it is not so of Ely Whitlock Justice Ely hath Jura regalia and we read in our books that they have had Conusans of Pleas. Hyde Chief Justice In all particular and private Jurisdictions if they come to be certified here in a Writ of Error you must set out their power But if they have their power by a Statute as Wales then it need not be set forth A Writ of Error doth not lie upon a Judgment in London but when the Plea is before Commissioners Curia We cannot grant a new Certiorare to an inferior Court but only to the Common-Pleas or Wales The writ of Error to remove the Record out of the Court of Ely is directed Justiciario nostro which proves that this Court takes notice of him as the Kings Justice And in other Courts it is Senescallo Curiae and not Senescallo nostro Whitlock Justice It is since the Statute of 27 H. 8. that it is directed Justiciario nostro de Ely for before it was Justiciario Episc Hyde Chief Justice It is a Book-Case If Midd. be in the margent and you say apud D. and name no County D. shall be intended to be in Midd. The Judgment was reversed Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench 467. WATERMAN and CROPP's Case Intratur M. 2 Car. Rot. 419. AN Action of Trespass for Battery and Imprisonment The Defendant did justifie the Imprisonment c. If it be not a Court of Record they cannot fine and imprison but if it be a Court of Record then they may for it is Curia Domini Regis 468. IN a Writ of Error Error was assigned That an Action was laid in Lanceston and the Venire facias was awarded de vicineto de Lanceston And it was said That the neighbourhood might be of those of which the Maior and Bailiffs had no power over viz. those out of their juridiction And therefore Error was assigned in the mis-awarding of the Venire facias 10 Jacobi in the Common-Pleas Buckley's case There the Venire facias was de vicineto civitatis Eborum and well enough for vicineto shall imply those within the jurisdiction and not the neighbours 10 Jacobi Procter and Cliffords case adjudged contrary where it was That the Venire facias was de vicineto civitatis Coventry and adjudged not good for it ought to have been de civitate Coventry Dodderidge Vicineto goeth about the Precinct When I was a Councellor then I moved for Bristol and to maintain it good de vicinetâ— de Bristol but it was ruled not good but ought to be de civitate Bristol Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 469. TOLLYN and TAYLOR's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought in the Common-Pleas by an Enfant who declared by Attorney The Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned the same for Error For he ought to have declared per Prochyn amy and not by Attorney If an Action be brought and the Defendant plead that he is an Enfant the Enfancie is to be tryed where the Writ is brought Here he assigns the Error in fact that he was an Enfant and shewed no place where he was an Enfant and so no place set where to prove it To this Error the Plaintiffe pleaded That he was at full age And upon that they are at issue upon this matter in fact And it was tryed at Halsworth in Suffolk whereas it ought to have been in this Court where the Enfancie is pleaded because he names no place where he was of full age And notwithstanding that it was found that he was of full age yet the Trial was not good The first Action was brought before the Statute of 21 Jacobi cap. 13. Hitcham Serjeant Age or not age is not local and a place must be set down for formalitie sake and so it is no matter of substance And the Venire facias might be awarded from the place where the first Action was viz. at Halsworth in Suffolk For that is a matter dependant and pursuant the first Action and now since the Statute is helped Denny contrary It hath no dependance upon the first Action but is a new thing sprung up If any place had been set down and the Venire facias had been mistaken that is helped by the Statute and not where no place is set down at all Whitlock Justice Every Venire facias properly is to be from the place where the Writ is brought unless it be drawn away by Plea He ought to have alleadged a place For this is a new matter in this Court and not helped by the Statute of 21 Jacobi nor any other for the Venire facias is totally mistaken Dodderidge Justice The Statute of Jeofaites have ever been taken strictly according to the letter For if they had been taken by equity what need had there been of more Statutes to have been made
The want of a letter out of a word is out of the Statutes C. 8. part You should have alleadged some place The Statute of 21 Jacobi is not of any Venire facias which is misawarded generally but the Statute helpeth when there are two places and the visne ought to come from both places and the visne comes but from one place and when there is but one place and the visne comes from two places If Enfancie be to be tryed sc If he were at such a time within age it ought to be tryed by the Country This matter is collateral to the first Record and it is a new Record sc upon Error The whole Court was of opinion that it was out of the Statute and a Repleader was granted Whitlock Justice There is no Trial at all for there is no Venire facias at all Dodderidge Justice If the Defendant in Error plead an ill plea he shall replead But if in this Action he had alleadged a place of his Enfancie sc at Dale and the Venire facias had been of Sale there it had been good trial and there he should not replead for that he hath pleaded well but there he shall have a Venire facias de novo Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 470. DAY 's Case DAY was Indicted for erecting of a Cottage It was moved that the Indictment was insufficient for that the words of the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 7 are Shall willingly uphold maintain and continue And the Indictment is only That he continued and so wants the words voluntarily upheld according to the Statute 2. It did not appear in the Indictment that it was newly erected for it is only that he continued but not that he erected The Indictment was quashed because being a penal Law it was not pursued Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 471. MAN's Case MAN was Indicted That he fuit adhâ—â—c est a common Barrettor and no place is expressed where he was a Barrettor so as no trial can be Dodderidge Justice If he be a Barrettor in one place he is a Barrettor in all places The Indictment was Per quod he did stir up contentions Jurgia And no place alleadged where he did stir up Jurgia contentions And it was said that in that case the place was very material And so the Indictment was quashed for want of setting forth the place where he did stir up many Contentions Jurgia c. Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 472. GREEN and MOODY'S Case AN Action of Debt was brought for Rent and it was found for the Plaintiff Thyn Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgment and set forth the Case to be That a Lease was made for years to begin at Michaâ—lmaâ— after And the Plaintiff in the Action of Debt for the Rent did declare Virtuâ—e cujus the Lessee did enter and did not shew what day according to Cliffords Case 7 E. 6. Dyer 89. But the Court said It is said in this Case Virtute cujus dimissionis he did enter and was possessed and that must be intended at Michaelmas Alexander and Dyer's Case 33 Eliz. was resolved accordingly And Cliffords Case Dyer 89. is not virtute cujus dimissionis And the Court held a difference betwixt Debt and Ejectione firme Cliffords case was an Ejectione firme but here it is Debt Jones Justice If he did enter before Michaelmas yet Debt will lie for the Rent upon the privity of contract for the Lessee cannot destroy the contract unless he make a Feoffment It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Quaere If when the Lessor in the case which Jones put hath brought his action and recovered when the Lessee hath entred before the day If the Lessor shall put him out as a Disseisor by reason of the Recovery in the action of Debt in which he hath admitted him to be Lessee for years Or if the Lessor after he hath recovered in Debt dyeth whether his heir shall be estopped by the Record to say otherwise then that he is in by the Lease Or whether the Recovery in Debt hath purged the wrong Like unto the Case 14 H. 8. 12. by Carret If one entreth into my lands and claims 20 years therein and I suffer him to continue there and accept of the Rent and afterwards he committeth Waste I shall maintain an action of Waste and declare upon the special matter If one entreth into my Land claiming a Lease for years per Curiam he is a Disseisor and he cannot qualifie his own wrong Dyer 134. Traps case But Sir Henry Yelverton said That I may admit him to be Tenant for years if I accept of the Rent or bring Waste as Carret said 14 H. 4. But he hath not but for years in respect of his claim But I am concluded by acceptance of the Rent or by bringing of the action of Waste So here by the bringing of the action of Debt the Lessor is concluded But Quaere if it shall bind his heir It was conceived it shall because it is by Record the strongest conclusion that is Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 473. SMITH's Case A Lease for years was made of Lands in Middlesex and the Lessor brought Debt in London against the Assignee The opinion of the whole Court was that it was not well brought but the Action ought to have been brought in Midd. Jones Justice Debt for Rent upon the privity of Contract may be brought in another County but if it be brought upon the privity of Estate as by the Grantee of the Reversion or against the Assignee of the Lessee then it ought to be brought in the County where the Land is Quod nota Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 474. CREMER and TOOKLEY's Case AN action of Debt was brought for suing in the Court of Admiralty against the Statutes of 13 R. 2. cap. 5. 15 R. 2. cap. 3. whereby it is enacted That of manner of Contracts Pleas and Complaints arising within the body of the Counties as well by land as by water the Admiral shall in no wise have conusans And the Statute gives damages part to the party and part to the King And the Plaintiff in the action of Debt did declare That the Defendant Tookley did implead Cremer the Plaintiff in the Court of Admiralty And in his Declaration set forth That one Mullâ—beck was Master of a Ship c. and that the Contract was made in London And that Tookley the Defendant did force the Plaintiff to appear and prosecuted the suit upon the Contract in the Admiral Court And by special Verdict it was found That a Charter-party was made betwixt Mullibeck and Cremer at Dunkirk And that Tookley did prosecute Cremer in the Admiral Court by vertue of a Letter of Attorney and so that he as Attorney to Mullibeck did prosecute the suit there The Case was argued by Andrewes for the Plaintiff There are two points The first upon the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty the Contract
was not found and so the King was not entitled to rights and priviledges and by consequence so was not his Pattentee 2. It did not appear that the Councel of Lateran 15 Johannis did extend to these Orders which was said to have been created 17 E. 3. whereas indeed it was created in the time of Henry the 1. Regularly this priviledge is not transferrable for it is ratione Ordinis As when the King makes a Duke and gives to him possessions those possessions annexed to the Dukedom are not transferrable over but by special Act of Parliament 35 H. 6. 