elect him See the Statute of 25 H. 8. That a Canon against Common Law confounds the Roiall Prerogative of the King or Law of God is void and Custome of the Realme cannot be taken away but by act of Parliament See 21 Ed. 4. 44. the Abbot of Saint Albones hath a Charter of the King to be discharged of Collection of tenthes granted by Parliament or Convocation The Clergy grants tythes in Convocation there is a clause in the grant that no one of them who shal be chosen to be collector shal be discharged of collection by colour or force of any Letters Patents and after they return the Abbot of St. Albones Collector who pleads his Letters Patents in discharge of Collector and resolved by the Court that the clause in the grant of tenthes doth not take away the exemption of discharge by the Letters Patents granted And it was resolved that if the Parish clark misdemene himselfe in his office or in the Church he may be sentenced for that in the Ecclesiasticall court to Excommunication but not to Deprivation And after Prohibition was granted by all the court and held also that a Prohibition lyeth as well after sentence as before Trinity 8. Jacobi Common Bench. ON was cited to appear in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury which was out of the Diocesse of Canterbury and upon that he praied Prohibition upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. Which willeth that none shall be cited to appeare out of his Diocesse without assent of the Bishop and Prohibition was granted And yet it was said that in the time of H. 8 and Reigne of Mary that the Arch Bishops of Canterbury had used to cite any man dwelling out of his Diocesse and within any Diocesse within his Province to appeare before him in the Prerogative Court and this without the assent of the Ordinary of the Diocesse But it was resolved by the Court that this was by force of the power Legantine of the Arch-Bishop that as Lynwood saith ought to be expressed in the Prohibition for the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury York Pisa and Reymes were Legati nati and others but Legates a Latere Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Beareblock against Reade IN an Action of Debt brought by Beareblocke against Reade Administratrix to her Husband upon a Judgement given in this Court The case was this the Plaintiffe had Judgment against the Husband and after sued him to an Vtlagary and upon that he brought a Writ of Errous and removed the Record into the Kings Bench and reversed the Judgement for the Vtlagary But the first Judgment was affirmed and then the Husband acknowledged a Statute and dyed And the Wife took out Letters of Administration and then the Statute is extended against the Wife and all the goods which shee had of the Intestates taken in execution After which Beareblock in the Kings Bench sueth a Scirefacias upon the said Judgment against the said Administratrix to have execution and shee pleads upon that the said Statute in Barre and the extent of that and that more then that shee hath nothing to satisfie and this was adjudged a good plea. And then the Plaintiffe being not satisfied he hrought an action of debt upon the said Judgment in this Court and in Barr of that the Wife pleaded all this matter in Barr as aforesaid upon which the Plaintiffe demurred in Law and the Judges seemed to incline that this was no Barr for though that the Wife hath not any means to aide her selfe or to prevent the extent of the Statute yet it seemed to them that this should not prevent the execution upon the Judgement and that the Wife might have Audita quaerela against the Connusee of the Statute and so to make the extent void It was not argued at this day but the point only opened see 3. Eliz. Dyer 7. H. 6. See Pasche 9. Jacobi the Residue Petty against Evans IN an Ejectione firme brought by the Lessee of a Copy-holder it is sufficient that the count be generall without any mention of the License if the Defendant plead not guilty then the Plaintiff ought to shew the Lycense in Evidence But if the Defendant plead specially then the Plaintiff ought to plead the License certainly in his replication and the time and place when it was made and in this case the Plaintiff replied that the copy-holder by License first then had of the Lord did demise and did not shew what estate the Lord had nor the place nor time when it was made and all the Justices agreed that it is not good For the License is traversable for if a copy-holder without License of the Lord make a Lease for yeares The lessee which enters by calour of that is a Disseisor and a Disseisor cannot maintain an Ejectione Firme and the Defendant cannot plead that the Plaintiff by license did not demise for this is a pregnant negative also it ought to appeare what estate the Lord had for he cannot give license to make a lease of longer time in the Tenancy then he hath in the signiory And for that if he be Lessee for life of a Mannor and he licenses a copi-holder to make a Lease for 21. yeares of a copy-hold and then the Lessee for life dies the license is for that determined though that the copy-holder be of Inheritance for the Inheritance of the Lord is bound by that And for that the Plaintiff replies that the copy-holder by license of the Lord first therefore had made the Lease that is not good by Coke and Walmesley expresly and though that the Defendant confesse the Replication by Implication by pleading Yet this shall not ayd the Plaintiff for that it is insufficiently pleaded which note Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. IN action upon the case upon an Assumpsit the Plaintiff counts that when he such a day at the speciall instance and request of the Defendant lent to the Defendant the same day ten pound And that the Defendant the same day in consideration thereof assumed and promised to the Plaintiff to pay the same summ of ten pound at an other day to come And it was moved in arrest of Judgement that the consideration was too generall and for that the action not maintainable and all the Justices but Foster seemed the consideration was good but Foster it seems was in some doubt of that but Judgement was entred for the Plaintiff according to the verdict And Coke cheife Justice said that such a like action was maintained against Kercher his Chaplain as Executor of his Father and it seems for good Law Legates Case ONe Legate was committed to Newgate Prison for Arrianisme for denying of the Trinity by the high Commissioners and it was moved on the behalfe of Legate to have a habeas Corpus and it was granted and it was said by Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 5. H. 4. Chapter 10. Inhibits Justices of peace to commit any man to
certain Day specified in the Condition The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff at the Day of Payment accepts of another Bond for the Payment of the said Money in satisfaction of the said 52. l. 11. s. and upon a Demurrer held to be a naughty Plea for one Bond cannot overthrow another LEa versus Pain Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 953. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to perform an Award the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no Award The Plaintiff by way of Replication sets forth an Award that the Arbitrators did arbitrate of all matters untill the Date of the Award which was a Moneth longer then the Submission and so pretends they exceeded their Authority The words were for all causes before the Date of the Award Another Exception was because the Arbitrators awarded that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff such a Day of April and doth not say what year or next following and the Court held that good enough because the second Day of Payment was made to be such a Day and such a year and it was held good enough for if any new matters did arise between the Submission and Award or c. the Defendant ought to shew it Another Exception was that it was not said that the Award was made between the Parties but it shall be intended to be made between the Parties because the Award was made de super praemissis and therefore it shall be implied that it was made but of such things as they had power to deal in The Court was of opinion that the Award being de super praemissis the Court shall not say but that this was a cause submitted and except it had been discovered by pleading that there was a new cause since the Date of the Award which was made known to the Wardsmen the Court is not to take notice thereof SCot Executor versus Herbert The Plaintiff in his Declaration sayes the Testator in his life-time was possessed of Land for a terme of years and so possessed grants part of his terme to an Estranger reserving Rent and he grants his Estate to the Defendant And that the Testator died possessed of the Reversion of the terme and because the Rent was behinde the Executor brings his Action of Debt for the Rent and the Declaration was held naught for that it did not appear that he that made the first Demise was seised in Fee or in any other Estate by which he could make a Lease NOrris and Trussell Wardens of the Society of Weavers in the Town of Newbury in the County of Berks versus J. Scapes Pasch 14. Jac. rotulo 907. An Action of Debt brought and the Plaintiffs declare that Queen Elizabeth had incorporated them by such a name and given them Power to make by-by-laws for the better governing their Corporation c. and further shew that they made an Order which was confirmed by the Justices of Assise according to the Statute of 19 H. 7. and for the Breach of such Order brought their Action the Defendant pleaded that he owed them nothing and tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiffs and Hutton Serjeant moved in Arrest of Judgement and took three Exceptions the first because the Constitution was against Law to restrain one to exercise a lawfull Trade The second the Constitution was that the Offender should forfeit such a summ and it did not appear to whom this Forfeiture should go Thirdly the Plaintiff shews in his Count that the Queen by her Letters Patents had appointed A. B. C. to be Wardens for one year and shews not which those that brought the Action were elected which ought to be to intitle them to that Action It was against sense to barr all their own Apprentices it doth not appear how many Wardens should be and they do not intitle them to the Action by the Corporation the Law is altered and Judgement was given for the Defendant BRet versus Averder Mich. 29. 30. Eliz. Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform an Arbitrement the Defendant confesses the Arbitrement but pleads in Barr that the Plaintiff did not require him to make Payment and to that Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and it was adjudged no Plea for the Defendant at his perill ought to make Payment and the Plaiutiff ought not to make a Request HAles versus Bell Trin. 39. Eliz. rotulo 1974. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Dèbt upon an Obligation with a Condition for the Payment of 40. l. within fourteen Dayes next after the return of one Russell into England from the City of Venice and then the Obligation should be void the Defendant pleads in Barr that the said Russell was not at Venice upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs and adjudged a naughty Plea for where part is to be done within the Realm and part out of the Realm the Plea ought to be triable within the Realm GArret versus Harrison Executor Trin. 40. Eliz. rotulo 1651. To an Action of Debt upon a Bond brought against him as Executor the Defendant pleads six Judgements in Barr the Plaintiff replies that they were by fraud and covin and the Jury found for the Plaintiff that two of the six were by covin and Williams moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Jury ought to have found all but Glanvile said that if any part of the Plea be insufficient defective or false the Issue shall be found against you for your Plea is one intire thing and he said that the Plaintiff should have taken Issue upon one onely as in an Obligation with diverse things in the Condition Walmsley held that by the Plea the Defendant had confessed implicatively that you have sufficient to satisfie those six Judgements and no more So that if any part be found against you this is Assets and Judgement was given accordingly for the Plaintiff GReen versus Wilcox Executor To an Action upon an Obligation brought against the Defendant as Executor he pleads that the Testator was obliged to A. in 20. l. which remained due to him at his Death and that the said A. recorded against him in the Common Pleas and averres that it was a true Debt and the persons and matters to be the same and that he had no Assetts beyond that and the Plaintiff replies that the said Recovery was had by fraud and covin between them to defraud him of his Debt to which Plea the Defendant demurrs specially because he had in his Plea averred it was a true and just Debt so that it could not be by covin Trin. 44. Eliz. It was adjudged for Law by the whole Court that if a Fieri facias be directed and delivered to the Sheriff he may not break the outer Door of the House and enter and do Execution but if the outer Door be open then he may enter by that and then he may and ought to break the Door of an Entry or Chamber which is locked and break
Indenture the Covenant was for quiet injoying without let trouble interruption c. The Plaintiff assigned his Breach that he forbad his Tenant to pay his Rent this was held by the Court to be no Breach unlesse there were some other Act and the Defendant pleaded that after the time the Plaintiff said that he forbad the Tenant to pay the Rent the Tenant did pay the Rent to the Plaintiff LEvel versus Hall Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 805. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff brought another Action upon the same Bond in London to which the Defendant there had pleaded Non est factum and it was there found that it was not the Defendants Deed and in London the Entry is upon such a Verdict that the Defendant shall recover Damages against the Plaintiff and that the Defendant should be without day c. but no Judgement that the Plaintiffe should take nothing by his Writ and therefore no Judgement to be barred in another Suit but barr the Plaintiffe for it is onely a triall and no Judgement and the Plea was adjudged naught by the whole Court MIch 15. Jac. Rotulo 2215. One made another his Executor and that Executor died and made another his Executor and the last Executor refused to own his first Will as to his goods and this matter was pleaded in his Action of Debt brought by an Administrator of the Goods of the first Executor pretending the Administration was void although the Executor refused to be Executor as to the Goods and the Court held the Administration void for the Executor cannot be Executor for part at his own Election and not for part and the Defendant pleaded that the Executor should not bring his Action as Administrator but as Executor WHerwood versus Shaw Mich. 44. and 45 Eliz. Shaw Executor of A. brought an Action of Debt against Wherwood Administrator of Feild upon a Bill made by Field to A. by which Feild doth acknowledge himself to have received of one P. forty l. to be equally divided between the said A. and B. to their use and upon a Judgement given in the Common Pleas Wherwood brings a Writ of Error and the Judgement was affirmed the matters moved were i. because the forty pounds was given to be equally divided between A and B. therefore they were Tenants in common of it and Shaw should have joyned B. in the Action with himself as Tenants in common are to joyn in personall action but over-ruled that in this case there were severall Debts to wit twenty pound to one and twenty pounds to the other as in case of ten pounds rent reserved upon a Lease to wit five pounds at the Feast of Michaelmas and five pounds at the Feast of the Annunciation yet it is but one Rent and this case is not to be resembled to the Cases of Interest as in the 20 Eliz. where Land or Lease be giuen to two equally to be divided for there they are Tenants in common The second thing moved was whether Debt or account did ly and adjudged that although no contract was between the parties yet when either money or goods are delivered upon consideration to the use of A. A. may have an Action of Debt and of that opinion was Mountain 28 H. 8. in Core and Woods Case and also there is a President of such Actions of Debt in the Book of Entries BRoad versus Owen Mich. 44 and 45 Eliz. The Plaintiffe brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 5 Eliz for Perjury against the Defendant the case was thus one Low was Plaintiffe against Brode in the high Court of Chancery and upon Bill and Answer such matter appeared to the Lord Keeper that he ordered that one Labourer should become party to the Bill against Brode and afterwards one Commission issued out of Chancery between Labourer and Brode to examine Witnesses by which Commission Owen the now Defendant was examined on the behalf of Labourer and did depose directly for Labourer against Brode by reason whereof one Order and Decree was made in the Chancery against Brode and for that cause Brode brought his Action of Debt against Owen upon the Statute of Perjury 5 Eliz. for one party grieved by the Oath and Deposition of another and Owen demurrs in Law and by the opinion of Gaudy and Yelverton Justices the Action would not lie for the words of the Statute are where a man is grieved and damnified by a Deposition in one Suit between party and party and in this Case it appeared that Labourer was no party to the Suit but came in by an Order and no Bill depending either against him or brought by him and so out of the Statute for it is penall and to be taken strictly and quaere if he in the Reversion joyn in aid and is grieved and prejudiced by an Oath and Deposition may maintain an Action of Debt upon this Statute for he may undoubtedly by the Common Law have an Attaint GReen versus Gascoin Pasch 1. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for an hundred pounds to which the Defendant pleads in Barr to the Action an Outlary against the Plaintiff and shews it incertain the Plaintiff replies Nul tiel record and the Defendant had Day till the next Term to bring in the Record and in the mean time the Plaintiff reverses the Outlary by which it is become in Law no Record according to the 4 H. 7. 12. And Yelverton moved the Court for the Defendant that although in Law there was a Failer of the Record yet the Defendant ought not to be condemned but shall answer over according to the 6. of Eliz. Dier fol. 228. where it is adjudged that Failer of the Record is not peremptory and so adjudged for it was no Default in the Defendant his Plea being true at such time as it was pleaded with mark WEaver versus Clifford Action of Debt brought for an Escape the Case was thus upon the Nichils returned against a Conusor in Chancery a Capias was awarded out of the Chancery against him by vertue of which he was taken by the Sheriff and suffered to escape and adjudged that no Action would lie against the Sheriff in this Case for a Capias lies not upon a Recognisance but onely a Scire facias and therefore when a man is taken upon the Capias he is not a Prisoner by the course of Law for the Law hath not ordained any means to arrest him and is therefore in Custody without Warrant and no Escape and it is an illegal Commitment and so is the â—ratuâ—e of Westminster the 2. to bâ— constâ—ued which gâ—… Action against the the Gaolor to wit where the party is in Execution by course of Law and although the Chancery doth award a Capias upon a Recognisance and that there are divers Preâ—â—lents of it et it is bâ—t the use of that
Arbitrators are made Judges by the assent and election of the Parties and it appears that the parties put their trust not in the four joyntly but joyntly and severally and the Ita quod c. is an explanation of all the Condition that they four or any two of them might arbitrate all matters between them and so much appears 2 R. 3. 18. where two of one part and one of another part put themselves to the Award of I. S. now by this Submission I. S. may arbitrate as well any matters between the two parties of one part as between them and the third because in the intent of the parties the end of their Submission was to have peace and quietnesse and 4 H. 4. 40. the Condition of a Recognisance was that if A. A. shall stand and abide the Award of four named three or two of them of all matters c. which is a division of their power and observe in the principal Case that untill the Ita quod comes the Condition is not perfect for all the Condiâ—… is but one Sentence BRisco versus King Trin. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond for three hundred pounds with a Condition that the Defendant should perform all Covenants Clauses Payments and Agreements contained in one Deed poll of the same Date made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff the Defendant by way of Plea sets forth the Deed poll in haec verba in which Deed was contained one Grant and Bargain and sale of certain Lands made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for one hundred pounds paid and two hundred pounds to be paid in which Deed there was one Proviso that if the Defendant should not pay for the Plaintiff to one J. S. forty pounds to J. D. forty pounds c. at such a Day that then the Bargain and Sale should be void and the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants c. comprised in the Deed the Plaintiff assigned a Breach for the not paying of forty pounds at the Day according to the Proviso and the Defendant demurrs and adjudged for the Defendant by the whole Court for the Condition bindes the Defendant to perform other Payments then such as the Defendant is bound by the Deed to perform for the Obligation was made but for the strengthning of the Deed and the Deed requires not any compulsory Payments to be made but leaves it to the will of the Defendant or to make the payments specified in the Proviso or in Default thereof to forfeit the Land to the Plaintiff and therefore it appears that it was not the intent and meaning of the parties to make an Obligation with a Condition repugnant to it and contrary to the Deed poll of Bargain of Sale and by this means the Payment of forty pounds to J. S. which is made voluntary by the Deed poll shall be made compulsory by the Obligation but the word Payments in the Condition of the Obligation shall have relation onely to such payments contained in the Deed poll which are compulsory to the Defendant and not otherwise and because the neglect of the payment of forty pounds to J. S. assigned for the Breach is denied to be voluntary for the Defendant to pay or not to which the Condition of the Obligation cannot in any reasonable construction extend therefore it was adjudged against the Plaintiff WOolby versus Perlby Mich. 9. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff derives his Title by the grant of the Reversion by way of bargain and Sale in Fee from the first Lessor and declares that by an Indenture of such a Date one grants bargains and sells for money the Reversion to him in Fee which Indenture was inrolled such a day according to the form of the Statute and because he shewed not in his Declaration in what Court it was inrolled and the Statute of 27 H. 8. Parles of many severall Courts and that it is no reason to put the Lessee to such an infinite labour to search in all Courts as well at Westminster as in the Countrey with the Clerk of the Peace and for this cause after a verdict a nil capiat per Billam entred by the whole Court SIR George Savill versus Candish Hill 9 Jac. The old Countesse of Shrewsbury had a Verdict against Savel and upon a challenge of the Sheriff on the Plaintiffs part of the County of Derby the Tenure was directed to the Coroners who returned all the Writs and at the Assises a Tales was awarded and the name of one of them of the Tales was Gregory Grigson c. and by postea returned by the Clerks of the Assise in the Common Pleas the Tales was returned to be by the Sheriff but in the entring up the Judgement it was made by the Coroners and the name of the man of the Tales by the Clerk of the Assise was restored according to his right name Gregory but entred in the Roll by the name of George and upon that Judgement Savill brought a Writ of Error which depended ten years and more and the first Plaintiff who was the Countesse of Shrewsbury died this matter being indiscussed and Candish as Executor to the Countesse revived all by Scire facias why he should not have Execution and after many debates the Judgement was reversed for three causes first because upon the Pannell of the Jurors names after the twenty four Jurors were named at the foot of the Pannell two names were added to the Jurors which in truth were the men of the Tales but no mention was made that they were the names of the Jurors impannelled de novo according to the form of the Statute which ought to be for at the Common Law the Justices of assise cannot grant any Tales to supply the default of the first Jurors but it is given only by the Statute of the 35. H. 8. which ordains that their names shall be added to the first Pannell and this cannot be discerned to be done accordingly if such a stile and Title be not made over their names viz. nomina Jurator de noto apposit secundum formam Statuti to distinguish what is done by the Common-Law and what by the aid of the Statute and also the Coroners names ought to be added to the Tales at the bottom of the Pannell and in this Case their names were onely indorsed which was upon the Return of the first Pannell and although divers Presidents were shown to the Court wherein the names of the Jurors de novo appoposit c. were united upon the Pannell yet the Court did not regard them because it seemed that they passed in silence without debate had upon them the second cause was because it appeared by the Return of the postea that the Tales were returned by the Sheriff which is error in the first Processe to the Coroners and although in the Entry in the Common Pleas of