36. Moile There if there had been special words in the Act of Parliament it had been Frankalmoigne This Priviledge is transferred to the King by the Act of 32 H. 8. and that Statute requires no aid of Regular or Ecclesiastical persons Secondly the words are special And all other things of theirs This Case opposeth not the Bishop of Canterbury's Case C. 3 part For that refers to the Statute of 1 E. 6. which had not so large words The intent of an Act shall be taken largely and beneficially to inlarge the Kings possessions as the grants of the King shall be taken largely and beneficially for the King There is a difference betwixt this Statute of 32 H. 8. and the Statute of 27 H. 8. The copulative words of the Statute of 27 H. 8. are To have all Rights and Interests and Hereditaments C. 11. part 13. pro omnibus demandis c. there the demand shall extend to Temporal demand so All rights and Interest and Inheritance shall be construed All temporal rights c. But the Statute of 32 H. 8. is larger viz. Of what name and nature soever If by the words of the Statute of 31 H. 8. Priviledges Tythes had been given to the King without especial provision after made then what needed the special Clause after was the Objection which hath been made I answer The special Clause was necessary For in pleading otherwise he ought to have shewed what Priviledge and Discharge it was in particular and so the Clause was added for the case of pleading C. 9. part The Abbot of Strata Mercellos case there it is said That if a man plead to have such priviledges as such a one had he ought to shew in particular what those priviledges were But this provision in the Statute of 31 H. 8. was made for the benefit of pleading The Statute of 17 E. 2. which gave the Tythes to the Hospitalers give them by the word of Priviledges for they had their possessions as it were by a new purchase Cook Entries 450. there the Case much differs from this so then the general word Priviledges doth extend to Tythes 14 H. 8. 2. By a grant of All trees Apple-trees will not pass yet if it be of all trees cujuscunque generis naturae nominis aut qualitatis then they will pass C. 3. part 81. By grant of all goods Apparel will not pass Here are special words in the Statute cujuscunque naturae nominis c. Nominla sunt symboa rerum And then call them what you will they are given to the King and intended to be transferred to the King and so there needs no special provision for the discharge of the Tythes For to say that the Priory was of the Order of the Cistertians is sufficient Admit then that the King shall have the Tythes as I have argued he shall then his Pattentee shall have them It is a real discharge in the King and not a discharge in respect of his person only Priviledges of discharge may be transferred as well as Priviledges of profit Then the question further is Whether they of S. Johns of Jerusalem were Ecclesiastical They were Regular as appeareth by the Statute of 32 H. 8. for that saith that they shall be free from Obedience Trin. 8. Jacobi in the Common-Pleas Bowyers case Whore Cook Nichols Warburton and Winch did agree that they were Ecclesiastical Priests The Prior had Parsonages and none could have Parsonages but Ecclesiastical persons 3 E. 3. 11. They had Appropriations which could not be unto Lay-men 22 E. 4. 42. There a Writ of Annuity was brought against the Prior of S. Johns of Jerusalem and it was ruled there that he ought to be named Parson which proves that he was Ecclesiastical 26 H. 8. cap. 2. there it is said That he shall pay First-fruits as other Parsons which proves that he was Parson 42 E. 3. 22. there they are called Ecclesiastical 35 H. 6. 56. they were seised in the right of the Church Linwood lib. cap. 47. de Judiciis That they were Ecclesiastical It was objected that Knight-hood cannot be given to Ecclesiastical persons and they were Knights Popham once Chief Justice of this Court said That he had seen a Commission directed unto a Bishop to Knight all the Parsons within his Diocese and that was the cause that they were called Sir John Sir Thomas and so they continued to be called untill the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Jones and Dodderidge Justices They were Ecclesiastical persons although they were divided from the jurisdiction of the Bishop The Case was adjourned to be further argued Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 479. LANGLEY and STOTE's Case IN an Ejectione firme the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment 26 Martii 23 Jacobi contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc which could not be because King James dyed the 27 of March and so it was not contra pacem Caroli Regis 8 H. 4. 21. An Appeal of Maheim was brought and the Plaintiff declared That he meyhemed in the time of the King that now is and the Writ did suppose the same to be in the time of King R. 2. And for that cause it was adjudged Quod nihil capiat per Breve Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 480. MUTLE and DOE's Case DEbt was brought upon a Bond aud the Plaintiff in his Declaration doth not say hic in Curio prolat It was holden by the Court That although it be in the election of the Defendant to demand Oyer of it yet the Plaintiff ought to shew it The Judgment also was entred Concessum est whereas it ought to have been Ideo consideratum est And for these causes the Judgment was reversed So was it adjudged also the same Term in this Court in Barret and Wheeler's Case Pasch 3 Caroli in the Kings Bench. 481. Serjeant HOSKIN's Case HE was Indicted for nor paving of the Kings high-way in the County of Middlesex in S. Johns street ante tenementaâ— sua And in the Indictment it was not shewed How he came chargeable to pay the same Nor was it shewed that he was seised of any house there nor that he dwelt there nor was it averred that he had any Tenement there The opinion of the Court was that the Indictment was incertain for it might be that his Lessee dwelt in the house and so the Lessee ought to have repaired it and
but doth not shew by whom And shewed that the Lands inclosed out of which the Inhabitants had their Common And said That there were divers other Grievances to the Inhabitants of Tue but did not shew by whom they were nor what they were and shewed that at a Parliament the Defendant did deliver such a Writing to the Prince as one of the Peers of Parliament supposing that the grievances were set upon the Inhabitants by the Plaintiff by reason the Plaintiff occupied the Lands so inclosed and for Reformation thereof that he delivered the Writing to the Prince Absque hoc that he did deliver it in any other manner And upon this Plea in Barr Tanfield the Plaintiff did demurr in Law Noy for the Plaintiff said That the Defendant complains of wrong and doth not shew any wrong to be done by Tanfield the Plaintiff It is a grievous scandal to deliver this Writing for it is a scandalous Writing and no Petition for therein he doth not desire any Reformation but complains generally Betwixt John Frisel and the