c. and that the Plaintif was sued there by J. S. and that hee was summoned and upon a nihill returned a capias issued according to the Custome c. And that he being an Officer there did arrest and the Court ruled him to plead the Custome particularly for holding the Court and to prescribe c. And here it is shewn that the Maior is a Justice of Peace And it doth not appear whether he did it as a Justice of Peace or Maior as 14. H. 7 8. A Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one without a Warrant in writing in his absence And Popham chiefe Justice said That although the Judges knew the Authority of the Maior by which they arrested men yet because it did not appear to them judicially as Judges it must be pleaded And a Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one if not in his presence which was granted And Fennor Justice said that the servant is not an Officer to the Maior as he is a Justice of Peace but the Constable and Walker also added that the Plea was that the Maior commanded to imprison him presently without shewing any cause which was held naught for the maior ought to temper his Authority according to Law For the Judges cannot imprison without shewing cause but them and the Maior both may command an Officer to arrest a man without shewing the cause for else before he shall be examined he may invent and frame an excuse and the accessories will flye away And Williams Justice finds that it was incertain for the Plaintif by what authority he commanded it whether as Maior or Justice of Peace and his power as a Justice of Peace the Judges knew by common Law but his power as a Maior they knew not if it be not shewed by pleading and Judgement HVggins versus Butcher Trin. 4. Jac. The Plaintif declared that the Defendant such a day did assault and beat his Wife of which she dyed such a day following to his damage 100 l. And Serjeant Foster moved that the Declaration was not good because it was brought by the Plaintiff for a Battery done upon his Wife And this being a personall wrong done unto the woman is gone by her death And if the woman had been in life hee could not have brought it alone but the woman must have joyned in the Action for the damages must be given for the wrong offered to the body of the woman which was agreed And Tanfield said that if one beat the servant of J. S. so that he die of that beating the Master shall not have an Action against the other for the battery and loss of service because the servant dying of the extreamity of the beating it is now become an offence against the Crown and turned into Felony and this hath drowned the particular offence and prevails over the wrong done to the Mr. before And his action by that is gone which Fennor and Yelverton agreed to BRown versus Crowley Pasch 5. Jac. Action of Trespass brought against Croyley for wounding the Plaintif upon the hinder part of the left legge being rendred in Latin super posteriorem partem levis libaei and the Jury found for the Plaintiff And Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment for hee said that these words levis libaei made the Declaration vitious for the incertainty for he said that levis signified light and it was an improper word for left and that judgment ought to be respited for the incertainty And Yelverton argued that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for he said the Declaration was not vitious for if the Plaintiff had declared generally that he had wounded broken or evill intreated him and had omitted those other words it had been sufficient and then the adding of those words which were not materiall but for damages did not make the Declaration vitious and he said that levus leva levum was Latin for left And whereas he hath said that he strook him super posteriorem partem levis libaei where it should have been levis libaei it was but false Latin and the Declaration shall not be made naught for false Latin And Popham said that hee shewing upon which part of the body the wound was were laid only to incense damages for the Declaration had been sufficient though they had been omitted And Justice Fennor agreed to Popham and he said it had been judged that where a man brought an Action against another for calling him strong Theife and the Jury only found that he called him Theife but not strong Theif yet the Plaintiff recovered for this word strong was to no other purpose then to increase dammages and Judgement was given for the Plaintif VIccars versus Wharton Pasch 5. Jac. Viccars brought an action of false imprisonment against Wharton and others and shews that he was imprisoned two dayes and two nights without meat or drink The Defendants come and shew that King Edward the 1. by his Letters Patents did incorporate one Village in Nottingham-shire with Bailiffs and Burgesses and that the King did ordain and make those Burgesses Justices of the Peace there and that the Defendant was Bailiâ—â— and a Justice of Peace there and that the Plaintiff did speak divers opprobrious and contumelious words of the Defendant by reason whereof they imprisoned him And shews further that the Bailiffs have used from the time of the making their Patent to imprison the disturbers of the Peace and it was held a naughty plea for a custome could not be shewn in such a manner And Tanfield held in this case that a man could not prescribe to be a Justice of peace but Justice Williams held he might prescribe to be a conservator of the Peace And Tanfield held that the King might grant that all the Burgesses and their Heires should be Burgesses which Justice Williams denyed HAll versus White Pasch 5. Jac. An action of Trespass brought against the Defendant for impounding the Plaintiffs Cattel the Defendant justifies for Common And upon that they were at issue in Derby-shire and the Jurors being sworn the Bailiff found one Bagshaw one of the Jurors rending of a Letter concerning the said cause and shewed it to the Judg and a verdict given by the Jury And this matter moved in the then Kings Bench to quash the verdict but denyed by the whole Court because the Letter and the Cause was not certified by the Postea and made parcell of it for otherwise the examination of that at the Barre after the verdict shall never quash it And so it was adjudged between Vicary and Farthing 39. Eliz. where a Church Book was given in Evidence of which you shall never have remedy except it be entred and made parcell of the Record BVtler versus Duckmonton Trin. 5 Jacobi In Trespasse upon a speciall Verdict the Case was that no demised Land to a woman if she should live sole and unmarried
Estcourt and Harrington 272 Earl of Rutlands Case 330 F. Forde versus Pomroy 9 Fetherstones Case 168 Flemming and Jales 280 Freeman against Baspoule 309 Foster against Jackson 311 G. Glover and Wendham 10 Gaudey against Newman 38 Gargrave against Gargrave 52 Gravesend Case 177 Goodyer and Ince 208 Gittins against Cowper 217 Grimes against Peacock 222 Godsalls Case 270 H. Hurrey against Boyer 8 Huntley against Cage 14 Hurrey against Bowyer 20 Hamond against Jethro 97 Hamond Strangis Case 102 Hill againstVpchurch 121 Hall against Stanley 124 Holcraft against French 137 Higgins against Piddle 149 Hare and Savill 273 Heyden against Smith 328 I. Jones against Boyer 27 Jennings against Audley 30 James versus Reade 47 Jacob against Sowgate 12â— Ireland against Smith 166 K. Kenrick against Pargiter and Phillips 60 Kemp and Phillip his Wife James and Blanch his Wife against Lawrere and Trallop and the Wife of Gunter 144 L. Linch against Porter 1 Legates Case 41 Lampit against Margeret Starkey 17â— Lawry against Aldred and Edmonds 183 M. Master Brothers and Governours of Trinity house againsi Boreman 13 Mallet against Mallet 133 Marstons Case 167 Manley against Jennings 176 Marsam against Hunter 209 Miller and Francis 277 Michelborn against Michelborn 296 Mors against Webbe 297 P. Parkers Case 7 Penns Case ibid. Priddle against Napper 25 Powis against Bowen 29 Parkers Case 37 Petty against Evans 40 Pyat against the Lady Saint-John 56 Portington against Rogers 65 Pits against Dowse 74 Petoes Case 75 Patrick against Lowre 101 Prowse against Worthing 103 Peto against Checy and Sherman and their Wives 128 Peacock against S George Reynel 151 Proctor against Johnson 212 Payne and Mutton 276 R. Robotham and Trevor 11 Reyner against Powell 42 76 Rowles against Mason 85 192 Robinsons Case 271 Rivit against Downe 279 Read against Fisher 297 Rutlage against Clarke 308 S. Symonds against Greene 16 Sir William Chanceyes Case 18 Sir John Watts 29 Sir Edward Ashfeild 48 Styles against Baxter 49 Sturgis against Deane 57 Sir Richard Bulkley against Owen Wood 100 Sir Ed. Puncheon against Legate 137 Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife 169 Strobridge against Fortescue and Barret 190 Sammer and Force 208 Styles Case 216 Stydson against Glasse 223 Simson and Waters 272 Smallman against Powes 291 T. Tey against Cox 35 Tresham against Lambe 46 Trobervill against Brent 97 Tyrer against Littleton 187 The Lord Rich against Frank 202 Trinity Colledge Case 243 The Towne of Barwick 270 The Duke of Lenox Case 301 V. Vivion against Wilde 290 W. Wagginer and Wood 9 Westons Case 11 Wallop against the Bishop of Exeter and Murrey Clark 45 Wickenden against Thomas 58 Weeks against Bathurst 102 Water against the Deane and Chapter of Norwich 158 Warbrook and Griffin 254 Waggoner against Fish 278 Waggoner against Fish Chamberlaine of London 284 Y. Yates and Rowles 207 THE SECOND PART OF BROWNLOWE'S REPORTS Containing divers excellent Cases and Resolutions in Law Lynche against Porter THE Plaintiffe in Prohibition suggests that hee inhabited in London within the Diocesse of the Bishop of London and was cyted to appeare in the Court of the Arches and was out of the Diocesse of London without license of the Bishop of London against the Statute of 23. Henry 8. And upon the first motion the Court gave rule to the Defendant to shew cause why the Prohibition should not be granted and to heare the Civilians and to conferre with them concerning the practise and expounding of the Statute of 23. H. 8. Chap. 9. And at the day appointed three severall Civilians came into the Court and were heard according to the former Order and they say that they use to cyte any Inhabitant that inhabits in London to appeare and to make answer in the Arches originally for the mischief that the Statute of 23. H. 8. intends to prevent was that those which inhabite in Dioces remote from London should not be sued here without licence from the Ordinary but this mischiefe was not in this case And Doctor Martin saith that so it was used by the space of 427. years before the making of the Statute and then was complaint made thereof to the Pope and he was answered that it was the use that any man might be cyted to the Arches out of any Diocesse in England and also that the Arch-Bishop may hold his Consistory in any Diocesse within his Jurisdiction and Province And also that the Arch-Bishop hath concurrent Jurisdiction in the Diocess of every Bishop as well as the Arch-Deacon And then if the suit be first begun in the Court of the Arch-Bishop or the Bishop or Arch-Deacon it ought to be there determined where it had its beginning and shall not be inhibited And then it was objected by Cooke chief Justice that the Statute of 23. H. 8. was affirmed by Canon 94. And this sheweth the agreement of the Civilians with the said Statute And to this Doctor Martin answered that the said Canon was made in the vacancy of the Church of Canterbury for the Sea of the Arch-Bishoprick was then void and also he said that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury prescribes to hold plea of all things and of all persons in England And the Pope hath no power to make Canons against the Law nor against any Custome or Prescription and for this it shall be void and that shall not bind the Arch-Bishop which is against the said prescription and also it seems to the Civilians that the exposition of the said Statute being the Ecclesiasticall Statute appointed to them And also it was said by them that this detracts from the Arch-Bishops Jurisdiction against the custome of the Realm and every Subject hath interest in that And also that the Bishop takes notice that they hold plea of the said cause and took no exception and that made a sufficient assent and amounted to a license in Law and so concluded that a prohibition ought not to be granted in this Case Coke cheife Justice saith that the Mischeife which the Statute of 23. H. 8. was not only to prevent the mischeife that those which inhabited in places remote from London should not be cyted to come to the Court of the Arch-Bishop but also to give to them other priviledges which by the Law they ought to have that is the Appeale that they loose by the beginning of the Suit in the Arches for they may appeal from the Ordinary after the suit begun here to the Arch-Bishop which benefit is lost if the suit be begun before the Arch-Bishop originally and for that the Inhabitants in London are as well within the Mischeife as the body of the Act of 23. H. 8. And also that at the making of the said Canon the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which late was had the Jurisdiction of the same then committed unto him he then being Bishop of London So that upon the matter he was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury so that the unity of the Sea of
Canterbury shall not be avoidance of the said Canon and he agreed that a Canon against Statute Law or Common Law or any Custome shall not bind the Subject and agreed that so it had been adjudged in this Court But he denyed that the exposition of any Statute belonged to the Ecclesiasticall Court for the Statute is meer temporall though it concern spirituall things and it shall be expounded according to the Rules of the common Law see 5. Edw. 4. Keasors Case And so concludes that this suit was against the Statute of 23. H. 8. For it ought to have its beginning in the Court of the Bishop of London And this exposition of the Statute is made for the Defendant 94. Canon which was ex presly made against the Court of Arches and inflicts suspension by the space of three moneths upon the Judges which offend against it from their Office and awarded that Prohibition shall be granted and with that agreed Warburton and Foster Justices but Walmsley Justice was of contrary opinion that is that no Prohibition shall be granted by the Court of Common Pleas but in case where the Suit is there hanging And this was objected also by the Civilians And the opinion of the Judges of the Kings Bench cited to prove it but prohibition was granted that notwithstanding And to the objection that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury may have a consistory in the diocesse of every Bishop this was denyed but only where he was the Popes Legate and thenas Legate heshall have Jurisdiction of all the Diocesse of England it was agreed that there were three sorts of Legats First Legates a Latere and these were Cardinalls which were sent A Latere from the Pope The second A Legate born and these were the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury Yorke and Ments c. And these said Legates may cite any man out of any Diocesse within their Provinciall then there is a Legate given and these have Authority by speciall commission from the Pope Daringtons Case DAringtons Case was cited before the high Commissioners of the King for maintenance of the opinion of Brownisme and for slandering of one Mr. Eland a Minister and also of the Judges of the Common Law and was sentenced that for the first he should make his submission before the said Commissioners and also for the second that he should make submission to Mr. Eland and confesse his offence to him and pray that he will forgive him and so for the third also that he should make submission and that he shall be committed to prison untill he perform the said sentence and put in security that he will not here after make a Relaps in any of the said offences and after he made submission for the first offence according to the sentence and upon complaint to this Court Habeas Corpus was awarded to the Keeper of the Prison in which he was to bring in his Body with the cause of his taking and detaining and he certified the causes aforesaid but not the Submission and these were the causes of the taking and detaining of the said Darington and it was prayed by Serjeant Nicholls that he might be delivered and Coke cheife Justice said that the Ordinary by the common Law nor by the Statute De circumspecte aegatis cannot imprison for any offence though it be for Heresie Schisme or other erronious crime whatsoever and then by the Statute of 5. R. 2. chapter 5. 2. Statute It was awarded that Commissions should be directed to the Sheriffs and others to apprehend such which should be certified by the Prelates to be Preachers of the Heresie and the Favourers Maintainers and abettors to keep them in strong Prison untill they will justifie themselves by the Law of the holy Church But this was repealed by 5 Ed. 6. 12. And 1 Eliz. 1. And also by the Statute of 2 H. 4. 15. It was ordained that none shall preach or write any book contrary to the Catholique faith or determination of holy Church nor shall make any conventicles of such Sects and wicked Doctrines nor shall favour such preachers Every Ordinary may convent before him any person suspect of Heresie An obstinate Heretick shall be burned in an open place before the People and this Statute was also repealed by 25 H. 8. And 1 Eliz. 1. By expresse words and then by the Statute of 1. H. 7. 4. Power is given to all Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Ordinaries having Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions to commit Clarks Preists c. To Ward and Prison for Adultery Fornication Incest or any other fleshly Incontinency there to abide for such time as shall be thought to their discretions convenient for the quality and quantity of their Trespas and these were all the Statutes which give Authority to the Ordinary to imprison any man And when the Statute of 1 Eliz. 1. Repealed the first two Statutes of 5 R. 2. 5. and 2 H. 4. 15. It was not the intent that these offences should be unpunished but the Queen would not leave and trust the Bishop which was but a man and when he is made Bishop cannot be removed with such generall and uncontroulable Power and Authority and for that this power and Authority was transferred by the said Statute of 1 Eliz. 1. To high Commissioners which the Queen might countermand at her pleasure and appoint new and so it was transferred from one to many and this Stature did not intend to give other Authority to high Commissioners to imprison any man which the Ordinary himselfe had not before the making of the Statute of 1 El. 1. And it was not the intent of the makers of the said Statute and Act of 1 Eliz. To alter any Lawes but to transfer the power of one to others and it was resolved that for working upon holy dayes the party shall not be punished before the high Commissioners in Reimores Case and it was also resolved in Symsones Case by the Lord Anderson cheife Justice of the Common place and Glanvile they then being Justices of Assise in the same place that a Pursivant came with a Warrant of the high Commissioners to attach one by his Body for Adultery in a lay mans house and was sâ—ain with great deliberation and conference had with the other Judges that that was no Murder but Man-slaughter for they could not attach the Body of any man but ought to proceed by citation and excommunication But it was agreed that they might imprison for Brownisme for that was Herezie besides he maintaind that if the King do not govern his subjects as he ought that his Subjects may and ought to depose him and other such abhominable opinions and further that he might fine for that and he said that one Elyas Brown was hanged for that in the time of the last Queen for that that it doth not appear by the return that Darington hath himself conformed they could not deliver him for they ought to give credit to the return according to 9
be avoyded and also he seemed that they could not examine any lay man upon his Oath But in causes Matrimoniall and Testamentary and he said that so was the common Law before the making of that Statute of Articulis cleri as it appears by a Canon made by Ottamon which was a Legate A Latere from the Pope in the 22 H. 3. and Canonicall by which is recited that where such were drawn in length because that lay men were examined upon their Oathes and therfore it was provided that lay men should be examined upon their Oathes although it did not concern causes Testamentary nor Matrimoniall the custome of England to the contrary thereof notwithstanding see Fitzherberts Natura brevium 41. a. Cromptons Justice of Peace fol. 59. b. Register 36 b. and Hyndes Case 18. Eliz. or the Margin in Scrogs case Dyer 175. b. So also Lamberts Justice of Peace that those things are to be given in Charge by the Justice of Assise and Coke saith that the Writ in the Register was framed before the Statute of Articuli cleri And also he cited one Lees Case who was committed for hearing of a Masse and refused to be examined upon that upon his Oath and had a prohibition and so he agreed that a Prohibition should be granted and upon that it was awarded accordingly Note that a Prohibition was granted to the high commission Court for that that they examined the lawfullnesse of a Marryage Symonds against Greene. NOte one suit was before the high Commissioners and 16. were brought by Pursivants before them for that that they were present at a Clandestine marraige and it was urged that this was not to be punished by any inferior Ordinary in any of their consistories for the contract was made in the Diocesse of the Bishop of Worcester and the marriage in the Diocesse of Glocester and the Preist which married them inhabited in the Diocesse of Oxford And yet Prohibition was awarded and the Justices were of the opinion that every of them for which the Pursivant was sent might have an action of false imprisonment against him for they cannot use any other processe but cytation only Admirall Court NOte that it was urged by Haugton that the intent of the Statute of 13 R. 2. chapter 5. Was not to Inhibite the Admirall Court to hold Plea of any thing made beyond Sea but only of things made within the Realme which pertaines to the common Law and is not in prejudice of the King or common Law if he hold plea over the Sea and that this was the intent of the Statute appeares by the preamble But to this Coke saith that the office of the Admirall was an ancient office though it hath been otherwise conceived by some for he hath seen Records and Libells and proceedings in the time of King Iohn where he was called Marina Anglie in the time of Ed. 3. And also he said that the words of the Statute are in the negative That is that the Admirall nor his Deputy doe not meddle from henceforth of any thing done within the Realme but only or things done upon the Sea and he said that it was adjudged in one Wrights case that a thing made at Constanticople shall notbe tried in the Admiralty for itought to be made upon the deep Sea otherwise they shall hold no trial of that see 48. or 50. of Ed. 3. 2 Ed. 2 F obligation and if a man be slaine or murthered beyond Sea the offender shall not be punished in the Admiralty Walmesly and Warburton Justices agree that if a thing be done beyond the Sea and may be tried by the common law there the admirall Court shall have no Jurisdiction But if an obligation beares date beyond Sea or be so locall that it cannot be tried by the common law there if the Admirall hold Plea of that Prohibition shall not be awarded for it is not to the prejudice of the King nor of the common law But if the party can have his remedy by the common law the common law shall be preferred And if at the common law one matter comes in question upon a conveyance or other Instrument made beyond Sea according to the course of the civill law or other law of the Nations where it was made the Judges ought to consult with the Civilians or others which are expert in the same law and according to their information give Judgement though that it be made in such forme that the common law cannot make any construction of it Michaelmas 8. Jacobi 1610. in the common Bench. IF a Parson agree contract withme that I shall keep back my own tithes if that be made after that I have sown my Corn and for the same year only this shall be good and if the Parson sue in the spirituall Court for tithes I shall have a prohibition but if it be for more years then one or before the Corn be sowed this shall not be good by Coke and Foster against Warburton and Coke said it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in Parson Boothes Case that a contract made with a parishioner for keeping back of his tithes for so many years as he shall be Parson was not good and so it was Wellowes Case here also but it was agreed by them all that such a contract or agreement for the tithes of any other was void but only of the party himself which was party to agreement and that ought to be made by way of keeping them back See before Easter 8. of James See 20 H. 6. and the 21. H. 7. 21. b. Pasche 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. THE question was upon a motion to have a Prohibition to the President and Councell of Wales if that shall be granted without action hanging And Coke cheife Justice said that the Record of the booke of 38. H. 6. agreed with the Report and is witnesse John Prisott and 2. Ed. 4. Is adjudged in the point but yet he advised that there shall be information Walmesley Justice said that this is no action But Coke Foster and Warburton said that it is an action fufficient upon which a Prohibition shall be granted and Coke said that if they hold Plea of a thing out of their Instructions he would grant Prohibition without action hanging But if they proceed in erronious manner in a thing which is within their Instructions he would not grant Prohibition without action hanging or Information Sir William Chanceys Case SIr William Chancey was cited before the Ordinary of the Diocesse of Peterbrough and sentenced to do Pennance for Adultery and this he commuted and after that he lived in Adultery with one in his house and had two Bastards by her and continued in Adultery with her for many yeares and for that he was cited before the high Commissioners and for that that he would not allow his wife competent allimony who had seperated himselfe from her company in respect that he lived in