Bishop of Norwich The Case touched in 21 E. 3. was That Frisel brought a Prohibition to The Bishop and the Bishop excommunicated him for the delivering of it unto him The Bishop was fined And there it is said As Reverence is due to the King so it is due to his Ministers Our Action is brought at the Common Law and not upon the Statute of R. 2. de scandalis magnatum M. 18 E. 3. Rot. 162. Thomas Badbrook sent a Letter to Ferris one of the Kings Councel the effect of which was That Scot Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and his Companions of the same Bench would not do a vain thing at the Command of the King yet because he sent such a Letter to the Kings Councel although he spake no ill yet because it might incense the King against the Judges he was punished for it might be a means to make the King against his Judges We are to see here if the Defendant hath made any good Justification If there were no wrong then there was no cause to complain Secondly If he had demeaned himself as he ought he ought to have had the wrong if there were any reformed and that he did not do 11 H. 4. 5 H. 7. A voice of Fame is a good cause for to Arrest a man of Felony but then some Felony ought to be committed 7 H. 4. 35. A certain person came and said to one that there were certain Oxen stoln and that he did suspect such a one who he arrested upon the suspition It is a good cause of Justification if any Oxen were stoln but if no Fellony was committed if one be arrested upon suspicion that he hath committed Fellony it is not good If Fellony be done then a good cause to suspect him but if no Fellony be done nor he knoweth nor heareth of any Fellony committed there is no cause for to suspect that the partie hath committed Fellony but there ought to be suspition that the partie hath committed such a particular Fellony Where Fellony is committed certainly one may be arrested upon suspition but unless a Fellony be committed he cannot be arrested For where no Fellony is committed at all he shall not be drawn to a Tryal to clear himself of the suspition but if a Fellony be certainly committed and he be arrested upon the suspition there he being forced to answer to the Fellony he may clear and purge himself of the infamy upon his tryal and so the infamy is not permanent as in case when no Fellony is committed for there he may bring his Action upon the Case Here he saith that parcel of the Waste is inclosed and doth not shew what parcel so as no certain issue can be taken upon it Moor and Hawkins Case in an Ejectione firme It was alledged that he entred into parcel of the Land and the Land was alledged to lie in two several Towns and it was not good because no certain issue could be thereupon He saith the same was inclosed but doth not shew by whom it was inclosed viz. whether by the Feoffor or Tanfield the Feoffee he complains of many grievances but doth not shew what they are and he ought not to be his own Judge Secondly He hath not demeaned himself as he ought for he hath not desired in the Letter any Reformation but only he complains of the oppression of Tanfield He ought to have directed the Writing unto the Parliament and he directed the same unto the Prince by name In the Letter he doth not shew that Tanfield the Plaintiff did oppress but that the Plaintiff was an oppressor but he doth not shew in what thing The Case was adjourned Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 487. SCOT'S Case PRoborum legalium hominum is omitted in the Certificate of an Indictment by the Clark of the Sessions Curia If it had been in Trespass the omission of the said words had vitiated the Indictment but not in Case of Felony Quaere the reason Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. Intratur M. 19 Jac. Rot. 322. 488. CROUCH and HAYNE'S Case IN a Writ of Error the Record is removed out of the Common Pleas The Defendant pleads in nullo est Erratum and a Demurrer is joyned and the Defendant afterwards alledgeth Diminution of the Original 7 E. 4. 25. The Assignement of Errors is in lieu of the Declaration 4 E. 4. Error 44. After that in nullo est erratum is pleaded the Defendant shall not alledg Diminution for they are agreed before that that is the Record The Writ of Error was general and did not shew when the Judgment was when the Ejectment was what the Lands were and nothing is certain in the Writ of Error but the persons and the Action He shall not be concluded by the general retorn of the Record by the Chief Judg of the Common Pleas. Fitz. 25. a. C. 6. Entr. 231. The Record was removed and a Scire facias awarded ex recorde and Diminution was alledged for omitting of certain words yet the Retorn there was of the Record omnia ea tangentia Dyer 330. The Court certifie that the partie was not essoigned there then cannot be any Certificate of the Chief Justice to the contrary The Principal Case was An Original bore date in June 18 Jacobi and another Original in September 18 Jacobi and both were retornable S. Mich. And the Trespass was done after the first Original sued forth and before the later and both the Writs are in Court The question was upon which of the Originals the Judges should judge 4 E. 4. 26 27 28. There it is holden that the Judges ought not to suppose any Error 22 E. 4. 45 Error was brought to reverse a Judgment in a Writ of Dower And the Error assigned was That there was not any Issue joyned but because there was sufficient matter upon which the Judges might give their verdict therefore the Judgment was affirmed