any private Prison And it seemes if any do against this Statute that an action of false Imprisonment lies For every one ought to be committed to the Common Goal to the intent that he may be dilivered at the next Goale delivery and also if any be committed to any of the Counters in London unlessthat it be for debt that an action of false Imprisonment lieth for that for these are private Prisons for the Sheriffes of London for Debt only Note in Debt for ten pound the Defendant confesseth five pound and for the other five pound pleades that he oweth nothing by the Law and at the day the Plaintiff would have been nonsuited And it was agreed by all that if he be nonsuited that he shall loose all as well the debt confessed as the other Note the yeare of the Reigne of the King was mistaken in the Record of nisi prius but the Record which remaines in the Court was very well and it was amended For insomuch that it was a sufficent and certaine Issue this was sufficent Authority to the Justices of nisi prius to proceed but nothing being mistaken but the yeare of the Reigne this shall be amended for it is only the misprision of the Clark see Dyer 260. 24 25. 9. Eliz. 11. H. 6. Note also if Tenant in Dower be disseised and the Disseisor makes a Feoffment the Tenant in dower shall recover aâ—l their dammages against the Feoffee for she is not within the Statute of Glocester chapter 1. By which every one shall answer for their time Hillary 8. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Reyner against Poell See Hillary 6. Jacobi fol IN second deliverance for copy-hold in Brampton in the County of Huntington the case was copy-hold Lands were surrendered to the use of a woman and the Heires of her Body and she took a Husband the Husband and the Wife have Issue 2. Sonnes and after Surrenders to themselves for their lives the remainder to the eldest Son and his Wife in fee the Husband and the Wife dye the eldest Son dies the youngest Son enters and Surrenders to the use of a stranger And the sole question upon which they relied if the Wife was Tenant in tayl or if she had fee simple conditionall and it was argued by Nicholls that the Wife was Tenant in tayl and to prove that he cited 2. cases in Littleton where it is expresly mentioned who may be Tenant in tayl see Sect. 73. 79. And who may have a Formedon see in the discender sect 76. And he grounded that upon reason for that that it cannot be denied But that fee simple might be of copy-hold according to the custome and as well as fee simple as well it may be an estate tayl for every greater containes his lesse and he said that this is grounded upon the reason of other cases as if the King grant to one to hold Plea in his Court of all actions of debt and other actions and then one action of debt is given in case where it lieth not at the common Law yet the Grantee may hold Plea of that But if a new action be framed which was not in experience at the time of the grant but is given after by Statute the grant shall not extend to that and to the Objection that copy-hold is no Tenement within the Statute of gifts c. As to that he saith that that shall be very well intended to be within the Statute as it is used and 4. H. 7. 10. A man makes a gift in tayl by deed the Donee hath an estate tayl in the deed as well as in the Land so Morgan and Maxells case Commentaries 26. And so of Office Honour Dignity and copy-hold also and Dyer 2 and 3. Phil And Mary 114. 61. It is found by speciall verdict that copy-hold Lands have been devisable by copy in tayl and so it is pleaded 2 and 3 Eliz. Dyer 192. b. And when a lesser estate is extracted out of a greater that shall be directed and ordered according to the course of the Common Law and for that the Wife shall have plaint in nature of a Cui in vita and 15. H 8. b. Title Tenement by copy of Court Roll it was said for Law that tayl may be of a copy-hold and that Formedon may well ly of that in descender by protestation to sue in nature of a Formedon in descender at the Common Law and good by all the Justices for though that Formedon in descender was not given but by Statute Yet now this Writ lieth at the Common Law and shall be intended that this hath been a custome time out of mind c. And the Demandant shall recover by advise of all the Justices and the like matter in Essex M. 28. H. 8. And Fitz. affirms that in the chamber of the Dutchy of Lancaster afterwards and also he saith that when custome hath created such Inheritances and that the Land shall be descendable then the Law shall direct the discent according to the Maximes and Rules of the Common Law as incident to every estate discendable and for that shall be possessio Fratris of a copy-hold estate 4. Coke 22. a. Brownes Case b. And there 28. a. Gravener and Tedd the custome of the Mannor of Allesley in the County of Warwick was that copy-hold lands might be granted to any one in fee simple and it was adjudged that a grant to one and the Heires of his Body is within the Custome for be that Estate Tayl or Fee simple conditionall that is within the Custome So he may grant for life or for yeares by the same Custome for Estate in Fee simple includes all and it is a Maxime in Law to him that may do the greater it cannot be but the lesse is lawfull and over he said that in all cases where a man was put to his reall action at the Common Law in all these cases a copy-holder may have plaint with protestation to prosecute in â—…re of the same action and to the objection that there cannot be an Estate tayl of copy-hold Land for that that the Tenant in tayl shall hold of him in revertion and shall not be Tenant to the Lord to that he said that this Estate may be created as well by Cepit extra manus Domini as by Surrender and then there is not any reversion or remainder but it is as if Rent be newly granted in tayl but he said there may be a reversion upon an Estate tayl as well as upon an Estate for life and he did not insist upon the Custome but upon this ground that if the Custome warrant the greater Estate which is the Fee simple the lesse shall be included in that And he did not argue but intended that it would be admitted that discent of copy-hold Land shall not take away entry nor Surrender of that nor shall make discontinuance so prayed Judgement and â—…rne Harris the youngest Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that it shall be
any satisfaction in tender to satisfaction Insomuch that this is only the fruit of Tenure and not like to cutti ng of Trees nor to digging of Cole or other Ore And so Coke cheife Justice that it hath been adjudged and with this agreed the booke of 21. Ed. 3. 1. The manner to make Summons in Dower if the Land lieth in one County and the Church in another County Then upon the Statute the Sheriffe ought come to the next Church though it be in another County and there make Proclamation asthe Auditors in Accompt ought to commit the Accomptants found in arrerages to the next Gaole and there ought to be committed though that they are in another County The words of a Patent of a Judge of the Common Bench are as follows that is to say James by the grace of God c. Know that we have constituted Humphrey Winch Serjeant at Law one of our Justices of the Common Bench during our good pleasure with all and singuler Vales and Fees to the same office belonging and appertaning In Witnesse of which c. Michaelmasse 1611 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Jacob against Stilo Sowgate IN an Action upon the Case for slanderous words The declaration was that the Defendant said of the aforesaid Plaintiff that he is perjured to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff another time hath brought an Action in the Kings Bench against the same Defendant for that that he the said Plaintiff was perjured and had cozened John Sowgate and that the Defendant had pleaded to all besides these words Thou art perjured not guilty and to the words thou art perjured he Justifies that the Plaintiff was perjured in making an Affidavit in the Star-chamber and this Issue was Joyned and it was found for the Defendant but it was not pleaded that any Judgement was given upon it And Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff which had Demurred upon the Defendants Plea Argued that the Plea is insufficient for if it shall be intended by that that the Plaintiff was afore times barred if it be in a reall Action it ought to be averred that it is for the same Land and if it be in a personall Action it ought to be averred that it is the same Debt or Trespasse and if it be pleaded by way of Justification then he ought to have averred also that the Plaintiff hath taken a false and untrue Oath upon which Issue might have been taken But here nothing is pleaded but the Record and nothing averred in Facto So that the Issue cannot be taken upon it for the pleading is only of Record and that the Defendant for the cause aforesaid in the Record afore said mentioned spoke the said words and this is not good for there is not contained any cause of Justification as in Quare Impedit in the 15. and 16 H. 6. The Defendant pleads that he was Incumbent by the cause aforesaid and without that But this was no good Plea for he ought to plead his Title specially And also it is not pleaded as Estoppell for then he ought to have relied upon that precisely as 35. H. 6. in Replevin the avowant relies upon discent 30. assis 32. 2. H. 7. 9. Also Estoppell it cannot be insomuch that Judgement was not given in the first Action Also it is not pleaded as Estoppell for the Plea is concluded Judgement if Action where he ought to have relied upon the Estoppell and peradventure also the Triall was voyd by unawarding of Venire Facias or other Error So that without Judgement it can be no Estoppell and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Barker Serjeant argued for the Defendant that the Declaration is very good and notwithstanding that the words are generall that is he is perjured yet this may be supplyed very well by the Innuendo as it appeares by James and Alexanders Case 4. Coke 17. a. And also that Estoppell by the Verdict is good without Judgement as in Action of Debt release was pleaded and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Defendant and after another Action was brought for the same Debt and agreed that the first Virdict was Estoppell 2. Ed. 3. 19. b. c. And he cited Baxter and Styles Case to be adjudged in the point that the Estoppell is good and also Vernons Case 4. Coke where the bringing of a Writ of Dower Estopped the Wife to demand her Joynture and so concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendant Coke the Count is good being of the aforesaid Plaintiff and may after be supplyed by Innuendo though that the words after are generall But if the words were generall that is He is perjured without saying that the Defendant spoke of the aforesaid Plaintiff these English words following Videlicet he Innuendo the Plaintiff is perjured this is not good and shall not be supplied by Innuendo and he said that another time convicted is a good Plea in case of life without Judgement but this is in favour of life but in trespasse it ought to be averred that it is the same Trespasse and also there ought to be Judgement and the Defendant ought to relye upon that as an Estoppell and agreed by all that Judgement should beâ—given for the Defendant if cause be not shewed to the contrary such a day c. Michaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Hall against Stanley IN Trespass for Assault and Imprisonment the Defendant justifies insomnch that the Action upon the case was begun in the Marshalsey for a Debt upon an Assumpsit made by the Plaintiff and that upon that Capias was awarded to this Defendant being a Minister of the said Court to Arrest the Plaintiff to answer in the said Action and that he by force of that Arrested the Plaintiff and him detained till the Plaintiff found suerties to answer to the said Action which is the same assault and Imprisonment To which the Plaintiff replied that none of the parties in the said Action were of the Kings houshold and so demanded Judgement upon which the Defendant Demurred in Law And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant that the Court of Marshalsey may hold Plea of Actions of Trespasse by the parties or any of them of the Kings house or not and he intended that the Jurisdiction at the Common Law was generall and then they have Jurisdiction of all Actions as well reall as personall and though that their Jurisdiction be in many cases restrained yet in an Action of Trespasse there is not any restraint but at this day they have two Jurisdictions That is in Criminall cases and also in Civill causes within the Virge See Fleta book the second and third where he discribes the Jurisdiction of all Courts and amongst them the Jurisdictions of this Court and also Britton which wrote in the time of Ed. 1. lib. 1. chap. 2. which saith it was held before Bygott who was then Earle
concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiffs Wynch Justice that the Count is not good for the Plaintiffs have not alledged that they have used time out of mind c. To maintaine Ferrey but only that they have used to make Constitutions Secondly it is not alleadged that they onely have used to maintaine Ferrey and if they cannot prescribe in the sole using of that and to exclude others then others may use that as well as they being for the publick good for how shall they be punished if that they do not use and maintaine at the Common Law the Inhabitants of a Towne shall be punished for not repairing of a Bridge or high Way the which may be maintained by the Inhabitants together and if they do not do it then others may do it as well as others may repaire high Waies or Bridges as those which have used to repaire them as a common Host shall be punished in Eyre if he refuse to lodge any man and yet he which he refused to lodge may have an Action upon the Case for the refusall Also the Patent gives the forfeyture to the Port-reeve but the By-Law doth not make any mention who shall have it and he conceives that it shall not be as upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. Which gives penalty for not setting forth of Tythes but doth not appoint who shall have them and this was adjudged to be to him which ought to have the Tythes but this cannot be so here insomuch that it is against the Grant and agreed that a stranger shall be bound by By-Law where it is for the publick good but not otherwise and also the custome that these Bardge-men shall have the preheminence may be good as well as custome that the poore of such a Parish shall have common in such a place till such a day and then the others and so in this case and so he concluded that Judgement shall be Arrested Warburton Justice conceived that the Count is good and that the Inhabitants may prescribe very well as 47. Assis foure Townes were charged for the repaire of a High way and so may the two Townes for the Ferrey that he intended to be high way upon the water and also he conceived that this is inquirable in Eyre and also by the Justices of the Kings Bench and now by the Justices of Assises by Indictment by the name of Inhabitants The which may be as good an Action upon the Statute of Winton against the Inhabitants of the Hundred and so he conceived that in this case the Inhabitants of Milton and Gravesed may be punished by Indictment if they do not repaire the Ferrey and that the King there this day may erect a Ferrey in place where it is necessary for the King may erect office which is for the benefit of the Common Wealth but not to charge the Common Wealth And that if any will passe in his owne Ferrey without carrying of another this is no breaking of the by-By-Law and so he concluded that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiffs Coke cheife Justice seemed the contrary for he conceived it is not shewed in the Count to whom the Ferrey belongs for the owners of that are not mentioned the which it ought And yet he agreed that a Ferrey may be without owner as it is agreed 12. Ed. 4 8. Insomuch as this is locall and need not any Agent but out of Leete and Ferrey otherwaies it is for there ought to be Agent or otherwise the Ferrey should be of no use and for that there ought to be an owner Secondly it is alledged that Infra Easterne Townes there is such a custome that the Inhabitants may make constitutions and that the Inhabitants shall maintaine a Ferrey but not that there was a Ferrey but that he conceived it might be good insomuch that it is not traversable Thirdly what Action the Inhabitants may have if they be disturbed of it for this is no easement and they have no Estate of Inheritance and for that the Prescription by the name of Inhabitants is not good for they cannot have Estate and to the Satute of 6. H. 6. chapter 7. Which saith it is a laudable custome and usage that a Bardge shall be maintained but not that Inhabitants shall maintaine that nor those incorporate so that the Statute doth not make them capable of such a thing for which a Writ of right and assise by the Statute of Westminster 2. lies Fourthly That the custome and the Patent are repugnant for by the custome the Bardge hath not any preheminence nor precedence but equall liberty was to all water-men to carry what passengers that they could and with that also agreed the Statute of 6. H. 6. And then if the custome were not so this cannot be made by the grant of the Queene nor by the By-Law for this is the liberty of the Subject the which cannot be abridged nor restrained by them for if the King may grant such prehâ—minence here so may he do in all other Ferreis and places and also in the practise of the Law to have preaudience in this Court and in all other Courts of Justice And so should it be also of Butchers and Bakers and all others which used buying and selling And he said that the King hath preemtion of time in some places but this is not by his prerogative but by the custome of the place And he agreed that custome in subject may have preemption but not by the Kings grant for the King cannot grant that to another that he himselfe hath not by his prerogative and perchance he which hath such grant will not come to Market till all the Market be ended and he conceived that the River of Thames is so publick that the King cannot restraine that by his grant no more then he can grant preheminence to a Coachman to carry people into the Streets of London The which is adjudged upon the matter in the 50. of Ed. 3. Toll 2. Where the King grants Toll for every one which passeth by a Common way And agreed that it was not good if it be in a Common Way or in a Common River for as it is resolved in the 22. assis 93. Every common River is as high Street and Common Waies and the passengers Way as the water increases and the Thames is a branch of the Sea and a common Street as it appears by Bracton fol. 8. 5. The Plaintiffs have brought their Action by the name of Corporation of Port-reeve Jurats and Inhabitants of Milton and Gravesend and they are incorporate by the name of Port-reeve Jurates and Inhabitants of Gravesend possessors of Ships the which words are left out in the name by which the Action is brought so that the By-Law is not made by the same name by which they are incorporate nor the Action brought by the same name And yet he agreed that they might make a By-Law according to the grant without calling all the
was Error and for this cause and another exception to the Record which was not much materiall he reversed the Judgment And at another day Flemming cheife Justice rehearsed the case and this argued and to the first matter he conceived First That it is no such entry that abates the Writ Secondly Admitting that it were yet this cannot be assigned for Errour And to the first matter he took this ground That every entry which may abate a writ ought to be in the thing demanded and for that he sayd if a man brings an Assise of Rent or common and hanging this Assise he enters into the Land this is not any Entry which will abate the Writ and he sayd that the Park and the keeping of the Park are two distinct things and for that the entry into one that is the Park will not abate the Writ for the keeping of that and to that which is sayd that he took a Fee that is a shoulder of a Buck that doth not make any matter for two reasons First he hath not shewed a Warrant he had to kill the Buck. Secondly the taking of the fee is no entring into the Office but the excercising of that but admit that this were an entry or the thing it self yet he sayd every entry into the thing shall not abate the Writ and to that he sayd that if this entry of the Earl of Rutland to hunt was no such entry that shall abate the Writ for his office was not to hunt and for that his entry being to another purpose it shall not be sayd an entry to abate the Writ and for that he cited a case which hath been cited as he sayd by Justice Yelverton that if a man have Common in the Land of J. S. between the Annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas and the Commoner brought an Assise of his Common and at Christmas put in his Beasts and this shall not be any entry to abate his Writ for it cannot be intended for the same Common which case is agreed to be good Law and he cited the case put by Brooke in Assise of Freshforce before remembred Com. 93. Where hanging a Formedon the Tenant pleads in abatement of the Writ that the Demandant hath entred after the last continuance and upon the evidence it appears that many were cutting wood upon the Land and the Demandant comes into the Land to them and warnes them upon the perill that might ensue to them that they should do no more then they could do by Law and this was found no entry Also the case of 26. Assise before cited by Justice Crooke and he sayd that the Statute of Charta de Foresta chapter 11. willeth that every Arch-Bishop Bishop Earl or Baron comming to the King by his command and passing by his Forrest c. Was licensed to take one Beast or two by the sight of the Keeper c. Put case then that the King had sent for the Earl of Rutland and he had passed through this Park and had killed a Buck had this beene an entry to abate this writ Quasi diceret non for this was entry to another purpose so he sayd in the principall case the entry to hunt and so no entry to abate the Writ but admitting that this had been an entry which would abate the writ then let us see if this entry hath so abated the writ being Mesne between the Verdict and the Judgment it cannot be assigned for errour and to that he agreed the diversity before taken by Crooke and Williams where the writ is abated by Plea and without plea and he cited a Judgment in the Kings Bench between Jackson and Parker 2 Eliz. where in Ejectione firme the Plaintiff entred Mesne between Verdict and Judgment and this was assigned for Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment notwithstanding affirmed and he sayd that if Memorandum had been made of it or if a Jury had found it and it had been prayed that that might be Recorded yet this had not been materiall and that that be not assigned for Errour And to the matter moved by my Brother Williams that there should be a variance between the plaint and the Title he conceived that there is no such variance that shall make the Judgment errronious and to that he examined the matter First that the Assise was of a Free-hold in Clepsom and his title is made of the parke of Clipson that that cannot be otherwise intended but that of necessity it ought to be the same park For first there is but one park by all the Record Secondly the plaint saith De parco predicto which hath reference to Clepsom park and there is but one park put in view by all the record Fourthly It shall be so taken according to the common speaking Fiftly when he hath made his plaint of the custody of the park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and paunage of the park aforesaid called Clepsom these words called Clepsom are but Idle and Trifles and that which is but Surplusage shall not annoy Also he said that J. and E. are letters which do not much differ in pronunciation and they are all one as I and he shall be pronounced as hi and he cited the Book of 4 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt variance was taken between the writ and the Obligation that is Quatuordecem pro Quatuordecim and this variance was not materiall but that the writ was awarded good and so he conceived that in this case the variance of Clepsom and Clipsom shall not be such a materiall variance that shall make the Judgment erronious and to the title First to Markhams grant that is where the Jury have found Quod ulterius concessit c. And doth not say Per easdem he held that good without scruple and this for the necessary relation that this had to any thing before granted for he sayd that this should be a strange and marvelous patent which begun in such a manner that is Et ulterius Rex concedit c. And there was not any thing granted before And for that he cited the case of 11 Ed. 4. 2. where Debt was brought upon an Indenture against the Abbot of Westminster and the Indenture was between the Abbot of the Monastry of the blessed Mary of Westminster and rehearsed divers Covenants for performance of which Covenants the Abbot of Westminster bound himself in twenty pound and doth not say that the aforesayd Abbot and yet good for it shall be intended the same Abbot for he is party to the Deed and the case of 10 H. 7. 12. Where in Assise of Common the plaintiff makes his plaint of Common appurtenant to his Free-hold in D. and shews for Title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land in D. to which the Common is appurtenant and that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. have used Common of pasture with ten Beasts and exception
the Subjects Et Rex censetur habere omnes Artis in sermo pectoris and he hath here pursued the Course of the best Phisitians that is Removens promovens removens Improbos illos qui nullis bonae conscientiae fiducia profitabantur audaces promovens ad sanitatem And for that the Phisitian ought to be profound grave discreete grounded in learning and soundly Studied and from him commeth the medicine which is removens promovens And it is an old rule that a man ought to take care that he do not commit his Soul to a young Divine his Body to a young Phisitian and his Goods or other Estate to a young Lawyer for in Juveni Theologo est Conscientiae detrimentum in Juveni Legislatori bursi detrimentum et in Juveni Medico Cimitorij incrementum for in these cannot be the privity discretion and profound learning which is in the aged And he denied that the Colledge of Phisitians is to be compared to the University for it is subordinate to that Cantabrigia est Academiae nostrae nobilissima totius Regni occulus et sol ubi humanitas et doctrina simul fluant But he said when he names Cambridge he doth not exclude Oxford but placeth them in equall Rank But he would allwaies name Cambridge first for that was his Mother And he saith that there is not any time Pro non bene faciendo utendo et exequendo for this non suscipit Manus et Minus for so a man may greviously offend in one day and for that in such a case his punishment shall be by Fines amercements Imprisonments of their Bodies and other waies c. But if practise well though it be not an offence against the Letters Patents and the Statutes yet the punishment shal be but pecuniary and shall not be Imprisoned for if he offend the Body of a man it is reason that his Body shall be punished for Eodem modo quo quis delinquit eodem punietur but if a grave and learned Doctor or other come and practise well in London by the space of three weekes and then departs he is not punishable by the said Colledge though that they be without admition for peradventure such a one is better acquainted with the nature and disposition of my Body and for that more fit to cure any Malady in that then another which is admitted by the Colledge and he said that it was absurd to punish such a one for he may practise in such manner in dispite of the Colledge for all the Lords and Nobles of the Realme which have their private Phisitians which have acquaintance with their Bodies repaire to this City and to exclude those of using their advise were a hard and absurd exposition for the old verse is Corporis auxilium medico committe sodali And also he said that the said President and Colledge cannot commit any Phisitian which exerciseth the said faculty without admission for the space of a Month nor bring their Action before themselves nor levy that by any other way or meanes But ought to have their Action or exhibit an Information upon the Statute as it appears by the Book of Entries for they â—ught to pursue their power which is given to them by the Statute for otherwise the penalty being given the one Moytie to them and the other to the King they shall be Judges in Propriacausa and shall be Summoners Sheriffs Judges and parties also which is absurd for if the King grant to one by his Letters Patents under the great Seale that he may hold Plea although he be party and if the King doth not appoint another Judge then the Grantee which is party the Grant is void though that it be confirmed by Parliament as it appeares by 8. H. 6. 44. Ed. 3. The Abbot of Readings Case for it is said by Herle in 8. Ed. 3. 30. Tregores Case that if any Statutes are made against Law and Right and so are these which makes any man Judge in his own cause and so in 27. H. 6. Fitz. Annuity 41. that the Statute of Carlile will that the order of Cistertians and Augustines which have Covent and Common Seale that the Common Seale shall be in keeping of the Prior which is under the Abbot and foure others which are the most Sages of the house and that any Deed sealed with the Common Seale which is not so in keeping shal be void and the opinion of the Court that this is a void Statute for it is impertinent to be observed being the Seale in their keeping the Abbot cannot seale any thing with it and when that it is in the hands of the Abbot it is out of their keeping ipso facto And if the Statute shall be observed every common Seale shall be defeated by one simple surmise which cannot be tryed and for that the Statute was adjudged void and repâ—gnant And so the Statute of Glocester which gives Cessavit after Cesser by two yeares to be brought by the Lessor himselfe was a good and equitable Statute But the Statute of Westminster 2. chap. 3. which gives Cessavit to the Heire for Cesser in time of his Ancester and that that was Judged an unreasonable Statute in 33. Ed. 3. for that that the Heire cannot have the arrerages due in the time of his Father according to the Statute of Clocester and for that it shall be void And also the Physitians of the Colledge could not punish any by Fyne and also by Imprisonment for no man ought to be twice punished for one offence and the Statute of 1. Mariae doth not give any power to them to commit for any offence which was no offence within the first Statutes and for that he ought not to be committed by the said Statute of 1. Mariae But admitting that they may commit yet they have mistaken it for they demand the whole hundred shillings and one halfe of that belongs to the King And also they ought to committ him forthwith as well as Auditors which have Authority by Parliament to commit him which is found in arrerages But if he do not commit him forthwith they cannot commit him afterward as it appeares by 27. H. 6. 9. So two Justices of the peace may view a force and make a Record of that and commit the offenders to Prison but this ought to be in Flagranti Oriente And if he do not commit those immediately upon the view he cannot commit them afterwards and the Physitians have no Court but if they have yet they ought to make a Record of their commitment for so was every Court of Justice But they have not made any Record of that And Auditors and Justices of Peace ought to make Records as it appeares by the Book of Entries So that admitting that they may commit yet they ought to do it forthwith but in this case they cannot commit till the party shall be delivered by them for this is against Law and Justice and no
175 b. Dyer and there in Margery Hynds case who 18 Eliz. Noluit jurdre coram Justiciarijs Ecclesiasticis super articulos pro usura and Leyes case 9. and 10. Eliz. Michaelmas Rot. 1596. and it is written in the Book of the Lord Dyer but not printed the case was Ley being an Attorney of the Common Bench was committed to the Fleet by the Bishop of London and two others of the high Commissioners Ecclesiasticall for that that he was present at a Masse and he refused to be examined upon his oath upon Articles administred by the high Commissioners see also 5 Edw. 4. Keysers case upon the statute of 2. H. 4. chapt Which gives authority to the Arch-Bishop to imprison c. And see the Register fol. 36. b. The form of an Attachment against the Bishop which cited Aliquos Laicos ad aliquas cognitiones faciendas vel sacramentum prestandos nisi in casibus matrionalibus Testimeutarijs c. But it was urged that the Judges of the Common Law shall not have the exposition of the statute of 1. Eliz. because it was an Ecclesiasticall Law but it was resolved by all the Justices that it belongeth to the Judges of the Common Law to expound this for the Statute was temporall meerly and with this 4. Ed. 4. 37. b. c. upon the Statute of 5 H. 5. chapt Which provides Quod libellus sit deliberatus parti in casu ubi per legem deliberandus est hoc sine difficultate And though that this Act be meer spirituall yet the Exposition of that lyes open to the common Law Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Tench Estcourt and Harrington IN Trespass upon the Case between George Estcourt Plaintiff and Sir James Harrington Knight Defendant for that that the Defendant sayd that the Plaintiff was a forsworn and perjured man which the Defendant justified for that that the Plaintiff exhibited and English Bill in the Marches of Wales before the President and Councell there and in the same suit made an Affidavit upon which an Injunction was granted for the possession of Land in question between them for the sayd Plaintiff and that the sayd Affidavit was false and the Plaintiff hath committed perjury in that and this was allowed good Justification the Jury was of the Counties of Glocester and Salop and the words of the Distringas were ordinary till towards the end and that was Ad faciendam quendam Juratum simul cum alijs Juratoribus comitatus nostri Salop and this was the Distringas directed to the Sheriff of Glocester and so Mutatis mutandis in the Distringas directed to the Sheriff of Salop and note that the Jurors were sworn one of one County and another of another County Alternis vicibus and 24. were returned of every County Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Simpson and Waters SYmpson against Waters in an Action of Trespasse upon the case for Slander that is thou art drunk and I never held up my hand at the Barr as thou hast done and agreed that an Action doth not lye for these Words for peradventure he intended buttery Barr And by Foster Justice if he had sayd for Felony that the Action doth not lye for many honest men are arrained but if he saith he was detected Action doth not lye but if he saith he was convicted for Perjury Action lyeth as seemed to him In Trespass the Originall bore Teste 3. Ianuary 6. Iacobi and in the Count the Trespass is supposed 20 Ianuary 6. Iacobi which is after the Teste of the Originall and agreed that this shall not be aided by the Statute oâ— Jeofailes but if it were originall otherwise it is Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench Hare and Savill IN Covenant by John Hare and Hugh Hare against John Savill the Plaintiffs made a Lease for years to the Defendant rendring Rent at two Feasts or within ten dayes after every of those at the Temple Church and the Defendant covenanted to pay the Rent according to the reservation and for the non payment these Plaintiffs brought an Action of Covenant to which the Defendant pleads levied by distress and upon this the Plaintiffs demurred and adjudged with the Plaintiffs accordingly for that the Defendant for his Plea hath confessed that it was not payd according to the reservation for the Plaintiffs cannot distrain if it were not behind after the day and it was agreed that where a Rent is reserved to be payd at such a Feast or within twenty dayes that the Lessee in this case shall have Election if he will pay that at the Feast or at the end of twenty dayes for he is the first Actor and the Lessor cannot distrain nor have action of Debt till the twenty dayes be past and it was agreed that the Covenant shall not alter the nature of the Rent but that nothing behind or payment at the day were good Pleas. Defendant in Debt pleads to the Law and was ready at the Barr to wage his Law and it was resolved by the Judges upon conference with the Prothonotories that it might be continued but the Court would advise IN Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Plaintiff counts that diverse Goods were delivered to him in pawn and that in consideration that he should deliver them to the Defendant the Defendant assumed and promised to pay to him the Debt for which the Goods were pawned and it was objected that the Count was not good for that it doth not contain the certainty of the Goods which were pawned and delivered to the Defendant but to that this difference was agreed that when Goods are to be recovered and Dammages for them and are in demand the certainty of the goods ought to appeare in particuler as if a man pleades that he was never Executor nor administred as Executor it is a good Plea for the Plaintiff that he administred Diversa bona in such a place so if he plead that he hath Diversa bona natabilia in other Diocesse it is good iâ— both cases without shewing what goods in certaine see 11. H. 7. 29. Ed 3. Also it was objected that the consideration was not sufficient and then it shall be Nudum pactum ex quo non oritur actio for the Plaintiff hath not any Interest in the Goods and they were delivered him to keep and not to deliver over so that the delivery was vitious and for that it shall be no good consideration and of this opinion was Foster Justice But Coke Wraburton Danyell and Walmesley being absent it seemes that the condition was good as if a man in consideration that another will go to Westminster or cure such a poor man or mary a poore Virgin assume to pay to him a sum of money And though this consideration were not valuable yet it seemes good And he that pawned hath a property in the goods and may have them againe In debt
against peter THis Case was argued this Tearme by Harris youngest Serjeant for the Defendants and by Haughton for the Plaintiffs And Serjeant Harris conceived that Sir Francis Barrington was within the Intent of the Act of 22. Ed. 4. chap. 17. For he hath grant of Trees of Inheritance and this was all the profit which rise upon the Soyl and for that it shall be intended of the Soyl it selfe And to prove that he cyted Parromor and Yardlyes Case in the Com. 542. and 543. 2. H. 8. 159. Crooke 11. Eliz. Dyer 285. Where it is agreed by three Justices that the Patentee or Grantee of Herbage in a Forrest shall have Trespasse against any which consumes and distroies the Grasse but not the Trees nor of the fruit of that and the Trespasse of that shall be Quare clausum fregit as well as iâ— it were of Land And may inclose the Forrest by such Grant See 17. Ed. 4. 6. a. by Littleton that Vestura terrae doth not pass without Livery Also admitting that he is not owner of the Ground within the Statute yet it seemes by the Statutes that they are It shall be lawfull for the same Subjects Owners c. And to such other persons to whom such VVood shall happen to be sold Immediatly after the VVood so cut to fence and inclose the same Ground with sufficient Hedges able to keep out c. Upon which words he inferrd that S. Francis Barrington is such a Person to whom the VVood is sold and for that may inclose And also he conceived that the Statute is generall and concernes all persons in generall and also all Forrests and Chases whatsoever And for that it is not like to the Cases put in Hollands Case 4. Coke upon the Statute of 13. Eliz. VVhich concernes all Ecclesiasticall persons in generall that this is a generall Act and yet concernes but one Genus in particuler But the Statute of 1. Eliz. Is otherwise which concernes the Bishop which is but a species of this Genus as it is resolved in Elmers Case 5. of Coke And also he conceived that it shall be releeved by the Statute of 35. H. 8. And so prayed Judgement for the Defendant And Haughton conceived that the words of the Statute intend such a person to whom VVood is sold for one turne only And not he which hath Inheritance of Wood that there is no word in the statute to exclude Commoner and such a Vendee is not without remedy for he is within the statute of 35. H. 8. If he pursue his remedy according to the statute and so prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff And at another day Foster Justice argued that the Plaintiff in the Replegiare shall recover and said that the cause consists of three parts First the Arbitrement Secondly the assurance Thirdly the private Act of Parliament of 27. H. 8. And to those the Arbitrement and the assurance shall tye only those which are parties to it and no others and the Commoner is not party to that nor shall not be bound and the private Act confirmes the assurance saving the Right of all strangers by which the Commoner is exempted and also the statute is made only as confirmation of the Grant and for that it shall not extend to any other thing nor to other parties but those only which are parties to the Grant as if the Queen had made a voydable Patent and after had made a Lease for yeares and after by the statute of 18. Eliz. All Letters Patents made within such a time were confirmed this makes the Letters Patents good against the Queen but against the Lessee And also all the Covenants in the Grant extend only to the Lord Rich and his Heires and these which claim under him And for that it shall not extend to the Commoner and also the private Act saves the Right of all strangers by which the Right of the Commoner was saved And he conceived that the Commoner shal not be excluded by the statute of 22. Ed. 4. chap. 7. which recites that if any Subjects have any Woods growing in his own Ground within any Forrest Chase c. Shall cut the same VVood by lycense of the King or his Heires in Forrest Chases c. Or without lycense in the Forrest Chase c. of any other person or make any Sale of the same VVoods It shall be lawfull to the same Owners of the same Ground whereupon the VVood so cut did grow and to other such persons to whom the said Wood shall happen to be sold Immediatly c. to cut and inclose the same Ground with sufficient hedges able to hold out all manner of Cattell and Beasts and to continue the same by the space of seven yeares without suing of any other Lycense of him or of his Heires or of any other persons or of any their Officers of the same Forrest Chases c. By which words it appeares that the statute doth not extend to any Wood of the King but only to the Wood of the subject lying in Forrest of the King or of other person owner of the Forrest or Chase And if it be in the Kings case and he hath lycense from the King to cut the Wood then may he cut it without other lycense according to the perclose of the Act And the statute doth not give lycense to Inclose without the assent of the Commoner but without other lycense of other Officers of the Forrest And by this Statute the Owner of the Ground may first cut the Wood and then Inclose But by the Statute of 35. H. 8. Otherwise it is for by this he may first inclose and then cut within four Moneths and that Sir Francis Barrington hath no interest in the Soyle and that this Statute of 22. Ed. 4. is a private Statute and ought to be pleaded for it concernes only forrests and Chases and it is no other then if it had been of al Woods in Parks and resembled that to the statute of 1. Eliza. of the Bishop which concerns only the Bishop and it is resolved in Elmers case to be private and the same Judges shal not take notice of that without pleading and it is not like the statute of 13 Eliz. which concerns al manner of spiritual persons in general and also that this statute is repealed by the statute of 35. H. 8. which is a negative Law and Leges posteriores priores contrarius abrogant and it is agreed in Porters case 1. Coke and so he concluded that Judgment should be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice to the contrary and yet he agreed that neither the Arbitrement nor the conveyance nor the private act excludes the Commoners for these reasons which have been urged by Foster but he relyed only upon the statute of 22 Ed. 4. and to that he sayd that the statute gives power to the owner of Ground to inclose and it should be frivilous for him to inclose if the
Commoner shal not be by that excluded and he said that the persons mentioned in the statute are two The first is the owner of the ground and such person he agreed Sir Francis Barrington is not The second is such person to whom such wood shal happen to be sold and such Person it seems is Sir Francis Barrington and yet he agreed that he hath an Inheritance in the Trees and the Owner of the soyl cannot cut them nor dig the soyl from the Roots of the Trees for then the Grant could not take effect and he sayd there is no difference between sales of Wood though that the statute speaks of the Person to whom Wood shall be sold and another person to whom it shal be given without consideration and to that he resembled the statute Westminster 2. Chap. Si quis alienavit terram uxoris suae non deferratur c. sed expectet emptor c. though that the statute mention buyer only yet Donee without any consideration shal be intended in it and that the statute doth not intend within it and that the Statute doth not intend sale Vinca vice tantum but rather sale of Inheritance for such Vendee may rather intend the preservation of the wood then the other And he inferred upon these words of the statute to inclose the same Grounds with hedges sufficient to keep out al manner of Cattel and beasts out of the same Grounds and these words expound themselves for they shal not be intended Deer but Cattel which belong to Commoners and so is the statute of West 2. Chap. If Infant suffer Usurpation this shal not bind him but this shal be intended where he hath Advowson by discent and not by purchase and this appears by the words of the statute which are Cum aliquis vis presentandi non habens presentavit ad aliquam ecclesiam cujus presentatus sit admissus ipse qui verus est patronus per nullum aliud breve recuperare potuit advocationem quam per breve de recto quod debet perminare per duellum vel per magnam assisam per quod heredes infra etatem existentes per fraudem negligentiam custodis multities ex heriditatem patiebantur c. By which words it appears that there ought to be presentation which passeth by fraud and negligence of the Guardian which the Statute remedies and that is presentation which he had by discent and not by purchase and in the Time of Ed. 1. Fitz. trespas 239. It is said the Law of the Chase that none may inclose his own Wood without the view of the Forrester and if the statute of 22 Ed 4. Gives license to inclose and that notwithstanding the Commoner may put in his Beasts then is the statute made in vain and it is resolved in the 30 of Ed. 3. Fitz. trespas that if a man hunt in a Park or Chase that this is not within the statute of VVestminster 1. Chap. 21 Ed. 1. So the statute of 22 Ed. 4 Extends to the Kings Deere and also to other Beasts which shal be intended â—he Cattel of the Commoners and it is not repealed by the statute 35. H. 8. For these statutes are made for several purposes and consist upon several grounds and if the statute of 22 Edw. 4. be repealed then there cannot be inclosure in forrest or Chase at al And which is general Law and the Justices ought to take notice of that without pleading and that al Lawes to some respects may be intended to be special as the statute of 13 Eliz. Concerns only spiritual men and so Charta de foresta concerns only forrests and the statutè of 3 H. 7. Chapt. 1. Gives appeale to the Wife for the death of her Husband and though that al these statutes concern one thing only and for that to some intent may be said to be special yet they are al generall Laws and so he concluded that Judgment shal be given for the Defendant VValmesley agreed with Foster in al that is that Sir Francis Barrington hath nothing but profit In alieno solo and for this cause was not within the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Which might inclose and the Common Law doth not exclude the Commoner for the Lord Rich granted the Wood and this Transit cum onere to Sir Thomas Barington and sayd that it was in vain to dispute if the statute of 22 Ed. 4. was private Law or if it were repealed which makes nothing in the Case and so he breifly concluded that Judgment shal be given for the Commoner which is the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice agreed that Judgment shal be given for the Plaintiff and did agree that the Arbitrement the Convaiance nor the private Act made nothing in the Case for by these the Commoner cannot be barred of his Common but for the statute of 22 Ed. 4. He would first consider how the Law was before the making of that and as to that it appears by the statute of Charta de foresta that by the Common Law no man which was Owner of Wood in which another had Common that they could not inclose but Assise of Common or action upon the case lyeth as it requires and if it be several Wood within the Kings Forrest in which none hath interest of Common then may he inclose by the view of the Forresters and this hold inclosed by the space of three years as it appears by the Preamble of the Statute of 22. Ed. 4. Cum parvo fossato bassahaia that is a Little Ditch and Low Hedge for that the Kings Deare are not shut out and this appears in the Register in the Writ of Ad quod damnum Fitz. Na. Bre. 226. f. And then comes the statute of 22 Ed. 4. and gives power to inclose with such sufficient Hedges able to keep out al manner of Beasts and Cattel And then considered between what persons the statute is made And to that he conceived it is made between the King and his Successors of one part and Subjects having woods growing upon their owne Grounds and such persons unto whom such woods shal happen to be sold of the other part and a Commoner is not named in the statute and also the Body of the statute is not general but there are some words in one sentence and this is but a sentence and cannot be divided the words are First The sayd Hedges so made may keep c. Secondly And repaire and maintain them as often as need shal be within seven years Thirdly without suing any other License of him that is the King or his Heirs or other persons that is which have forrests or Chases or any of their Officers and here the sentence concludes and there is no period before them so that this statute being made between the King and owners of forrests and Chases of one part and Owners of woods in their own soyl and other persons to whom such woods should be sold other
Damages c. An Assise brought and the Grant was of the Herbage and Pannage c. and whether this were good or no some held it void for the incertainty of the Grant when it should begin Sir Edward Cook held the Grant good for if the King make a Lease for Life and granteth the Land without reciting the state to one for life this is a good Grant for Life of the Reversion to begin immediately after the Death of the Tenant for Life Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 35. An Assise brought for the Office of a Harald at the Funeral of the Earle of Exceter and the great Question was where the view should be made and it was alledged that it should be made in the place where he exercised his Office but the Court doubted of that but they were examined of the view made in the Abbey of Westminster being the place where the Funeral was performed and the Court were of opinion that in Dower where Tithes are demanded no view lies for of things that are invisible no view lies but the Tenant in such case shall be denied it SIr William Saint Andrew brought an Assise de Darrein Presentment against the Arch-bishop of York the Countess of Shrewsbury and F. H. for the Church of O. in the County of Nott. The Archbio p and H. appeared and the Countess did not appear and though the Countess made Default yet the Assise was not taken against her by Default but a re-summons was awarded against the Countess and the same Day given to the Arch-bishop and H. and a Habeas Corpora against the Recognisors And note the Tenants that appeared pleaded in abatement that a Writ of Quare impedit for the said Church was hanging in such a Court between the same parties and the Assise was brought afterwards and with this agrees the Register and it was adjudged a good Plea The Writ was returned in this manner Pleg de prosequend John Doo Richard Roo The within named Arch-bishop and Countess are attached and either of them is attached per Pleg H. S. N. J. And the within named H. hath nothing in the Sheriffs Bailywick by which he may be attached nor hath a Baily within his Liberty nor is therein found and the residue of the Execution c. and Judgement given that the Writ should abate and the like was in the Earle of Bedfords case where two Quare impedits were brought one after another and the last Writ abated J. Lovelace versus Baronissam Despencer R. Harvey Clericum Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 74. de Darrien Presentment for the Church of M. And the said H. being solemnly exacted came not and the Sheriff made a Return that he was summoned by J. O. and W. C. and therefore the Assise was to be taken against him by Default but the said Baromsh by T. her Attourney faith the Assise ought not to be so taken and confesses the said J. was the person last presented but conveys a Title to her self of the Mannour to which the presentation belongs and that being so seised the Plaintiff in the Assise by usurpation presents the Clerk in the Count whereupon the Defendant brought a Quare impedit and hanging the Writ the Clerk in the Count dies and the Plaintiff presented the Clerk that made Default who by vertue of that presentation is yet Parson of the said Church by which she is seised of the Advowson as in her former Estate and so she saith that the Presentation of the said J. by the said L. made ought not to prejudice her and a Demurrer upon this Plea and that the Assise should remain to be taken c. for want of Recognisors and the Sheriff was commanded to distrain them c. and Judgement given that the Plea was good but quaere of the Declaration whether sufficient because it was not alleadged that he that presented was seised of the Advowson Pasch 8. Jac. rotulo 31. An Assise brought for the Office of Clock-keeper of and it was held that it must be an ancient Office and because they could not prove that it was an ancient Office the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Plaintiff shewed a Grant of the same in E. 6. time but that was held no ancient time Pasch 6. Jacobi It was held by the whole Court that an Assise of Sadler to the Queen would not lie being granted to one by the King but was held void by the whole Court for the King cannot make an Officer to the Queen and by the Patent no place was expressed where he should injoy and exercise his Office and take the Profits and therefore the Jury could not have the view and for that cause an Assise cannot be taken and if the King should grant the Office of Usher to his Son the Prince an Assise would not lie An Assise brought against Demetrius the Plaintiff was non-suit and Demetrius moved to have Cost and it was denied by the whole Court because an Assise is not within the words of the Statute Audita Quaerela BIrd versus Kirton Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3118. An Audita Quaerela brought and the case was this Bird and Milles were bound to Kirton and Kirton makes a Bond to Milles in the summ of 100. l. that if Milles be not sued upon the first Bond then that shall be void and it was alleadged that Kirton did both sue Milles and Bird and that he had no notice of the second Bond that he might have pleaded it and so pretends that the second Bond should be a Defeasance of the first and Judgement was given for the Defendant BEck brought an Audita Quaerela and surmises the matter following that Boon Administrator of C. brought his Action of Debt upon an Obligation and before Judgement that Administration was revoked and Administration granted to another and notwithstanding the Revocation he procured Judgement and the second Administrator released and the rest brought an Audita Quaerela upon that Release and the Court would not grant a Supersedeas because the Revocation was but matter in fait for that Revocation was not under Seal and the first Administrator might appeal Cases in Law and Notes IF a Writ of Covenant be brought against two and if one acknowledge the Fine before one of the Justices and the other acknowledge by Dedimus or before another Justice that Fine cannot be proceeded upon these two acknowledgements by the opinion of the Court. A Writ of Covenant was brought against three men and their Wives and onely two men and their Wives acknowledged the Fine and the other Husband and Wife never acknowledged and the Fine was sued as a Fine acknowledged by all and it was desired the Fine might be amended and the Man and Wife that did not acknowledge might be put out but the Court would not grant it If I make a Lease for years reserving Rent during the Life of A. and B. if one of them die