The Case shortly is A. being seised in Fee makes a gift in tail to B. and that descends to four daughters c. And the Plaintiff replies That A. was seised in Fee and gave the Lands to B. and to his Heirs Males and the Plaintiffe claimes the entail as Heir Male and the Defendants under the generall tail absque hoc that A. was seised in Fee 27. H. 8. 4. by Englefield If in Trespass the Defendant plead the Feoffment of a stranger and the Plaintiff saith That he was seised in Fee and made a Lease for years to the said stranger who enfeoffed the Defendant he need not to traverse absque hoc that he was seised in Fee C. 6. part 24. The seisin in Fee is traversable Br. Travers 372. acc Dodderidge Justice The seisin in this Case is traverseable Ley Chief Justice Take away the Seisin and then no gift and therefore the Seisin here is Traverseable Haughton and Chamberlain Justices agreed The Court resolved That either the Seisin in Fee or the gift in tail is traverseable Dodderidge Justice If you both convey from one and the same person then you must traverse the conveyance It is a rule C. 6. part 24. there the Books are cited which warrants the traverse of either Quod nota It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Trinit 21. Jacobi In the Kings Bench. 494 Sir EDWARD FISHER and WARNER's Case THE Testator being indebted unto Fisher made Warner his Executor and Warner in consideration that Fisher would forbear suing of him upon the Assumpsit of the Testator did promise to pay him Fifty Pounds and in an Action upon the Case upon this promise Warner pleaded Non Assumpsit in the Common Pleas and it was found for the Plaintiff And a Writ of Error was brought in this Court because it was not shewed for what consideration the Testator did promise 2. Because it was not shewed That Warner the Executor had Assets in his hands It was said by the Councel of Sir Edward Fisher That they need not shew that he hath Assets because the Defendant Warner was sued upon his own promise C. 9. part 94. The Testator made a promise to pay to Fisher fifty pound and died The Executor in consideration of the forbearance of a Suit upon that promise of the Testator doth assume to pay c. The Jury find for the Plaintiff The Error is that no time is limited nor no place where the promise was made and also it is not shewed when the Testator died and so it is not shewed whether the promise were made in the life time of the Testator or not for if it were in the life time of the Testator then the promise was void Nor is the time of the forbearance shewed and so no good consideration Hill 5. Jacobi a consideration to forbear paululum tempus is no good consideration by Cook And the like case was adjudged 36. Eliz. Rot. 448. Sackbdos case We do alledge de facto that we have forborn our Suit and that the Defendant hath not paid us the money Dodderidge Justice It is alledged that the Plaintiff paid money to the Testator upon which he promised And the Action now brought is upon the promise of the Executor Part of the promise is That he paid the fifty pound to the Testator and that ought to be proved in evidence to the Jury C. 6. part Gregories case if it be not specially named how he shall prove it Haughton to forbear to sue him is for all his life time and not paululum tempus Dodderidge Justice Exception was taken that he doth not shew that the Testator was dead at the time of the promise by the Executor It was shewed That after the death of the Testator that he took upon him the Execution of the Will and then promised and that of necessity must be after the death of the Testator Trinit 21. Jacobi in the King 's Bench. 495 WILLIAM's and FLOYD's Case IN an Ejectione firme The Array was challenged because it was made at the Nomination of the Plaintiffe And by consent of the parties two Atturneys of the Court did try the Array The question was Whether the Triall of the Array was good It was said by the Councel which argued for the Defendant That it was not good If one of the four Knights be challenged the three other Knights shall try that challenge and if he be found favourable he shall be drawn and if another of the Knights be challenged hee shall be tried by the other two and if one of the two be challenged then a new Writ shall issue forth to cause three Knights to appear 9. E. 4. 46. The two which quash the Array ought to try the Array of the Tales for that they are strangers to them The assent of the parties in this case is to no purpose for the consent of the parties cannot alter the Law neither can the King alter the Law but an Act of Parliament may alter the Law 29. Ass 4 19. H. 6. 9. by Newton 27. H. 8. 13. Where a triall cannot be out of the County by the assent of the parties and if it be it is errour By the Councel of the other side contrary This triall of the Array is much in the discretion of the Judges for sometimes it is tried by the Coroners and they are strangers to the Array 21. Ass 26. 20. Ass 10. there the Judges at their discretion appointed one of the Array and the Coroners to try it 27. Ass 28. there upon such a challenge it was tried by the Coroners and Shard said That the triall by any of them was sufficient and by Forriners de Circumstantibus 31. Ass 10. so as it rests much in the discretion of the Judges 29. Ass 3. there it was denied But note That that was in Oyer and Terminer and there it did not appear that the Array was made at the Nomination of one of the parties but in other challenges it may be tried by one of the Panell But in our case they were all challenged was the objection 9. E. 4. 20. Billing For if one of the parties will nominate all of the Jurours to the Sheriffe it is presumed that they are all partiall and 〈◊〉 â—his case the whole Array is challenged but in other cases he may challenge one or two of the Array and yet the others may be indifferent But admit it had been errour yet being by the assent of the parties it is no errour Baynams case in Dyer A Venire facias by assent of the parties was awarded to one of the Coroners and good Dyer 367. 43. E. 3. Office of Court 12. One of the twelve doth depart If the Justices do appoint one of the panell to supply his place it is erroneus but yet if it be with the assent of the parties it is good So in our case 21. E. 4. 59. Brian saith That he hath not seen more then two to try the Array yet by assent of the