pair of Stones in your Mill and pay a Rate for them then if you put on another pair of Stones new Tithes must be paid in kinde If one in Fee make a Lease for Life and after granteth a Rent-charge if the Grantors Cattle come upon the Ground I may distrain them although I cannot distrain the Tenant in Possession but the Grantor cannot avoid it If the condition of a Bond be to discharge a Messuage of all Incumberances then one may plead generally that he did discharge it of all Incumberances but if it be to discharge it of such a Lease then I must shew how If a man devise his Trees to his Executors to pay his Debts the Executor must in convenient time cut down the Wood. And so if a man sell his Trees the Vendee must sell them in a convenient time If I grant you out of my Mannour 10. l. per ann and recite but five pounds the Recitall shall not diminish the Grant And so if I grant you ten pounds out of my Mannor and recite 20. l. this shall not inlarge it If I infeoff two of Land habendum to me in Fee and habendum to the other in Fee they are Tenants in common In the Court of Wards one Dymack was a Purchasor by Bargain and Sale and before inrolment D. dies and after his Death the Indenture was inrolled the Question was whether his Son shall be in Ward for the Land and it was adjudged that he is Heir to the Land and is in by the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Bargains and Sales and not by the Statute of Uses My Lord Hobard held that if an Executor pay a Bond made upon a usurious Contract it shall be a Devastavit in the Executor and if he be bound to present one to a Church and he present one upon a Simonaical Contract the Bond is broken Hill 10. Jac. Resolved if one make a Lease of a Mannour reserving Rent and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of forty acres thereof now if an Action of Debt be brought by the Grantee he may aver the rate of the Acre and if the Defendant plead Nil debet per patriam the Jury shall rate the value and although the value be found less by the Jury then the Plaintiff surmiseth yet the Plaintiff shall recover after the proportion For Acts in Law no Attornement is necessary as if a Lease made for years reserving a Rent which is assigned to a Woman for Dower she shall have the Rent without Attornement In Cambels case upon an Elegit returned that the Lessor was seised in Fee and that by vertue of the Judgement the moity was delivered to the Plaintiff and for the Rent reserved upon the Lease for years before Judgement If a man top a Tree under the growth of 21. years and suffer the body to grow and afterwards when the boughes are grown out again he doth lop and top it again I shall pay no Tithes although the Tree was not priviledged at the first cutting by the opinion of the whole Court If a Debt be recovered in a Court of Record that Debt cannot be assigned over to any man by the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 10. Jac. Pasch 14. If Money be to be paid upon proof made there the triall shall be the proof to be made before but if it be to pay Money within 3. Moneths after proof there proof must be made first but if it be upon proof before A. then proof being made before A. this extending proof shall tie the party but Warburton held the contrary and he resembled this to a surmise to have a prohibition which is no binding proof for the Jury may pass against the proof in the surmise when a Bond is to pay Money upon proof this is a legal proof by Law if it be laid generally to be paid by proof if it were by proof before two Justices or two Aldermen this shall be intended a sufficient proof when the Action shall be brought upon the Bond and if the Defendant say that due proof was not made then they shall say that before the two Justices c. it was proved by testimony before them and then the Judges shall judge whether it be a sufficient proof or not If I devise Lands to my Executors for three years for the payment of my Debts this is Assetts in the Executors hands but if I devise my Land to be sold for the payment of my Debts it is no Assets before it be sold Mich. 9. Jacobi It was held in the Common Pleas by the whole Court that in the Kings case the consideration of the Money paid is never to be proved Likewise in a common case of Bargain and Sale in consideration of Money paid where in truth none was paid yet it is good and the Bargainee is not tied to prove the Payment for the Bargainer may have an Action of Debt If a Legacy be granted out of Leases and a Suit in the Spiritual Court for this shall not be prohibited but otherwise it is if it were out of Fee Simple Lands HE le versus Frettenden Resolution upon two Cases upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes Videlicet A man possessed of Corn sels it and before two Witnesses sets out his Tithes and afterwards privately takes away his Tithes and the Parson sues him upon the Statute of treble Damages for not setting forth of Tithes and the Defendant proves by Witnesses that he set forth his Tithes yet this Fraud is helped for the words are without fraud or deceit In the second case one secretly sels his Corn to one who was not known and afterwards the Vendee commands the Vendor to cut the Corn which he doth and takes away the whole Corn without setting forth his Tithes and the Question was who should be sued for the Tithes and the Court held the first Vendor should be sued for it was fraudulent If a man be found guilty of Felony and after receives his Pardon he shall not be Legalis home to pass upon a Jury If a Venire facias be against an Arch-bishop the Venire facias shall be Tam milites quam alios liberos c. because he is a Lord of the Parliament If a man be obliged in a Statute staple his Copy-hold Land is not extendable but it is upon a Statute of Bankrupt If a man have Common in three Acres and purchase one of the three Acres his Common is extinct If a man of the Cinque Ports shall come to London he may be there arrested and shall not have the Priviledge of the Cinque Ports Difference between those things which are in the Prender and such things that are in the Render for if I take not such things as are in Prender according to my Prescription it is void If I have Estovers in Woods to be taken every other year if I
omit to take them every other year I cannot take them in the third year But for Rent and such other things that are in the Render I ought to have it when ever I demand it as it best pleases me And note that in such case one prescribed for eight Loads of Wood to be cut and taken as appertaining to a Messuage which was held naught by the whole Court for the Prescription should be laid for Estovers to be imployed upon Repairs of the said Messuage or to be spent in it for a man cannot prescribe to have a Prescription to come and cut down my Wood which is as much as I that have the Free-hold can do For the claim to take and sell my Wood cannot be good And the Court held it a good Prescription to prescribe to have Common every other year although you shew not the Commencement as to shew what time of the year when it begins If a man hath Common of Pasture in divers Closes and parcels of Ground where he hath some Land of his own there and in all other cases where one is to prescribe he need not to make his Title to every peice but to say he hath Common in loco in quo c. in t alia and need not to speak of the rest of the Land in the residue of the Feild because he hath Land of his own Common appendant belongeth to arrable Land not to Pasture Land If two Issues be joyned and in the awarding the Venire facias these words Videlicet Quoad triandum tam exit istum quam praedictum alium exit superius junct were omitted and after a Verdict such Default was moved in Arrest of Judgement and the Exception over-ruled and held good notwithstanding that omission The whole Court were of opinion that local things shall not be made transitory by laying the Action in a forrain Shire as for Corn growing in one Shire and an Action of Trover brought in another COmes Cumbr. versus Comitem Dorset It was moved by the Defendant that whereas the Plaintiff had prosecuted a Distring Jur. and onely eleven of the Jury appeared and the Inquest remained to be taken for want of Jurors and that at such time neither Plaintiff nor Defendant desired a Tales and afterwards the Defendant in another Terme prayed a Tales of that Writ which the Plaintiff had prosecuted and the Court denied to grant it because he prayed not a Tales when the Distress was retorned and if he would have a Tales he must purchase anew a Plur. distring and if then the Jury fill not the Defendant may pray a Tales and the Court ought to grant it And note upon the first Habeas Corpus the Defendant shall not have a Tales but in Default of the Plaintiff IF the Chamberlain of the County Palatine of Chester make an insufficient Return to the Court of Common Pleas upon a Writ issued out of that Court the Sheriff shall be amerced because the Sheriff is the Officer responsible to the Court. The King hath power to make and create a Leet anew where none was before A Distress is incident of Right but in a Court Baron a Prescription must be laid to distrain J. Rogers versus Powell My Lord Cook held that the Surrender of a Copy-hold in Tail is not any Discontinuance and Justice Foster of the same opinion In Doctor Husseys case in a Ravishment de gard wherein the Judgement is penal the Habeas Corpus was denied by the Court to be amended being a blank Writ after a Verdict but was adjudged Error For the Proviso in the Statute of Jeofailes 18 Eliz. excepts Actions upon penal Statutes One Jury was impannelled of the Town of Southampton and called to the Bar and made Default and the men of that Town shewed to the Court a Grant made to the Inhabitants of that Town that no Return should be made of the men of that Town to be of any Jury and prayed the Allowance of their Charter and the Court appointed them to plead their Charter and it was done accordingly TRier versus Littleton A special Verdict was found whether Fraud or not Fraud and the Jury did not finde the Fraud expresly but they found Circumstances that the Deed might seem thereby to be fraudulent but the Court will not adjudge it Fraud where the Jury do not expresly finde the Fraud for the Judges have nothing to do with matter of Fact and so by the whole Court no Fraud Tenant for Life Remainder for Life Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee the first Tenant for Life suffereth a Recovery the Remainder in Tail is barred although the second Estate for Life be no party Baron Feme seised of the Wives Land for Life of the Wife Remainder to the Husband and Wife in Tail and afterwards the Husband doth bargain and sell the Land by Deed inrolled and a Precipe is brought against the Bargainee and he voucheth them in Remainder this is a good Recovery to barr the Estate Tail If an Information be brought against three upon the Statute of Maintenance and two of them appear and the third doth not appear the Plaintiff may declare against the two that do appear before the other appears for it is but a Trespass and Contempt as in Trespass and Conspiracy but it is otherwise in Debt upon a joynt Contract for there the Plaintiff cannot declare against one untill the Process be determined against the other by the opinion of the whole Court If Judgement be entred in Trespass of Oct. Hillarii the Writ to inquire of Damages may bear teste of any other Return of that Terme besides of Octab. Hillarii for the Terme is as one Day and so hath been adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the upper Bench but it is otherwise held in the Common Pleas. If a Bargain and Sale be void in part it is void in all If an Officer or priviledged person of the Court of Common Pleas sue another priviledged man of any other Court whatsoever yet he of the Common Pleas that first sued shall force the other priviledged person to answer in the Common Pleas but if a priviledged man be sued with another as Executor no Priviledge lies Summons and Severance lies between Executors Plaintiffs and if one of the Executors be outlawed or excommunicated he may be demanded and if he comes not shall be severed by an award without Process after he hath appeared and the other shall proceed without him but if he had not appeared then Summons and Severance shall issue out against him FLetcher versus Robson An Extent upon a Statute Merchant issued out against Robson the Cognisor and the Sheriff returned that the Cognisor was possessed of divers Goods and seised of Lands which he delivered to the Cognisee and that the Cognisee accepted of the Land and because the Sheriff did not return that he had not any other Lands Goods or Chattels it was
by Obligation and that he retained the Money in his hands to satisfie the Debt The Plaintiff replies that the Money was not due and payable to him at the time of the Intestates Death and that he took Administration after the Day of Payment and if the Administrator had pleased he might have took Administration before the Day of Payment and the Court held the Defendants Plea good but he shall not have the Forfeiture CArrell versus Paske Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 1018. Debt brought upon an Obligation made at C. in the County of Surry The Defendant pleads the Priviledge of Cambridge granted to them by the Queen Eliz. for Scholars Bachelours Masters and their Servants upon Contract made within the University and shews the Bond was made in Cambridge and that he was a Servant of the Scholars to wit Bailiff of Kings Colledge in that University and inhabiting within the Town of Cambridge and Precincts of that University and therefore a priviledged Person of the same and upon reading the Record it seemed that the Defendant being a Bailiff of the Colledge is not capable of the said Priviledge PReist versus Cee Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2197. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bill bearing Date 17 Novomber 1604. by which Bill the Defendant did acknowledge himself to owe the Plaintiff 10. l. to be paid to the Plaintiff at two Payments to wit 5. l. to be paid upon the 19. of November then next following and other 5. l. to be paid upon the 10. Day of December then next following The Defendant pleads it was not his Deed. The Jury finde it specially that the Defendant the 17. of November 1604. sealed and delivered to the Plaintiff one Bill obligatory shewed to the Jury bearing Date the Day and Year above and finde the Bill in haec verba Be it known c. to be paid at two Payments that is to say 5. l. to be paid the 19. of November which is the present of this Moneth and the other 5. l. on the 10. of December The Question was whether the Bill maintain the Count for the first Payment and adjudged it did RAwdon versus Turton Trin. 13. Jac. 1011. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond for Payment of Money such a Day The Defendant pleads that he the same Day made an Obligation for the Payment of the said Money another Day which the Plaintiff accepted for the Money and Issue taken thereupon and tried for the Defendant and after the Verdict the Plaintiff moved the Court to have Judgement though the Verdict passed against him because the Plea was insufficient and that he confessed the Debt but the Court would not grant it The like Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1061. And the like Hill 12. Jac. CArter versus Freeman Mich. 13. Jac. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition that the Defendant should appear before the King at a certain Day Videlicet Die Jovis post Octobras Martini and upon a Nul tiel Record pleaded the Defendant brought his Record of Appearance Lunae post xvam Martini and this was held by the whole Court an Appearance at the Day in the Condition by the whole Court GRubham versus Thornborough Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1773. An Action of Debt brought for Rent and for a Nomine penae the Rent due 14 November Anno 9. and no name alleadged for the Nomine penae therefore the Action would not lie for the Nomine penae but it would for Rent PAsch 44. Eliz. Elliot versus Golding An Action of Debt brought and Judgement given for the Plaintiff and a space was left in the Roll for the Costs of the Judgement and after the Year and a Day a Scire facias was brought to revive the Judgement and in the Scire facias the Costs are put in and so Judgement by Default and afterwards a Writ of Error brought and the Error was assigned because there were no Costs put into the principal Roll and afterwards the Record was removed the Count was moved that Costs might be put into the Roll but it was denied upon the first motion and afterwards Pasch 13. Jac. it was denied by the whole Court BOnd versus Green Administrator An Action of Debt brought against him as Administrator he pleads divers Judgements amounting to 670. l. and the Assignement of 100. l. Debt to the King by Deed inrolled and he pleaded that he retained his Debt in his hands and he might have given this in Evidence or pleaded it at the Liberty of the Defendant COoper versus Bacon Action of Debt brought upon the Statute of E. 6. for Tithes and the Plaintiff declares that one was seised of the Rectory of Elveley alias Kirkley in Kingston upon Hull in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised such a Day and such a Day at Elveley alias Kirkley did demise to the Plaintiff the said Rectory with the Appurtenances to have and to hold c. for years and that by vertue thereof he hath been and is thereof possessed and that the Defendant such a Day and before and alwayes afterwards hitherto had held and occupied 30. Acres of Land in Swandland in Kingston in a place called T. and that the Tithes did belong to him The Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and after a Verdict it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Issue was mis-tried because the Venire facias was of Elveley alias Kirkley and it should have been of Swandland where the Tithes grew CHapman versus Pescod Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 2106. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to give and grant to him his Heirs and Assignes The Defendant pleads that he hath been ready to give and grant and adjudged naught for he must plead that he did it otherwise it had been if the words had been as Councel should devise MAncester versus Draper Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 2613. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition to pay Money if C. R. shall be then living and shall before the same 20. Day of O. by due form and course in Law perfect levy and knowledge a Fine and a Recovery before his Majesties Justices of his Highness Court of Common Pleas of and in certain Houses and Tenements with the Appurtenances which the said Draper lately had and purchased of the said C. R. the Defendant pleads that C. R. was living and did not levy c. and a Demurrer and the Question was whether Draper or Ro. should levy the Fine and held that Draper should levy the Fine BAker versus Pain Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 3139. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond to pay Rent and perform all the Covenants Grants Payments and Conditions contained in a pair of Indentures and the Defendant pleads the Indenture and performance thereof The Plaintiff assignes the Breach that the Defendant had not paid the Money The
to seal and he refused and upon such Refusall the Plaintiff brought his Action and a Verdict was given for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff ought not to have Judgement for he said that the Defendant was not bound and compellable to seal that Obligation because it was not in Law any Assurance but a collateral thing and the whole Court agreed that and therefore being the Action was brought for refusing to seal the Obligation and Letter of Attorney and the Judgement according it ought to be arrested but Cock said that Judgement ought not to be arrested for the Premises of the Delaration it appeared that he refused to seal the Letter of Attorney and thereupon concluded that it should not be arrested and Fennor said that the Letter of Attorney was not any such Assurance as the Law required in such Case for when he had made the Surrender it should be accounted the Surrender of him that made the Assurance and he said he should make a present Assurance of it but Tanfeild was of another opinion and said that when the Surrender was made it shall be said to be the immediate Surrender of him that made the Letter of Atturney and such an assurance as the Law required and Yelverton Justice said the Letter of Atturney was lame for this cause the Letter of Atturney was made to one for the surrendring of such a Copy-hold and did not say in the Letter of Atturney for him and in his name for otherwise the Copy-hold might be the Copy-hold of him that surrendred by vertue of the Letter of Atturney and then he should surrender his own Copy-hold but Tanfeild was of another opinion because he said in the Letter of Atturney that he did constitute and appoint and in his stead and place put such a one which words in his stead and place are as full as if he should have said in his name HOllingworth versus Huntley Pasch 5 Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation the Condition amongst many other things contained that the Husband and Wife being Lessees for life of certain Lands that if the said Husband and Wife should levy a Fine to an estranger at the Costs and Charges of an estranger and also that they should levy a Fine of other Lands that they also held for their lives to an estranger and at their Charge then c. the Obliger sayes that the Husband and Wife did offer to levy the Fine if the estranger to whom the Fine was to be delivered would bear their Charges the Obligee demurres and it was adjudged for the Plaintiffe because the levying the second Fine had not any reference to the other because they are two distinct sentences and these words and also make them so Man versus Somerton Pasch 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffe being Parson of Henley brought an action of Debt for six hundred pounds upon the Statute of 〈◊〉 6. for not setting forth Tithe of Wood and the Plaintiffe shews that the Defendant had cut down two hundred loads of Wood to the value of two hundred pounds and saith the tenth part of that did amount to two hundred pounds and so he brought his action for six hundred pounds upon the Statute and the Plaintiffe was nonsuit for one fault in his Declaration for whereas he names the price of the Wood to be two hundred pounds it was mistaken for it should have been two thousand pounds for he demanded more for the tenth part then the principall is by his own shewing and Tanfeild Justice held that Beech by the common Law is not Timber and so it was adjudged in Cary and Pagets Case and it was held that Tithes shall not be paid for Beech above the growth of twenty years in a common Countrey for Wood as in Buckingham-shire for there it is reputed Timber but in a plentifull Countrey of Wood it is otherwise for there it is not Timber and Tithes shall be paid for such wood Silva cedua for which Tithes shall be paid is under the growth of twenty years but Tithes shall be paid for such wood which is not Timber which is above the growth of twenty years PErcher versus Vaughan Trin. 5. Jac. An action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for six pounds thirteen shillings eight pence The Defendant demands Oyer of the Obligation and imparles and after an imparlance the Defendant comes and sayes there was variance between the Plaintiffes writ and the Obligation for it appeared by the Obligation that the Defendant was obliged in viginti nobilis and so his action ought to be brought according to the Obligation and demands Judgement if the Plaintiffe ought to have his action the Plaintiffe demurres and it was argued by the Plaintiffes counsell first that it was no variance for it was said that twenty nobles and six pounds thirteen shillings eight pence were all one in substance if a man be bound to pay a hundred nobles and brings his action for fifty marks it is not variance 34 H. 8. 12. and 4 E. 3. Fitzherbert Title varians 102. agrees to that but if a man be obliged to pay certain money in Flemish money he ought to shew the performance of that strictly 9 Ed. 4. 49. and the Plaintiffes counsell said that it was variance it could not be shewed after an Imparlance in Marks Case Co. 5. 74. and said the conclusion of the Defendants Plea to demand Judgement of the Plaintiffe ought to have his action was not good for this Plea was not in barr of the action but in abatement of the Writ and Yelverton Justice agreed to that and he said when the Obligation was in viginti nobilis it shall be intended twenty nobles and good Tanfeild said that when there is no good and apt Latine words for a thing no unapt Latine word is put in the Bond for that thing the Bond is void as when a man is bound in quinque libris it it was adjudged in Mich. Term 5 Jac. that the Obligation was void because there was a fit Latine word and that was quinque and so it was adjudged in the Lord Danvers Case where the Indictment for one blow super capud and it was held void because it was an unapt word and there was a fit and apt word to wit Caput and VVilliams agreed to this for he said it was adjudged in the common Pleas between Pencrosse and Tout a man was bound in a Bond in viginti literis when it should have been viginti libris and adjudged void for the same cause but after in Hillary Term the Plaintiffe had Judgement because in one Dictionary nobilis was a Latine word for six shillings eight pence VEntris versus Farmer Trin. 5. Jacobi A Lease was made for years rendering Rent payable at a place of the Land and the Court was moved whether a Demand of the Rent may not be made upon the Land but denied by the