parties more may try it 30. E. 3. 2. or 39. E. 3. 2. In a Writ of Right processe issued to the Sheriff to return four Knights he returns two Knights and two Esquires without making any mention that there were no more Knights in the County the same is errour yet if two Knights and two Esquires had been returned by the assent of the parties it had been good 6. E. 6. Dyer A man cannot enter for Non-payment of Rent without a demand yet by assent of the parties it may be good 22. H. 6. 59. the triall in favour of Liberty ought to be in the same County where the Action is brought and not where the Manor is But 44. E. 3. 6. by the assent of the parties it is sufficient In the Abridgement of the Book of Assizes 48. the books are cited to the contrary there it is said to be no Law where the Coroners â—ry the panell I agree that where it is not against a fundamentall point of the common Law that the consent of the parties tollit errores Dodderidg Justice Two questions are in this case 1. If this tryall be good 2. Admitting it be not good whether the assent of the parties doth make it good First it is a meer matter in the discretion of the Justices which is not tied to any strict rule in Law In the Book of the Assizes it was tried by the Coroners because it was in the discretion of the Justices And the Coroners are Ministers to the Court and ought to attend at the Assizes The Book of the Assizes is the Report of the Cases which happened at the Assizes in the Circuits of the Justices and they are not Term cases For the Exception which is taken by him who made the Abridgment of the Book of Assizes is of no moment for the Authour thereof was but a Student and no Councellor at Law In these Courts the Coroners do not attend therefore sometimes two four or six of the Panell are chosen to try those who are challenged as the Court shall think fit and if the Triers cannot agree we put them together into a room and swear one to keep them as a Jury is kept so as you see it rests much in the discretion of the Justices Court And if there were a certain rule to try it then it ought to be strictly observed 31. Ass 10. there the triall was de Circumstantibus 2. The assent of the parties doth make it good It is not a triall in point of the right of the cause but only of the indifferency of the Ministers The Array was challenged because the Sheriffe made it at the request of one of the parties and the Sheriffe hath confessed it upon his Examination The principal Array shal be first tried and if that be quashed then the Tales shall not be tried but if it be affirmed then two of the Panell shall try the Panell and two of the Tales shall try the Tales This is a triall only of indifference and not of the fundamentall point of the Cause If the Plaintiffe require the Venire facias to the Coroners because that the Sheriffe is chosen the Defendant shall be examined if he will agree to it if he will not agree but the Sheriffe returneth the Jury the Defendant in that case shall not challenge the Jury or any of the Array The four Knights in the Writ of Right shall choose the other twenty of the Grand Assize who shall be joyned with them and they shall be the Judges of the twenty when they are named by them 39. E. 3. 2. Haughton Justice The appearance by Atturney by assent of the parties is not errour although by the Law the Plaintiffe ought for to appear in proper person Chamberlain Justice would be advised because he had not seen the Books Ley chief Justice When the whole Panel as in this case comes to be challenged then it is in the discretion of the Justices to choose triers and chiefly in this case because all the Array is partiall If the Coroners be absent 〈◊〉 is good to take two Atturneys of the Court who the Court know to be honest by their honest carriage and fair practice The assent of the parties strengthens this case It is a rule That the assent of the parties cannot make that good which is against any fundamentall point of the Law therefore it is best to view the Presidents and to draw a Jurour but that we cannot do of our selves by the Law yet with the assent of parties we may do it It is a contempt and a deceit to the Court if his assent be entred upon record and notwithstanding that the Defendant will question the matter by a Writ of Error or otherwise relinquish his consent and for such contempt the Court may commit him and fine him also But if the matter be not a matter of Record but be onely by a Rule of the Court then we may award an Attachment onely against the party In this case the triall of the Panell was good and so was it afterwards adjudged by the whole Court Quod nota Pasch 3. Caroli in the King 's Bench. 496 EVERS and OWEN's Case SAmson Evers the Guardian of Compton Evers did sue Owen the Executor of the Lady Anne Evers for a Legacy before the Councell of the Marches of Wales Henden Serjeant moved for a Prohibition and said That by Law no intent of a Will ought to be averred contrary to the words of the Will C. 5. part 68. Cheyneys case And so no equity shall be taken upon a forrain intent contrary to that which is in the Will 2. He said That the party might not sue in the Marches of Wales for a Legacie for that the party ought to sue for the same in the Ecclesiasticall Court Banks contrary They may proceed there in an Ecclesiasticall Cause wherein there is cause of equity The Statute of 34. H. 8. cap. 26. giveth power unto them to proceed as they proceeded heretofore by Commission And before that Statute they proceeded there in case of a Legacy and so are divers Presidents therefore no Prohibition is to issue Samson Evers is the Kings Atturney for the Marches of Wales and his personall attendance is requisite there And this Court cannot grant a Prohibition to stay a Suit when he cannot sue in this Court for the same thing Finch Recorder contrary If you shew Presidents yet they will not bind this Court and give power unto them to hold plea of that which they ought not to hold plea of It is usuall to grant a Prohibition if the Court of Requests holds plea of a Legacy if it be not by reason of some speciall circumstance and it is usuall to dismisse Legacies out of the Chancery And no Priviledges shal be granted unto an Executor Administrator or Guardian Hyde Chief Justice Two have an Obligation as Executors and the one releaseth it is good and a good cause of equity against him who
taking be before the Action brought R. is excused We say That postea antè the purchasing of the Bill and I suppose we need not lay down any day but the postea antè makes it certain enough If the viz. be repugnant to our allegation it is surplusage 41. Eliz. in Communi Banco Bishops Case Trespass is brought for a Trespass supposed to be done 4. Maii 39. El. It is ruled in that Case That the videlicet doth not vitiate the premises because it is surplusage Trinit 34. El. in the Kings Bench Garford and Gray's Case In an Avowry it was shewed That such an Abbot surrendred 32. H. 8. and that the King was seised of the possessions of the said Abby and that postea scilicit 28. H. 8. the King did demise and that the same descended to King Ed. 6. there it was ruled that postea had been sufficient though he had not shewed the year of the demise of the King so here postea ante do expresse that he was taken before the Bill brought Dodderidge Justice If the day had been certain at the first and then he cometh and sueth that postea videlicet such a day and alledgeth another day which is wrong there the videlicet is not material but if the first day be uncertain then the videlicet ought to be at a certain day otherwise it is not good Curia If you had left out your time your videlicet it had been good for you must expresse a certain time for when the time is material it ought to be certain If you had layed down a certain day of the purchase of his Bill then the ante would have been well enough Dodderidge Justice If a thing is alledged to be done in the beginning of the Term quaere if that shall be intended the first day of the Term if you can make it appear that it must be intended of necessity of the first day of the Term then you say somewhat and then the videlicet is void and surplusage Judgement was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 3. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 498 DEAN and STEELE's Case AN Action upon the Case for words was brought for words spoken in the Court of Sudbury and it was layed That he did speak the words at Sudbury but did not say Infra jurisdictionem curiae 2. The Judgement in the Action upon the Case was capiatur And for these two Errors the Judgement was reversed Pasch 3. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 499 GOD and WINCHE's THIS Case was put by Serjeant Astley A Lease is made for life by Husband and Wife and the Covenants were That he should make such reasonable assurance as the Counsel of the Lessee should advise and the Counsel advised a Fine with warranty by the Husband and Wife with warranty against the Husband and his Heirs and the Defendant did refuse to make the assurance in an Action of Covenant brought it was moved That it was not a reasonable assurance to have a Fine with Warranty because the Warranty did trench to other Land But the Court did over-rule it and said That it is the ordinary course in every Fine to have a Warranty and the party may rebut the Warranty Pasch 3. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 500 IT was cited to be adjudged That if a man purchase the next avoidance of a Church with an intent to present his son and afterwards he doth present his son that it is Symony within the Statute of 31. Eliz. Ter. Mich. 4. Caroli in the King 's Bench. 501 HILL and FARLEY's Case IN Debt brought upon a Bond the Case was A man was bound in a Bond That he should perform observe and keep the Rule Order and finall end of the Councel of the Marches of Wales And in Debt brought upon the Bond the Defendant pleaded That the Councel of the Marches of Wales nullum fecerunt ordinem The Plaintiffe replied That Concilium fecerunt ordinem that the Defendant should pay unto the Plaintiffe an hundred pound The Defendant did demurre in Law upon the Replication And the only Question was If the Plaintiffe in his Replication ought to name those of the Councel of Wales who made the Award by their particular names Jermyn who argued for the Plaintiffe said That he ought not to name the Councellors by their proper names and therefore he said That if a man be bounden to perform the Order that the Privy Councel shall make or the Order which the Councel should make That in Debt upon the same Bond If the Defendant saith that he hath performed Consilium generally of the Councel without shewing the particular names of the Councellors it is good And he vouched 10. H. 7. 6. 10. E. 4. 15. and Com. 126. Sir Richard Buckleys case That the number of the Esliors ought not to be particularly shewed But in an Action brought upon the Statute of 23. H. 6. he may declare generally that he was chosen per majorem numerum and that is good And 10. E. 4. 15. In debt upon a Bond That the Defendant shall serve the Plaintiffe for a year in omnibus mandatis suis licitis The Defendant said That he did truely serve the Plaintiff untill such a day as he was discharged And it is there holden that he is not compellable to shew the certainty of the services Banks contrary and said That he ought to name the Councel by their particular names And therefore in this case he ought to have pleaded specially as in 9. E. 4. 24. If a man will plead a Divorce Deprivation or a Deraignment he ought to shew before what Judge the Divorce Deprivation or Deraignment was So 1. H. 7. 10. If a man will plead a Fine he must shew before what Judges the Fine was levied although they be Judges of Record And he took this difference That the Judges ought to take notice of the Jurisdiction of generall Courts which are Courts of Record and of the Customes of those Courts but of particular Courts which have but particular Jurisdictions and particular Customes the Judges are not to take notice of them nor of the Lawes and Customes of such Courts if they be not specially shewed unto them And therefore although it was alledged That it was the generall usage to plead Awards or Orders made before the Councel of the Marches of Wales as in the principall Case yet he held that the Judges were not to take notice thereof And therefore the Councellors who made the Order ought to be particularly named 2. He said that the Replication was not good because the Plaintiffe in his Replication doth not shew that the Order was made by the President and the Councel for by the Statute of 34. H. 8. it ought to be made by the President and the Councel 3. He said That the Replication was not good because the Plaintiffe doth not shew within the Record that the matter of which the Order was made was a matter which was within their