whole Court for they said that the Demand must be made at the place of payment although it be of the Land FIeld versus Hunt Mich. 5. Jacobi Hunt in VVorcester Court obtained a Judgement after a Verdict in Debt upon a Contract for twenty Sheep and after it was removed by a Writ of Error into the Kings Bench and generall Errors assigned but upon opening the Errors it was shewed the Court that there was no Declaration in VVorcester Court for the Declaration was thus Raphael Hunt complains against H. Field of a Plea that he render to him twenty pounds which he owes unto him and unjustly detains and whereof the same Plaintift by M. his Attorney whereas the said Defendant c. and by Fennor VVillams and Cook it is no Declaration for Default of this word Dicit and the sense is imperfect and although Yelverton objected that a Declaration is sufficient if it be good to a common intent and Quer. being writ short it may be Queritur and then it is and whereof the same complaines but the Court held that would not help for it is not certain to whom the word Idem should refer whether to the Plaintiff or Defendant and of the two it should rather refer to the Defendant which is the next Antecedent and the Court held it matter of substance which is wanting and therefore naught but if it had been 4. and whereof the same Raphael quer being writ short it had been good for because the party Plaintiff is certainly named and then Quer. could have no other sense then Queritur and Judgement reversed which mark HArrison versus Fulstow Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought Action of Debt for fourscore and six pounds in the Common Pleas against T. Harrison and the Capias was continued accordingly against T. Harrison but the Plur. capias was against William Harrison which was the very name of the Defendant and that was but for fourscore and five pounds which varied from the first Entry and William Harrison appeared upon the Exigent and the Plaintiff declares against William and he pleads and they are at Issue by the name of William and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Judgement accordingly against William and upon a Writ of Error it was assigned for Error that the Original did not maintain the Proceedings for the Original is against Tho. and the Proceedings against William and the Plaintiffs Counsel would have excused it because the Judgement being against William and the Original against Tho. as it is certified it cannot be the Original against William and so the Judgement against William being without Original it is aided by the Statute after a Verdict but the Court held it to be Error for there is great Difference between no Original and a naughty Original for the want of an Original is helped but not a vitious Original and Judgement was reversed for upon Diminution alleadged that this Original was certified as the Original in that Suit or else there was no Obtulit at all LOthbury versus Humfrey Mich. 5. Jacobi Lothbury and his Wife Administratrix of VV. R. brought an Action of Debt as Administrator upon an Obligation of forty Marks dated 4. April 38 Eliz. made by the Defendant to the Intestate 1. the Defendant pleades that Ridge the Intestate October the first Jacobi made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and devised the Obligation and the Money therein contained to one H. Son of the Defendant and died after whose Death the Defendant takes upon him the burthen of the Executorship and administers divers Goods of Ridges and that he is ready to aver this to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs generally and adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Defendants Plea is not good without a Traverse that Ridge died intestate For the Action is brought as Administrator and they count upon a dying intestate and that being the ground of the Action ought to be traversed as it is 9 H. 6. 7. Debt brought against one as Administrator of J. and counts that J. died intestate the Defendant pleads that J. made his Will and made him Executor and held no Plea without a Traverse and the same Law 7 H. 6. 13. Debt brought against one R. Executor of R the Defendant pleads that R. died intestate at such a place and held no Plea for if the Plaintiff maintain that R. made the Defendant Executor and the other say that R. died intestate at such a place this makes no Issue and therefore the Defendant ought to traverse that R. died intestate without that that he made him Executor and 4 H. 7. 13. the very Case in question is adjudged that such a Plea in Barr is not good without a Traverse to wit to say without that that R. died intestate according to the 3 H 7. 14. and this was agreed by the whole Court without Argument CHeyney versus Sell Mich. 5. Jac. Cheyney as Executor of Cheyny brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Sell the case was that the Testator had put himself as an Apprentice to Sell for seven years and Sell bound himself to pay to his Apprentice his Executors or Assignes 10 l. at the time of the end or determination of his Apprentiship the Apprentice serves six years and then dies and it was moved by Towse that the Money was due at the time of his Death because then his Apprentiship ended for he said if a man make a Lease for one and twenty years to another and oblige himself to pay to the Lessee ten pounds at the end and expiration of his Term and within those years the Lessor infeoffes the Lessee so the term expires and the ten pounds should be paid instantly but Cook denied that Case because the Lessee hastened the end of his terme but he said that if a man lease Land to another for seven years if the Lessee should so long live and the Lessor oblige himself to pay ten pounds at the end of his terme and he die within seven years there he was of opinion the Money was presently due upon his Death but in the principal case the whole Court held the chief Justice being absent that the Obligation was discharged and that the Money should notbe paid WIllot versus Spencer Mich. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Tithes of Wood upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. and Forster argued that Judgement ought not to be given for the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Plaint that he was Parson for he ought to bring his Action according to that name that he claimed the Tithes by and this ought to be expressed in the Queritur and therefore if a man bring his Action to recover any thing as Heir Executor or Sheriff he ought to name himself so in the Queritur 30 H. 6. 9 H. 4. but Towse said the same Exception was taken between Merrick and Peters and disallowed Fleming Justice said
will for the Election is in bringing the Action and the words vel and are but Synonimaes and Champions Case Plowden 286. is taken for vel and the 21 E. 3. 29. in Mallories Case u is taken for and therefore they gave Judgement that the Defendant should answer over FReeman versus Shield Trin. 11 Jacobi and adjudged Pasch 12 Jacobi Freeman brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Shield and proved Oyer of the Condition which was that if the Defendant should stand to the Award and Arbitrement of J. S. that then c. the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators awarded that whereas there was no suit in the Chancery depending against the Plaintiff for divers matters that the Plaintiff should be acquitted of that suit and of all the matters contained in the same Bill and the Defendant further alledges that he did not make any prosecution of the said Bill but that the Plaintiff stands acquitted thereof the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant after the said Award such a year and day did exhibit a new Bill which did contain the same matter which the first Bill had and set forth at large both the Bills by which it appeared to the Court that it was so to which Plea the Defendant Demurres and the cause of the Demurrer onely was because the Plaintiff had pleaded that the Defendant had exhibited a new Bill but had not alledged any Processe taken forth upon the same Bill and if this be a breach of the award is the question Govin was for the Plaintiff and he was of opinion that it was a breach for the words were quod staret acquietatus and to be acquitted is not onely to be intended of an actuall disturbance or molestation but if the party be put in fright or is liable to any Processe it is a breach 8 Ed. 4. 27. a Condition to save one harmlesse if a Capias be awarded against him although it be not executed yet it is a forfeiture of the Bond nay though it was never delivered to the Sheriff for otherwise the Plaintiff should be in continuall care trouble for fear lest the Defendant should do it and so the Defendant may dally with him a long time which shal be mischievous therefore it may be resembled to 9 H. 7. where if a man sell a thing with warranty to pay for it at a day to come if the thing sold be corrupt the party may have his Action of deceit before the day of payment because it is in the others power to bring his Action and so it is in the Defendants power to serve the Plaintiff with Processe when he pleases and therefore it is a breach Coventry for the Defendant first because it is no such Process as can prejudice for neither goods nor Body shall be taken and therefore is not like the Cases before cited And secondly it is not such a process as our law respects or regards for a Bill is but as a Petition Haughton Justice was of the same opinion with the rest of the Judges but adjourned untill Hill 11. Jac. and an Exception taken because the Defendant had not answered the Declaration for the Condition is that he should be acquitted the Defendant pleaded that he hath been acquitted and Cook was of opinion that it was good and Pasch 12. Jac. Judgement was given for the Defendant by the whole Court KIpping versus Swain Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against Swain upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and declares whereas the Plaintiff being Proprietor of the Rectory of B. in the County of c. for the term of seven years and that the Defendant was Occupier of Lands within the same Parish for six moneths by a Devise made the tenth of March Anno decimo Jacobi And that the Defendant 27. Aug. the year aforesaid did cut his Corn there growing and that the tenth of September then next following the Defendant being Subdit dicti Domini Regis carried away the said Corn not setting out the Tenth according to the Statute and upon a Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement first because of the Plaintiffs own shewing he had no cause of Action against the Defendant for the interest of the Defendant in the Land was determined before the Tithes were carried away but the Court were of opinion that it was no Exception for although his interest in the Land was gone yet he remained Owner of the Corn for if Corn is cut although a stranger take them away before severance yet an Action will lie against him upon this Statute for otherwise the intent of the Statute may easily be defeated Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff said he was Subdit dicti Domini Regis which is a Fault incurable for the Statute referrs Subdit to his politick capacity but Dicti goes to his natural and sole capacity and so the force of the Statute shall be determined by his Death and for this cause an Indictment upon the 8 H. 6. Contra pacem dicti Domini had been severall times reversed and of this opinion were three Judges but Haughton doubted of it and so it was adjourned PEnniworth versus Blawe Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation and prayed Oyer of the Condition which was that he should stand to the Arbitrement of J. S. of all Suites Quarrels Controversies and Debates from the beginning of the World untill the making the Obligation so that the Award be made in writing under the hand and seal of N. S. and should be delivered to the parties before such a Day c. and observe that the Sealing and Delivery of the Obligation was at twelve a clock the first of May the Defendant pleads in Barr that the Arbitrators made an Award and did deliver that to the parties above-said but said further that in the morning and before twelve a clock the first of May aforesaid one Debate and Controversie did arise between the parties concerning a Trespasse committed by the Plaintiff the same morning of which the Defendant gave notice to the Arbitrator before twelve a clock of the said first of May concerning which Trespasse the Arbitrator made no Award and therefore pretends the Award to be void and demands Judgement to which the Plaintiff demurrs and Yelverton being for the Plaintiff that the Plea was not any Answer to the Plaintiff and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiffs Action is grounded upon an Obligation as single and the thing which helps the Defendant is the Condition indorsed to stand to the Award of S. the which is restrained so that it be delivered under the hand and seal and if the Defendant will plead the Condition against the Plaintiff he must plead it to be performed and executed according to the Submission by the
goes to issue upon it for if they discend to issue upon such a Plea and it be found against the Defendant it is peremptory and he shall loose the Land but upon demurrer it is not peremptory but onely to answer over Which mark VVOrkley versus Granger Mic. 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for two Houses and certain Lands c. And upon a speciall Verdict The case was one Heâ— Wels and his wife nere seised of a parcel of Land to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten as for the joynture of the wife the remainder to the Heirs of the Husband in Fee the Husband bargains and sels the Land to Stamp and his Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Husband and one Winter leavie a Fine of that Land to another who grants that Land back again to Winter for one month the remainder to the husband and wife and the heire of their bodies to be begotten the remainder to the husband and his heirs The Husband dyes the Wife survives and makes a Lease to the Defendant for ninety nine yeers if she should so long live the woman dyes and the Plaintiffe claims under the bargainee and in this Case two points were debated First what Estate passed to the bargainee and Digges of Lincolnes Inne who argued for the Plaintiffe that the bargainee had a Fee simple determinable which issued out of both the Estates as it was held by Periam in Alton Woods Case And he said that the Proclamations upon the Fine are but a repetition of the Fine as it is held in Bendlones Rep put in the Case of Fines in Cooks 3. Rep. And see Pinslees Case for then for the same cause the Issue in tayl is bound although the Fine be levied by the Husband alone by the Statute of the 4. H. 7. and 32 H. 8. because he cannot claim but as Heir to the Father as well as to the Mother and therefore his Conveyance is bound and see 16. E Dyd 332. Husband and Wife Tenants in speciall tayl The husband is attainted of Treason and executed having Issue the woman dyes the Issue shall never have the Land And if husband and wife Tenants in speciall tayl And the Husband levies a Fine to his own use and devises the Land to his wife for life which remainded over rendring Rent the husband dyes the woman enters pays the Rent and dyes the Issue is barred for two causes first by the Fine which had barred his Conveyance of the intayl secondly by the Remitter waived by the Mother 18 Eli Dyer 531. See 5 H. 7. Assise Thorp and Tirrels Case Secondly the Lease made by the woman was determined by her death and it was said that the woman had not any qualitie of an Estate tayl but onely she might take the profits during her life within the Statute of 11 H. 7. And when she dyes the Estate is denised See Austens Case Doctor Wyat Tenant in tail leased for yeers And dyed without Issue the Lease was determined See first of Eliz title Executors And 31 H. 8. Dyer Where a Bishop made a Lease for yeers and afterwards makes another Lease to one of the Lessees c. And Fleming held that if the woman survived as under Tenant in speciall tayl and made a Lease for 21. yeers it is out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. and so it was adjudged in Wattes and Kings Case LAne versus Alexander Hill 5. Jaco The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made to him by Mary Planten for three yeers the Defendant saies c. that the Land is Copihold Land of the Mannor of H. in Norff. whereof the Queen Eliz was seised in Fee and long time before the Lessor had any thing there in Court such a day that J. S. her Steward at the Court c. granted the Land to the Defendant by Copie in Fee according to the custome and so justifies his entry upon the Plaintiffe The Plaintiffe replies and saies that long time before the Copy granted to the Defendant to wit at a Court of the Mannor held such a day the 43. Eliz the Queen by Copy c. granted the Land to the Lessor for life according to the custome by force whereof he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe The Defendant by way of rejoynder maintained his barr and traverses with that the Queen at the Court of the Mannor by J. S. her Steward such a day c. granted the Land to the Lessor and upon this the Plaintiffe demurred in Law generally And Yelverton moved that the traverse was good in this Case upon the day and Steward and the difference is where the act done may indifferently be supposed to be done on the one day or the other there the day is not traversable as in the Case of a Deed made such a day there the day of the Deed is not traversable for it passes by the livery and not by the Deed. And the livery is the substance and the day but a bundance 10 E. 4. And the Law is the same if the day in trespasse wherein the day is not traversable For although it be done upon another day it is not materiall But when a man makes his title by an especiall kinde of Conveyance as in this case the Plaintiffe makes his title by one Copy there all that is concerned in the Copy is materiall and the party cannot depart from it for he claims not the Land by any other Copy but by that which is pleaded as is in the 18 H. 6. 14. where an Action is brought for taking his Servant and counts that he by Deed retained with him his Servant the Monday in one week in such a case it is a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Servant was retained by him such a day after without that that the Plaintiffe did retain him the Monday And the Law seems to be concerning Letters Patents wherein the day and place are traversable being the speciall conveyance of the party from which he cannot depart And also it seems that although the day in the principall case be traversed yet the Statute of 18 Eliz of Demurrers aids it it being but a generall Demurrer and the day being onely matter of form But the whole Court were of opinion that the day was not traversable in this case For the Queen granting an ancienter Copy to the Plaintiffs Lessor then to the Defendant and the traverse should have been without this that the Queen did grant in manner and form c. to the Plaintiffs Lessor and the Case is the same in the Letters Patents for there the traverse should be without this that the Queen granted in manner and form c. And the day and place shall not come into the traverse But Justice Fennor was of a contrary opinion for the Reason delivered by Yelverton before and he also and the Lord cheif Justice held it to be holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz for it is but
matter of form For if the Jury finde a prior grant of the Queen to the Plaintiffs Lessor although it be at another Court it is sufficient and so by consequence the day is not materiall in substance which mark But Williams Justice and the rest held the traverse to be naught for by that the Jury should be bound to finde the Copy such a day by such a Steward which ought not to be and that it was matter of substance not helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. DArby versus Bois Hill 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for an House in London and upon not guilty pleaded The Jury found a speciall Verdict And the case was Tenant in tail of divers Messuages in London 7 January 44 Eliz bargains and sels the said Houses to J. S. and delivers the Deed from off the Land the 8. of January the same yeer Indentures of Covenants were made to the intent to have a perfect recovery suffered of those houses and the ninth of January after a Writ of right is sued in London for those Messuages returnable at a day to come And the tenth of January the same yeer the Tenant in tail makes livery and seisin to J. S. of one of those Houses in the name of all And the other Messuages were in Lease for yeers and the Lessees did not atturn And the question was if the Messuages passed by the bargain and sale or by the livery And it was adjudged that they passed by the bargain and sale And Yelverton took a difference between severall Conveyances both of them Executory and where one of them is executed presently as in Sir Rowland Heywoods Case where divers Lands were given granted leased bargained and sold to divers for yeers the Lessees were at election whether they would take by the bargain and sale upon the Statute of 27 H 8. or by the demise at the Common Law But otherwise it is if one be executed at first for then the other comes too late as it is in this Case for by the very delivery of the bargains and sale the Land by the custome of London passes without inrollment for London is excepted and this custome was found by the Verdict And therefore it being executed and the Conveyance being made perfect by the delivery of the Deed without any other circumstances the livery of sesin comes too late for it is made to him that had the Inheritance of the Messuage at that time And the possession executed hinders the possession executory for if a bargain and sale be made of Land and before inrollment the bargain takes a deed of the said Land this hinders the inrollment because the taking of the livery did destroy the use which passed by the bargain and sale which was granted by the Court. And another reason was given because it appeared that the intent of the parties was to have the Land passe by the bargain and sale because it was to make a perfect Tenant to the Precipe as appears by the subsequent acts as the Indentures Covenant and the bringing the Writ of Right c. All which will be made frustrate if the livery of seisin shall be effectuall and when an Act is indifferent it shall be taken most neer to the parties intents that may be if a man hath a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant and makes a Deed of the Mannor with the appurtenances And delivers the Deed but doth not make livery of seisin yet now although the Deed in it self was sufficient to passe the Advowson yet because the party did not intend to passe it in Posse but as appurtenant if the Mannor will not passe no more shall the Advowson passe alone as it was agreed 14 Eliz in Andrews Case Which mark And the whole Court gave Judgment accordingly that the Defendant who claimed under the bargain sale should enjoy the Land CHalloner versus Thomas Mich. 6. Jacobi A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement given in Ejectment in the Courâ— of Carmarthen and Yelverton assigned the Error because the Ejectment was brought de aquae cursu called Lothar in L. and declares upon a Lease made by D. de quidam rivulo aquae cursu And by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgement was reversed for rivulut seâ— aque cursus lye not in demand nor doth a precipe lye of it nor can livery and seisin be made of it for it cannot be given in possession but as it appears by 12 H. 7. 4. the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land covered with water but an Ejectment will well lye by if a stang for a precipe lies of them and a woman shall be indowed of the third part of them as it is 11. E. 3. But if the Land under the water or River do not pertain to the Plaintiffe but the River onely then upon a disturbance his remedy is onely by Action upon the Case upon any diversion of it and not otherwise Which observe VVIlson versus Woddell Mich. 6. Jacobi The Grand-father of the Plaintiffe in an Ejectment being a Copy holder in fee made a surrender thereof to L Woddell in fee who surrendred it to the use of Margery I. for life who is admitted c. But L Woddell himself never was admitted The Grandfather and Father dye the Son who is Plaintiffe was admitted and enters upon the Land Margery being then in possession and the Defendant then living with her as a servant in those Tenements and this was the speciall verdict And Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe And the Court was of an opinion that the Defendant was found to be a sufficient Trespassor and Ejector though he be but a Servant to the pretended owner of the Land because the Verdict found that the Defendant did there dwell with Margery And in such case he had the true title and had made his entry might well bring his Action against Master or Servant at his election And perhaps the Master might withdraw himself that he could not be arrested And secondly it was adjudged that the surrender of J. S. of a Copy-hold is not of any effect untill J. S. be admitted Tenant And if I. S. before admittance surrender to a stranger who is admitted that that admittance is nothing worth to the estranger For J. S. had nothing himself and so he would passe nothing and the Admittance of his grantee shall not by implication be taken to be the admittance of himself for the admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by him and it was held that the right and possession remained still in him that made the surrender and that is descended to his Heir who was the Plaintiffe And they took a difference between an Heir to whom the Copy descended for he may surrender before admittance and it shall be good because he is by course of the Law foe the custome that makes him Heir