a Capias lay upon a force although it did not lie in case of Debt Agreement c. The King is Parens Legum because the Laws flowed from him he is Maritus Legum For the Law is as it were under Covert Baron he is Tutor Legum For he is to direct the Laws and they desire aid of him And he said that all the Land of the Kings Debtor are liable to his Debt The word Debitor is nomen equivocum and he is a Debtor who is any ways chargeable for Debt Damages Dutie Rent behind c. The Law amplifies evry thing which is for the Kings benefit or made for the King If the King releaseth all his Debts he releases only debts by Recognizance Judgment Obligation Specialtie or Contract Every thing for the benefit of the King shall be taken largely as every thing against the King shall be taken strictly and the reason why they shall be taken for his benefit is because the King cannot so nearly look to his particular because he 〈◊〉 intended to consider ardua regni pro bono publico The Prerogative Laws is not the Exchequer Law but is the Law of the Realm for the King as the Common Law is the Law of the Realm for the Subject The Kings Bench is a Court for the Pleas of the Crown The Common Pleas is for Pleas betwixt Subject and Subject and the Exchequer is the proper Court for the Kings Revenues 13. E. 4. 6. If the King hath a Rent-charge he by his Prerogative may distrein in any the Lands of the Tenant besides in the Lands charged with the Rent 44. E. 3. 15. although that the partie purchaseth the Lands after the Grant made to the King but then it is not for a Rent but as for a dutie to the King And the King in such case may take the Body Lands and Goods in Execution See the Lord Norths Case Dyer 161. where a man became Debtor to the King upon a simple Contract N. When he was Chancellor of the Augmentation received a Warrant from the Privy Councel testifying the pleasure of King E. 6. That whereas he had sold to R. c. That the said Chancellor should take Order and see the delivery of c. and should take Bond and Sureties for the King for the payment of the money By force of which Warrant he sent one T. his Clark to take a Bond of W. for the payment of the money and he took Bond for the King accordingly and brought the same to the Chancellor his Master and delivered the same to him to the Kings use and presently after he deliverd the same back to T. to deliver over to the Clark of the Court who had the charge of the keeping of all the Kings Bonds and Specialties And when T. had received the same back he practised with R. and W. to deliver them the Bond to be cancelled and so it was done and cancelled And it was holden in that Case because that the said Bond was once in the power and possession of N. that he was chargeable with the Debt But the Queen required the Debt of R. and W. who were able to satisfie the Queen for the same In Mildmay's Case cited before there it was holden That the Queen might take her Remedy either against the Parties who gave the insufficient Warrant or against Mildmay himself at her Election So a man he said shall be lyable for damages to the King for that is taken to be within the word Debita In Porters Case cited before there was neither Fraud Covin nor Negligence and yet the persons who presented Porter to the King to hold the Office were chargeable for his negligence whom they preferred to be Master of the Mint But in that Case The Bodie and goods of Porter were delivered to his Sureties as in Execution to repay them the monie which the King had levied of them These Cases prove that the word Debitor is taken in a large sence That the King shall have for the Debts due to him the Bodie Goods and Lands in Execution The word Goods doth extend to whatsoever he hath 11. H. 7. 26. The King shall have the Debt which is due to his Debtor upon a simple Contract and therein the Debtor of the Debtor shall not wage his Law For after you say that you sue for the King it is the Kings Debt and the King if he please may have Evecution of it An Ejectione firme was brought in the Exchequer by Garraway against R. T. upon an Ejectment of Lands in Wales and it was maintainable in the Exchequer as well as a Suit shall be maintainable here for an Intrusion upon Lands in Wales upon the King himself and the King shall have Execution of the thing and recover Damages as he shall in a Quo minus in satisfaction of a Debt which is due by his Debtor to the King 8. H. 5. 10. There the Kings Debtor could not have Quo minus in the Exchequer The Case there was That a man Indebted to the King was made Executor and by a Quo minus sued one in the Exchequer who was indebted unto his Testator upon a simple Contract as for his proper debt and the Quo minus would not lie because the King in that Case could not sue forth Execution and every Quo minus is the Kings Suit and is in the name of the King 38. Ass 20. A Prior Alien was arrear in Rent to the King The Prior brought a Quo minus in the Exchequer against a Parson for detaining of Tythes here is a variance of the Law and the Court for the Right of Tythes ought to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Law and it was found by Verdict for the Prior. A Serjeant moved That the Court had not jurisdiction of the Cause To whom it was answered that they had and ought to have Jurisdiction of it For that when a thing may turn to the advantage of the King and hasten his business that Court had Jurisdiction of it and divers times the said Court did hold jurisdiction in the like Case and thereupon issue was joyned there and the Reporter made a mirum of it But it seems the Reporter did not understand the Kings Prerogative For it is true That such Suit for Tythes doth not fall into the Jurisdiction of the Kings Bench or Common Pleas but in the Exchequer it is otherwise And if the Suit be by Quo minus it is the Kings Suit At a common persons Suit the Officer cannot break the house and enter but at the Kings Suit he may And a common person cannot enter into a Liberty but the King may if it be a common Liberty But for the most part when the King granteth any Liberty there is a clause of Exception in the Grant That when it shall turn to the prejudice of the King as it may do in a special Case there the King may enter the Liberty and a house is a Common Liberty and the