Writ of Error against Matthew upon a Judgement given in a Quare impedit against the King in the Common Pleas of the Church of A. and the Question was whether a double usurpation upon the King doth so put him out of Possession that he shall be forced to his Writ of Right and it was adjudged in the Common Pleas against the opinion of Anderson that he was put to his Writ of Right but a Writ of Error being brought upon that Judgement in the Common Pleas the Judgement was reversed by the opinion of Popham Yelverton Williams and Tamfeild Fennor being of a contrary opinion and they alleadged two Reasons first because the Right of Patronage and the Advowson it self being an Inheritance in the Crown upon Record the Law will so protect it that no force or wrong done by a Subject it shall be devested out of the King for there is a Record to intitle him but there is no matter of Record against him for a Presentationby a Subject is but matter in fait the which Act although it be mixed with the judicial Act of the Bishop to wit Institution yet it shall not prejudice the King being onely grounded upon the wrong of a Subject and the second Reason was because no man can shew when the Usurpation upon the King should commence and begin for it is not to be doubted but that the King after six Moneths passed if the Incumbent cy might have presented for plenarty is no plea against him and Nullnm tempus occurrit Regi and after that Usurpation upon the King the Court doubted not but that the Patronage was still in the King and Popham said that a Confirmation being made by the King to such a Presentee is good to establish his Possession against a Recovery in a Quare impedit by the King afterwards but that it should not inure to any purpose to amend the Estate of the Usurper for he gaines no Posaession by the Presentation against the King but the Release to him made by the King is void as to so much as is in posaession and during the life of the first Presentee the whole Court did not doubt but that the King might present and then the Death of the Incumbent could not make that to be an Usurpation which was not an Usurpation in his life for his Death is a Determination of the first wrong which will rather help then injure the King and Tanfeild said that so it had been resolved in the Common Pleas 23 24 Eliz. in one Yardleys Case for in that Case there was not any Induction for which reason Judgement was not entred but they were all of the same opinion as the Court then was and onely 43 E. 3. 14. 14 E. 3. and 18 E. 3. are against it and Popham said that a Quare impedit was by the Common Law but it was onely upon a Presentment to wit Induction but if the Incumbent was to be inducted then at the Common Law a Writ of Right of Advowson onely lies DIgby versus Fitzch Trin. 14. Jacobi rotulo It was said in this Case by Justice VVarburton that the Presentment is the Posaession in a Quare impedit as in Rent the receiving and in common the taking of the profits and in a Quare impedit one ought to shew in his Title a Presentation either by himself or one of those under whom the Plaintiff claimes as in a Writ of Right of an Advowson one must shew a Presentation in himself or in his Ancestors whose Heir he is plenarty in a Quare impedit shall be tried by the Bishop for the Church is full by Institution onely in common persons Cases but in the Kings Case the Church is not full untill the Clerk be inducted but whether a Church be void or not shall be tried by the Countrey for of Voidency the Countrey may take notice Actions upon Replevins IF the Cattel be distrained the party that owes them may have a Replevin either by Plaint or Writ at his pleasure and if it be by plaint in the countrey and the Bailiff return to the Sheriff that he cannot have the view of the Beasts to make deliverance then the Sheriff ought to inquire of that by Inquest of office and if it be found that the Beast be not to be had then he ought to award a Withernam and if the Sheriff will not do it then an Attachment shall issue against the Sheriff to the Coroners and after that a Distresse and if a Withernam be granted and a nihil returned upon the Withernam he shall have an alias plures and so infinitely and a second deliverance lies after a Withernam and note that sometimes a Withernam lies after a Withernam as when the Plaintiff is non-suit and after a Return habend and that the Beasts are not to be found that the Beasts of the Plaintiff are taken in Withernam and the Plaintiff appears and alleadges that the Defendant had the cattel first taken and prayes Delivery And if the Defendant when the Sheriffe comes to make replevin of the cattel claims property then at the return of that writ another writ de proprietate probanda shall issue to the Sheriff by which writ the Sheriffe is commanded that taking with him custodibus placitorum c. he shall enquire of the property And if it be found that the property was to the Plaintiff then a redeliverance shall be made the Plaintiff and an Attachment against the Defendant to answer for the contempt in taking and unjustly deteyning the cattell of the Defendant appear upon the plures withernam he shall gage deliverance presently And if the Defendant in Court claims the property and it be found against him the Plaintiff shall recover the value of the cattell and his dammages And if the Defendant plead in abatement of the writ that the property is in the Plaintiff and one other c. and the Plaintif confesse it by which the writ shall abate by an award upon the Role and a return habend be awarded to the Defendant yet the Plaintif shall have a new replevin and the return shall not be irreplegiable for the Statute of Westm the second doth not help a false writ or abatement of a writ but the Plaintif may have a new writ from time to time but it helps non-suits in replevin for if he be non-suit he shall not have a new replevin but a writ of second deliverance And if the Defendant upon the return habend adjudged for him cannot have the return of the Beasts and the Sheriff returns upon the return habend that the cattel first taken are dead he may have a Scire facias against the pledges and upon a nihil return upon that he may have a Scire facias against the Sheriff for insufficient pledges are no pledges and the party may relinquish his withernam and fall upon the pledges or the Sheriffe And if cattell be put into a Castle or Fortress the Sheriffe
City the Plaintiff surmising that the Sheriff and Coroners are Citizens of that City may pray a Venire facias to the next County of the body of the County or of the next Villiages in the next County And if the challenge of Kindred be not rightly alleadged in the challenge it matters not if it be Kindred and if a Venire facias be quashed because it was returned by the Under Sheriff who was Kin to him or other good cause it shall be quashed and the Venire facias shall be returned by the high Sheriff with words in it that the Under Sheriff shall not intermeddle with it And if the Array be challenged and affirmed the Defendant may after challenge the Poll and must shew his cause of challenge presently And if the Land in question lye in foure Hundreds if foure of any Hundred appeare it is good and note That the challenge of the Array shall be drawne in Paper and delivered presently after the Jury appeares and the Defendant is not bound to make good his challenge with these words Et hoc parat est ver iscare c. And those that try the principall challenge may also try the challenge upon the Tales if the King had been party alone no challenge was to be allowed but if the suit had been in the name of another who sued as well for the late King as for himselfe in a Writ to inquire of waste after a distress no challenge to the Poll lyes It is good cause to challenge a Juror because he was attainted in a conspiracy or attaint or if any Juror was put into the Pannell at the desire of the party it is good cause of challenge to the Array And if a Jury of two Counties and both Arrayes are challenged two of one County shall try the Array of that County and two of the other County shall try the Array of the other County and they shall not joyne untill they be sworne of the Principall and two of one Hundred and two of the other Hundred doe suffice if in Trespass the Defendant justifie as a Servant to the Lord and by his commandement It is good cause of challenge to the Juror that he is a Tenant to the Lord although the Lord be no party to the Record and if Process by challenge is awarded to the Coroners the Process afterwards shall not goe to the Sheriff although there be another Sheriff but after Judgement execution shall issue to the new Sheriff And where a man challenges the Polls of the principall Pannell he afterwards shall not challenge the Array of the Tales and if the Array be quashed it is entred upon Record but if it be affirmed then it is not entred If Trespass be done in diverse Townes in one Shire they may all be joyned in one Writ to wit why by force and armes the Closes and Houses of the Plaintiff at A. B. and C. have broken and c. WOlsey versus Sheppard Constable The Constable being Defendant justifies the Imprisonment by reason that the Plaintiff kept one Alehouse against the forme of a Statute of Queen Elizabeth and therefore by the warrant of two Justices he was committed to Prison and Issue was that he did not keep an Alehouse against the forme of the Statute aforesaid and indeed the Statute was made in Edw. 6. time and the Jury found that he did keep an Alehouse against the Statute in Edw. 6. time And the Court held the mistaking of the day of the Act is not prejudiciall by way of barr but by way of count it must be layd truly GLasbrook versus Einsey Pasch 16. Jacobi in Assault and Battery the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the next terme after the Writ of Venire facias was awarded the Defendants Attorney would have confessed the Action by Relicta verificatione which the Plaintiff did deny to receive having took out his Venire and that those Errors which had escaped in the proceedings by that confession were not holpen as they are after tryall and it was much controverted by the Court whether the Defendant without the consent of the Plaintiff might confesse the Action and the Court was in severall opinions but because the Plaintiff always prays for the confession it seemed he might refuse the confession and afterwards it was adjudged the confession should not be received because it appeared to the Court to be but a practice to lessen the Plaintiffs Damages COok versus Jenman Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 329. An Action of Trespass and Battery was brought the last day of October 10 Jacobi The Defendant as to the force and armes sayes nothing but pleads generally that he and one in the sayd last day of October did joyntly enter into the Plaintiffs at S. and did then and there assault the Plaintiff and that afterwards to wit such a day and yeare the said Plaintiff did by his Writing c. release c. the said R. of all Actions c. And avers it to be the same Trespass whereof the Plaintiff complained and the Plaintiff traverses without this that the Trespass c. was joyntly done and demurrer upon this Plea pretending the Trespass is severall and not joynt and so no satisfaction but it was held a good Plea for the Battery was joynt or severall at the Plaintiffs election to have his Action against one or other And a satisfaction by one is a satisfaction for all and the Plaintiff cannot have severall dammages but one dammage against them all and he hath his choice as in Heydens Case to have the best dammages COok versus Darston Mich. 15. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought by the Committee of a Lunatique being a Copy-holder to whom the Lord had committed the Lunatique and a stranger sowed the Land and the question was whether the Committee or the Lunatique should have the Action and the Court held the Action should be brought in the name of the Lunatique YOunge versus Bartram Battery brought by the Plaintiff against Husband and Wife and two others the Woman and one of the others without the Husband plead not guilty and the Husband and and the other plead Son assault demesne and tryed and alleadged in arrest of Judgement because the Wife pleaded without her Husband and Judgement stayed and a Repleader by the whole Court CRogate versus Morris If a stranger come over a Common the Lord may have an action but not the Commoner for the petty Trespas multiplicity of actions wil not take away my action except it be a damage whereby I lose my Common I can have no action If a stranger come and eat up my Common a Free-holder may bring an Assize of common for it is a Disseisin for a Disseisin of Common is the taking away the profits of the Common And an action of case will lye against the Lord for cutting down the body of the tree when the Tenant should have the loppings if the Commoner may have his Common
John W. was seised of three hundred Acres of Land in R. aforesayd of which the place in question called G. is parcell and that 30 H. 6. the sayd John Whithing reciting that whereas N. de la moore 31 E. 1. the Plaintiffs Ancestor Son and heire of H. de la Moore grants to William de la Moore Corsum aque which runs from W. thorow the middle of the Land of the sayd M. And shews further that by meane discents it discends to the Defendant c and so justifies The Plaintiff replies if W. S. was seised of the place where c. and made a Lease thereof to him for yeares and traverses that the three hundred Acres of Land were parcell and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Defendant had not made any answer to the Plaintiff and so no Issue joyned for the Plaintiff layes the Trespass in G. in L. the Defendant sayes he was seised of three hundred Acres of which the place c. was parcell but he conveys no title to himselfe but by a course of water thorow the middle of the Land of M. but whose Land that was it doth not appeare and is another thing and therefore an Issue upon that which the Defendant doth not claime is voyd and although Issue be joyned yet it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. for it is as no Issue when it is of a thing not in question but if the Issue had been of a matter in question although ill joyned yet it is ayded as Nichols Case is 5 Rep. 43. upon payment pleaded without Deed And Doddridge and Crooke Justices agreed to that but Haughton seemed to incline that it was an Issue and so helped by the Statute FVller against Pettesworth Knight Mich. 11. Iacobi Fuller brought an Action of Trespass against Pettesworth and his Servant for breaking his Close and taking one Cow in D. in the County of B. One of the Defendants plead not guilty the Servant pleads that the Plaintiff holds of Sir Peter P. as of c. in the County aforesayd and for services behinde by the command of his Master he seised the Cow c. The Plaintiff traverses c. and one Venire facias was awarded out of both the Villiages and being found for the Plaintiff it was new moved in Arrest of Judgement by Finch of Grays Inne that two Venire facias ought to have been awarded because the Issue is of things in severall places for if there be severall Issues in one place one Jury shall be onely Impannelled but if in severall places for severall things locall severall Juries shall be but the whole Court held that one Jury onely should be impannelled and one Venu onely should be awarded out of both the places and it is all one as if it had been in one place but it had been otherwise if in severall Counties as 41 Eliz. DAme Petts Case Mich. 11. Iacobi In an Action of Trespass brought by the Lady Petts upon not guilty pleaded the Jury being at Bar the matters following came in question upon the evidence by Haughton and the other Justices If A. be seised of a great Close where c. and a Stranger enter and occupy part of the Close yet notwithstanding A. continues the posaession of the residue whether this shall preserve his possession in the residue and he shall be judged to be in possession of that because it is an intire thing 5 E. 4. 2. and 8 E. 3. 13. Seisin of part of the services is the seisin of the whole and so is Bettisworths Case 2. Rep. The possession of the House is the possession of the Land for the Lessee against his Lessor of that which passes by one demise But if a stranger enter and sever part by metes and bounds nothing is wrought by the possession of the residue Another question was this A Lessee for yeares of ten Acres paying twenty shillings Rent the Lessee is outed of parcell yet he payed all the Rent to him in Reversion the Lessor having notice of the enter whether this protects the Reversion so that nothing is gained by the entry but the interest of the Lessee and shall be no disseisin And Yelverton at the Barr was of opinion that it should be no Disseisin Rithen Sect. 590. saith That so long as the particular Tenant continues his possession so long is the reversion in the Lessor for in such case as to the Lessor the Lessee shall be alwayes deemed in possession by force of the Lease and the reason why the Lessee shall be adjudged in posaession of all as to the Lessor is because the Lessor cannot have notice of the alteration of the posaession for when the Lessee by his owne Act or sufferance doth a thing in alteration of the posaession of which by common intendment the Lessor cannot have or take notice there the Law will not prejudice the Lessor And see for that Farmers Case in the third Rep. 79. If Tenant for life levy a Fine having Land in the same Villiage this shall not bind the Lessor if five yeares pass before he take notice of what Land the Fine is levied And the same Law if Tenant for life make a Feofment to one who hath land within the same Village levies a Fine and in this cafe if the Lessee hath continually payd all his Rent the Lessor cannot intend or suspect but that the Lessee is absolute Tenant of the whole and in Farmers Case it is sayd That if the Lessor levy a Fine the Disseisee is barred without claime for it is impossible but he to whom the wrong is done shall presently know it But if he that hath the particular estate by Grant or trust reposed in him shall secretly practice although he pay the Rent and continue posaession yet it is otherwise But the Reporters opinion was that if in the principall case no Rent had been reserved then the Reversion had been devested by the entry for there had been no act done to mislead or hinder the knowledge thereof and also although rent be reserved and all payd yet if he had express notice thereof the reversion had been devested And secondly if it should be a Disseisin a great mischeif would follow for if a discent should be it would take away the Lessors entry and yet no fault in them because in common presumption the Lessee alwayes continued Tenant but Cook of a contrary opinion for he said it could not be denyed but that the Lessee is out of the posaession and then it follows of necessity that the Lessor must be out of his reversion And as to notice to make his claime he must take notice at his perill 4 M. Dyer 143. b. But note that this is when the Law intends that he may take notice which it will not intend in this Case Haughton was of opinion that it was a
H. 6. 46. be it true or not and if it be not true the party may have his action against the officer which doth it and it was adjudged in Fullers Case in the Kings Bench that the high Commissioners may imprison and impose a fine for Heresie and Schisme and it was also resolved that Poligamy before the Statute of the 3. of King James was punishable before the high Commissioners for this was an heynous crime otherwise the Statute would not have made it Felony and he said that it was agreed in the time of the last Queen Elizabeth that the high Commissioners should not meddle with any thing but only those five that is Heresie Schisme Poligamy Incest and Recusancy and with no others and it was moved that a Writ De causione admittenda lieth for that they would not allow of the submissions And the Justices would consider of that and the Prisoner was remanded and it was adjourned And at an other day it was moved by Nicholls Sergeant that the high Commissioners supposed for that that the Statute of 5. El. gives authority to the Queen and to her heires and successors to grant Commission to Visite Reforme Redresse Order Correct and amend all Errours Heresies Schismes Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever and that the Commissioners may execute all the premises according to the Tenure and effect of the said Letters Patents that by that they might fine and imprison at their pleasure But Coke chiefe Justice said that it appeares by the preamble of the said Statute that after the Statute was in the â—5 yeare of the Raigne of King Henry the 8. by which the ancient Jurisdictions Authorities superiorities and Prehemenences were united or restored to the Crown and by meanes of the said Statute his Subjects were continually kept in good order and were dâ—sburthened of divers great and intollerable charges and exactions before that time unlawfully taken and exacted untill such time as the said Statute of 25. H. 8. was repealed by the Statute of 1. and 2. of Phillip and Mary which said Statute of 1. and 2 of Phillip and Mary should be repealed and void by which it appeares that the Kings Subjects were greviously burthened with grevious and intollerable charges and exactions and yet in this time of usurped power of the Pope doth not challenge that he might Commit or Imprison or Fine in any case but in the cases especially mentioned in the last Case aforesaid and for that all the usurped power was annexed to the Imperiall Crown the which he called the clause of annexing the second was the clause of deputation and this was the clause of the Statute by which the Queen hath power to grant Commission to such persons being naturall borne Subjects as her Majesty her Heires or Successors shall thinke fit to Exercise Use and Execute under her Majesty all manner of Jurisdictons Privelidges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall Jurisdiction in all her Majesties Dominions and to Visit Reforme Redresse Order Correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schismes Abuses Offences Contemps and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Jurisdictions can or may be lawfull Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or amended and the third he calleth the clause of execution by which power and authority is given to the Commissioners to Exercise Use and execute all the premises according to the Tenure and effect of the said Letters Patents And it seems it was not the intention of the Statute to give any power to the Commissioners which was not given to the Queen by this Statute for the clause of deputation shall not be more ample then the clause of annextion and then the clause of execution refers to the first too clauses as it appears by the words of that that is to use and execute all the premises according to the said Letters Patents and the premises are expounded by the first clauses that is Errors Heresies Schismes c. And the said Letters Patents refer all Letters Patents before mentioned where the persons are appointed to be naturall borne Subjects and the materiall manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminences Ecclesiasticall Siprituall and to Visit Reforme Order Redresse Correct and Amend all such Errors Heresies c. Which by any manner of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be Reformed Redressed Ordered Corrected Restrained or Amended c. So that it cannot be intended that they may proceed in any other forme but only according to the Ecclesiasticall power and Jurisdiction and no other for otherwise they may Fine Imprison and ransome any man at their pleasures which was never intended by the makers of the said Statutes But only to transfer the Power and Authority which at that time was in the Bishops which then were Papistes to the high Comissioners the which the King may alter at his pleasure and so he cannot the Bishops for they are nor displaceable after their consecration Michaelmas 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Place A Man was cited before the High Commissioners for Poligamy which was agreed to be a cause examinable punishable there and upon examination of the Cause the Defendant was acquit and yet he was censured to pay costs though that he was acquitted of the Crime and this Court was moved for a Prohibition and it was denyed for they may hold plea of Principall and then Prohibition shall not be granted for the accessary and the Lord Coke said that they have just cause of lawfulnesse of punishing the offence though they have not just cause of the Deed and peradventure it was very suspitious that he was guilty and for that he hath only God for his revenger Parkers Case THree were cyted to appeare in the Court at Chester for Tenths and treble damages demanded and also in the Libell it is suggested that the Land is barren and very unfruitfull and Prohibition was awarded against those joyntly and yet it was agreed that they ought to count upon the Prohibition severally Penns Case PEnn Parson of Ryton in the County of Warwicke sued for Tithes in the Ecclesiasticall Court before the Ordinary and the Defendant here pleads that the same Parson was presented upon a Symonicall contract and for that his Presentation Admission and Institution were void by the Statute of 31. Eliz. And the Symony was for that that it was agreed between the said Parson and another man that was Brother to the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry who was Patron of the same Church That if he should procure three severall grants of three severall next avoydances to them severally granted to surrender their said severall grants and procure the said Bishop to present him when the Church became void that being then full of an old Parson being deadly sick that he would make to him a lease of parcell of the Tithes of his Rectory And the brother
cheife Justice and Williams Justice thought fit that he should not have a Prohibition for as well the reparations of the Church as the ornaments of that are meerely spirituall with which this Court hath nothing to do and Flemming said that such Tax is not any charge issuing out of Land as a rent but every person is taxed according to the value of the land but Yelverton and Fenner to the contrary that a Prohibition did lye for the same diversity which hath been conceived at the Barr and also they said that he which dwells in another Parish doth not intend to have benefit by the ornaments of the Church or for the Sextons wages and for that it was agreed by all by the cheif Justice Williams and the others that if Tax be made for the reparation of Seates of the Church that a forrainer shall not be taxed for that because he hath no benefit by them in particuler and the Court would advise Michaelmas 8. Jacobi in banco Regis HEnry Yelverton moved the Court for a Prohibition to the Admiralty Court and the case was there was a bargain made between two Merchants in France and for not performance of this bargain one libelled against the other in the Admiralty Court And upon the Libell it appeared that the bargain was made in Marcellis in France and so not upon the deep Sea and by consequence the Court of Admiralty had nothing to do with it and Flemming cheife Justice would not grant Prohibition for though the Admiralty Court hath nothing to doe with this matter yet insomuch as this Court cannot hold plea of that the contract being made in France no Prohibition but Yelverton and Williams Justices to the contrary for the bargain may be supposed to be made at Marcellis in Kent or Norfolke or other County within England and so tryable before us and it was said that there were many presidents to that purpose and day given to search for them Note upon a motion for a Prohibition that if a Parson contract with me by word for keeping back my owne tithes for 3. or 4. years this is a good bargain by way of Retayner and if he sue me for my Tithes in the Ecclesiasticall Court I shall have a Prohibition upon this Composition But if he grant to me the Tithes of another though it be but for a yeare this is not good unlesse it be by Deed see afterwards Westons Case A Merchant hath a Ship taken by a Spaniard being Enemy and a moneth after an English Merchant with a Ship called little Richard retakes it from the Spanyard and the owner of the Ship sueth for that in the Admiralty Court And Prohibition was granted because the Ship was gained by Battaile of an Enemy and neither the King nor the Admirall nor the parties to whom the property was before shall have that according to 7 Ed. 4. 14. See 2. and 3. Phillip and Mary Dyer 128. b. Michael 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Kings Bench. A Man sues an Executor for a Legacy in the Spirituall Court where the Executor becommeth bound by his deed obligatory to the party to pay that at a certain day befoâ—e which this suit was begun in the Spirituall Court and the Executor moved for a Prohibition and it was granted for the Legacy is extinct but by Williams if the Bond had been made to a stranger the Legacy is not extinct Fenner seemed that it was so Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. Robotham and Trevor THe Bishop of Landaff granted the Office of his Chancellor-ship to Doctor Trevor and one Griffin to be exercised by them either joyntly or severally and it was informed by Serjeant Nicols that Dr. Trevor for 350. l. released all his right in the said Office to Griffin so that Griffin was the sole Officer after died and that after that the Bishop granted the same Office to one Robotham being a Practitioner in the Civil Law for his life And that Doctor Trevor surmising that he himselfe was the sole Officer by survivor-ship made Doctor Lloyd his Substitute to execute the said Office for him and for that that he was disturbed by Robotham the said Doctor Trevor being Substitute to the Judge of the-Arches granted an Inhibition to inhibite the said Robotham for the executing of the said Office and the Libell contains That one Robotham hindered and disturbed Doctor Lloyd so that he could not execute the said Office And against this proceeding in the Arches a Prohibition was prayed and day was given to Doctor Trevor to shew cause for why it should not be granted And they urged that the Office was spirituall and for that the discussing of the Right of that appertaineth to the Ecclesiasticall Courts But all the Judges agreed That though the Office was Spirituall to the exercising of that yet to the Right it was Temporall and shall be tryed at the Common Law for the Party bath a Free-hold in this see 4. and 5. of Phil. and Mary Dyer 152. 9. Hunts Case for the Office of the Register in the Admiralty and an Assize brought for that and so the cheife Justice saith which was adjudged in the Kings Bench for the Office of the Register to the Bishop of Norwich between Skinner and Mynga which ought to be tryed at the Common Law And so Blackleeches Case as Warberton saith in this Court for the Office of Chancellor to the Bishop of Gloucester which was all one with the Principall case And they said that the Office of Chancellor is within the statute of Edw. 6. for buying of Offices And Warberton also cited the case of 22. H. 6. where action upon the case was maintained for not maintaining of a Chaplain of the Chamber in the private Chappel of the Plaintiff very well though it was spirituall for the Plaintiff hath inheritance in that But if it had been a parochial Church otherwise it shall be for the infiniteness of the Suits for then every Parishoner may have his action And so in manner of Tything the prescription is temporall and this is the cause which shall be tryed at the Common Law and Prohibition was granted according to the first Rule Hillary 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. AN Attorney of the Kings Bench was sued in the Arches for a Legacy being Executor as it seems and it was urged that hee inhabited in the Diocess of Peterborough And for that that he was here remaining in London in the Tearm time he was sued here and upon that a Prohibition was prayed and it was granted accordingly For as the Lord Coke said Though that he were remaining here yet he was resident and dwelling within the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Peterborough and he said that if one Lawyer cometh and remaineth during the Tearm in an Inne of Court or one Attorney in an Inne of Chancery but dwelleth in the Country in another Diocesse he shal not be sued in the Arches Master Brothers
observed with the feare of God And another Canon That custome of not Tything or of the manner of Tything if they paid lesse then the tenth part see Panormitan upon that seek of the Case between Vesey and Weeks in the Exchequer upon the Statute of 27. H. 8. for the dissolution of small Monasteries Also the Lord Darcy in quo warranto was discharged of purveyance by Patent granted by the King Edward 6. of such priviledges which such a one had and by the same reason the King shall be discharged of Tythes by the Act of Parliament also he remembred the Book of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. to be resolved in the point and also 18. Eliz. Dyer the Parson of Pekerks case 399. 16. upon the Statute of 31. H. 8. and so concluded and prayed judgment for the Plaintiffe and that the Prohibition should stand and it was adjourned Trinity 9. Jacobi Priddle against Napper UPon a speciall verdict the cause was The Prior of Mountague was seised of an Advowson and of divers acres of Land and the 20. of H. 8. the King licensed him to appropriate that and 21. H. 8. the Bishop which was Ordinary assented and after that the Church became void that the Prior might hold it appropriate and 27. H. 8. the Incumbent dyed so that the Appropriation took effect and was united to the possession of the Rectory Appropriate and also of the Land out of which Tythes were due to the said Prior in respect of the said Rectory and then the Priory is dissolved and the Impropriation and the Lands also given to the King by the Statute of 31. H. 8. which granted the Impropriation to one and the Lands to another And if the Patentee of the Land shall hold it discharged of the payment of Tythes in respect of that unity was the question And Harris Serjeant for the Defendant in the Prohibition that the unity ought to be perpetuall and lawfull as it was adjudged between Knightley and Spencer 2 Coke 47. a. cyted in the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies case and for that unity by or by lease for years or for two or three years as in the case at the Barre shall not be sufficient to make discharge of the payment of Tithes and so it was adjudged Pasche 40. Eliz. Rot. 454. between Chyld and Knightley that is that the unity of the possession ought to be of time that the memory of man doth not run to the contrary And in the argument of this Case it was said by Popham cheif Justice that if no Tithes were paid after the Statute that then it shall be intended that no Tithes were paid before the Statute and so he concluded and prayed Consulation see 2 Coke 48. a. The Arch-bishop of Canterbury for the reason by which unity of possession is discharged of payment of Tithes that is for that that some houses of Religion were discharged by Buls of the Pope and many were founded before the Councell of Lateran and for that it shall be infinite and in a manner impossible to find by any searches the means by which they are discharged the unity is no discharge in respect of it selfe for the reasons aforesaid and none may know if Tithes were paid or not before the union And if Tithes be not paid in time of memory by a house of Religion and they lease of that for years and receive Tiths then the lease expiâ—es two yeares before the Dissolution of the same house the King shall not be discharged of the payment af Tithes by the Statute of 31. H. 8. by Coke and Walmesley against Warburton and Foster Dorwood against Brikinden UPon the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. a man libelled in the Spiritual Court for Wood cut and a Consultation was granted Yet the Defendant in the Court Christian might have a new Prohibition if it appeared the first Consultation was not duly granted So if a man libell for Tithes for divers years and Prohibition is granted for part of the years and after that a Consultation is awarded yet the Plaintiffe may have a new Prohibition for the residue of the time notwithstanding the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. and that it be upon one selfe same libel Admirall Court NOte that the Admirall cannot imprison for any offence but if the Court hath Jurisdiction of the Originall cause and sentence is there given this sentence may be executed upon the Land 19. H. 6. But no Ordinary may meddle out of his own Diocesse 8. H. 6. 3. 2. H. 4. The Parson of Salt-ashes Case That this Court tooke notice of Jurisdiction of all Ecclesiasticall Courts and Ordinaries for they write unto them for tryall of Bastardy and Matrimony And there are 3. Legates First a born Legate as the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Yorke Remes and Pylazam Second a Latere as all Cardinalls The third a Lagate given as those which have their Authority by commission and Lynwood Provinc saith that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as Arch-Bishop cannot meddle out of his Diocesse of Canterbury and his Peculiars but as a Legate borne which is in respect of his Office he hath prerogative and if a man inhabit in one Diocesse and ought to pay tithes to another which inhabits in another Diocesse there the Ordinary ought to prefer the suit to the Metrapolitan but seek what Ordinary shall transfer it Trinity 9. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Jones against Boyer HEnry Jones Parson of Bishopton sued Bowen the Executor of Holland the last Incumbent in the Arches for Dilapidations upon which a Prohibition was prayed upon the statute of 23. H. 8. for that that it was sued out of his Diocesse which was Saint Davids but it appears that the Vicar generall of the same Ordinary hath made generall request to the Metropolitan to determine that without shewing any cause speciall and if the inferiour Ordinary may transmit any cause but only for the causes mentioned in the statute of 23. H. 8. And if the causes ought to be expressed in the Instrument was the question note that the generall words of the statute of 23 H. 8. chap. 9. Rastall Citation 2. are afterwards many particulars or in case that any Bishop or any inferiour Judge having under him Jurisdiction in his own right and title or by commission make request or instance to the Arch-Bishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge to take treat examine or determine the matter before him or his substitute And that to be done in case only where the Law civill or Canon doth affirm execution of such request or instance of Jurisdiction to be lawfull or tollerable and for the better discussing of this question the Judges had appointed to heare two Doctors of the Civill Law which at this day attended the Court the first Doctor Martin said that these generall words have reference to the Executor and not to the maker of the request and this request may be made for all causes but ought to be made to him which hath
41 Assis The case was this there was a custome that a Park hath paid two shillings a yeare and the sholder of every Deere which was killed for tithes and in consideration of that had been time out of minde c. Discharged of Tithes and now the Park is dis-parked and it was moved by Harris Serjeant that this dissolves the custome for when part of the custome is dissolved by the party himself this determines the residue for it is adjudged if the Land be discharged of tithes by reall Composition then if he sue for tithes in the spirituall Court prohibition by the common Law was granted without other suggestion but only that he sued there for Lay Fee and it was said that it was adjudged 5. Jacobi that where it was a custome that so many of the bucks shall be paid for tithes in such a park yeerly and after the park shall be disparked yet that remaines discharged of Tithes and the custome remaines and Coke cheif Justice seemed that tithes are due by divine right but not what part for if the tenth part be due dy divine right then all Customes are void Trinity 11. Jacobi 1612. in the common Bench. NOte by the Statute of 50. Edw. 3. If a Consultation be once duly granted no new Prohibition shall be afterwards granted upon the said Libell But if it be apparent matter that the first was not duely granted then a new Prohibition may be granted by the whole Court and with this agreed the book of Entries in the Title of Prohibition But this is to be intended to the Spirituall Judge and it seems that the Admirall is out of this Statute see 22. H. 7. Bushes Case NOte that it was agreed in this Case that if a Parsonage be impropriate and the Vicaridge be endowed and difference be between the Parson and the Vicar concerning the endowment that shall be tryed by the Ordinary for the persons and the cause also are spirituall And there the Vicar sues the Parson for Tythes and he suggests the manner of tything and prays a Prohibition and it was granted and after upon solemn argument Consultation was granted in so much that the manner of tytheing did not come in question but the Endowment of the Vicaridg only for that is the Elder Brother as the Lord Coke said and this was cyted to be adjudged by Coke Prohibition Agars Case AGar of Kingston upon the Thames was sued in the Ecclesiasticall Court for beating of his Wife and for calling her Whore and was sentenced by them to pay to his Wife three shillings a weeke for her Alimony and divers Fynes were imposed upon him for not performing of that and also provided that hee should enter into a Recognizance for performance of that and a Prohibition was granted and also a Habeas Corpus to deliver Agar out of Prison Michael 8. Jacobi Blackdens Case BLackden marryed one within age and after disagreed so that they might marry else-where and the first Wife had Issue by other Husbands and dyed and Blackden was sued in the Ecclesiasticall Court by an Informer supposing he had marryed a womon living his other Wife And Blackden proves there the disagreement by which he had sentence for him against the Informer and yet hee was taxed to give to the Informer twenty markes for costs which hee refused to pay and moved to have a Prohibition which was granted For it was injustice to allow Costs to one which had vexed him without cause and when they had given sentence against the Informer Parkers Case Michael 8. Jacobi PArker being a Parson of a Church was deprived by the High Commissioners for Drunkenness and moved for Prohibition but it was not granted and he was directed to have action for the Tythe and upon that the validity of the Sentence shall be drawn in question Doctor Conways Case Michael 8. Jacobi COnway and his Wife were sued before the High Commissioners that is to say the Wife for Adultery with Sir Michael Blunt and the Husband for connivency to that as a Wittall and they were sentenced there for that and costs taxed in July and after the general pardon came and pardoned all offences before the 9. day of November before and upon that the Doctor moved for Prohibition and had that because the offences were not enormious crimes and the Statute and the Commission upon that is to give power to them to proceed upon enormious crimes and to Fyne and Imprison for them Also resolved that the generall pardon hath discharged the Costs though that the Costs were taxed before the Pardon was in Print And this by the relation that hee had at the day before the Costs were taxed Cradocks Case Michael 7. Jacobi CRadock bought diverse things upon the body of the County which concerned the furnishing of a Ship as Cordage Powder and Shot and the party of whom they were bought sued Cradocke for the money in the Admirall Court and Prohibition was granted for the Statute of Richard 2. is that the Admirall shall not meddle with things made within the Realm but only of things made upon the Sea and that no Contract made upon the Land shall be held there And here the Contract was at St. Katherines stairs in the body of the County for it was said that St. Katherines is within London and the Major of London hath jurisdiction upon the Thames as farre as Wapping And if a Murther be committed upon the Thames this shall not be tryed by the Admirall and here Terry and Peacocks Case was cyted which is related in Binghams case in the 2. Reports and also in Sir Henry Constables Case in the 5. Reports and it was cyted to be adjudged that if a Contract be made at Roan in France that shall not be tryed in the Admirall Court for that it was made upon the Land and not upon the high Sea Pasche 8. Jacobi Regis Common Eench Gaudyes case with Doctor Newman THe Parishioners of the Parish of Alphage in Canterbury prescribed to have the Nomination and election of their Parish Clark and the Parson of the Parish by force of a Canon upon voidance of the place of the Parish Clark elected one to the Office the parishoners by force of their Custome elected Cundy the Parson supposing this election to be Irreguler for that it was against the Canon sued Cundy before Doctor Newman Chancellor of Canterbury and the said Cundy was by Sentence deprived of the Clark-ship of the Parish and the Clark of the Parish admitted Cundy moved for a Prohibition and had it granted by all the Court for it was held that one Parish Clark is a meer lay man and ought to be deprived by them that put him in and no others and if the Ecclesiasticall Court meddle with deprivation of the Parish Clark they incura Premunire and the Canon which willeth that the Parson shall have election of the Parish Clark is meerly void to take away the Custome that any Parish had to
of his confirmation and not by the first see 11. R. 2. Grants 9. Ed. 3. 4. 12. R. 2 Feoffments 58. See Perkins fol. 8. b 9. a. Grants 10. Eliz. Dyer 279. 4. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Styles against Baxter STyles brought an Action upon the case against Baxter for calling him perjured man the Defendant justified that he was perjured in such a Court in such a deposition and so pleaded that certainly and it was found for the Defendant at the Nisi prius and Judgment was given accordingly and the Defendant afterwards published the same words of the Plaintiff upon which he brought a new Action for the new publication in which the Defendant pleaded in Barr the first Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it was adjudged without any Contradiction that it was a good Barr. Hillari 8. Jacobi 1610. In the common Bench. Andrewe against Ledsam in the Star Chamber ANdrewe exhibited his bill in the Star Chamber against Ledsam the matter Andrew being a rich Usurer delivered to Ledsam being a Scriâ—ener one thousand pound to be imployed for him for Interest that is for ten pound for the use of every hundred pound for every yeare Ledsam being a Prodigall man as it seemes spent the Money and delivered to Andrewe diverse severall obligations every of them containing three severall persons well known to be sufficient being some of them Knights others Gentlemen and Esquires of great Estates and the other good Citizens without exceptions were bound to Andrewe in two hundred pound for the payment of one hundred sixty pound to Andrew at a day to come within six Moneths then next comming as Andrew had used before to lend his Money and delivered the Obligations with Seales unto them and the names of the parties mentioned to be bound by that subscribed and his own name also subscribed as witnessing the sealing and delivery of them as a publique Notary aâ— the good and lawfull obligations of the Parties which were mentioned in them where indeed the parties mentioned in them had not any notice of any of them But Ledsam had forged and counterfeited them as he hath confessed upon his Examination upon Interrogatories administred by the Plaintiff in this Court and at the hearing of the Cause and sentence of that it was moved if Ledsam shaâ—l loose both his Eares or but one for if it be but one forgery then by the Statute of 5. Eliz. Admitting that the Bill is grounded upon this Statute he shall loose an Eare and pay the double dammageâ— and cost to the party greeved And also if Andrew being but the Obligee and not any of the parties in whose names the Obligations were forged if he be such a party greived which shall have double costs and dammages and these doubts were resolved by Coke cheife Justice of the Common Bench where they were moved and Flemming cheif Justice of the Kings Bench that Ledsam should loose but one eare for that shall be taken as one forgery for that it was made at one time and also that Andrew was the party greived within the Statute but Coke said that the Bill was generall that is against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and not precisely upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. For he said that when a Bill is founded upon an Act of Parliament that this ought to containe all the branches which are mentioned in the Act the which wants in this Bill but insomuch that it was adjudged in Parliament what punishment such offenders shall have they inflicted the same punishment which is appointed by the Statute and added to that that he should be Imprisoned till he found good Suerties for his good behaviour and also that hee shall be brought to every one of the Kings Courts at Westminster with great Papers in his hatt containing his offence in Capitall letters but the Lord Chancellor expounded the double dammages in such manner that is that they shall not be intended double Interest but only the Principall Debt Note that if Execution be directed to a Sheriffe to Arrest any man or to make Execution within a Liberty And the Sheriffe direct his Warrant to a Bayliffe of the Liberty for to make Execution of the Processe which makes it and after is a Fugitive and not able to answer for that the Lord of the Franchise shall answer for that and shall be liable to answer for his Bayliffe by all the Justices Burdett against Pix IN Debt upon a single Bill by Burdett against John Pix as administrator of Freewen the case was this that is Freewen was bound in an Obligation of thirty four pound to Burdett the Plaintiff and was also bound to one William Pix in 80. l. Freewen dyed Intestate and the Letters of Administration of his Goods were Committed after his Death to the said John Pix the Defendant and the said William Pix also made the said John Pix the Defendant his Executor and died and the Defendant in this Action pleads that the said Freewen was indebted to the said William Pix and that he was his Executor and that he had Goods of the said Freewens sufficient to satisfie the said debt the which he retained for the satisfaction of that and that over that he hath not of his to satisfie him upon which the Plaintiff Demâ—…or that that the Defendant doth not plead that he hath â—…is election to retaine the said goods for the satisfaction of â—…own said Debt before the Action brought and by all the Justices he ought to make his election before the bringing of the Action otherwise he shall be charged with the other Debt See Woodward and Darcyes Case Commentaries 184. a. and 4. Cook 30. Coulters Case Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Bone against Stretton THe case was this A man seised of two Acres of Land makes a Lease for years of one Acre to one and another Lease for yeares of the other Acre to another and then he enters and makes a Feoffment and severall Liveryes upon the severall Acres and one of the Lessees being present doth not assent to the said Livery and the use of the said Feoffment was not the use of his last Will and then he declares his last Will and by that recites the said Feoffment and then declares the use of that to be to the use of himself for life the remainder over to a stranger and after the Tenant for years which did not assent to the Livery grants his Estate to the Feoffor and the Feoffor dies and Nicholls Serjeant moved first That this enures as a grant of a reversion and that the grant of the perticuler Tenant enures first as an Attornement and then as a surrender of his Estate as if it had been an expresse surrender and all the Justices agreed that this doth not enure to make Attornement and surrender as expresse surrender will for an expresse surrender admits the reversion to be in the Grantee to whom the surrender is made
or Geldings and no more and because the Beasts aforesaid in the narration aforesaid specified over and above the aforesaid other three Mares or Geldings the aforesayd time in which c. were in the aforesayd place in which c the Grasse then growing there eating and the Common of pasture of the sayd Robert Pargiter overcharging and doing damage to the sayd Robert there the sayd Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth wel avow and the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter doe well acknowledge the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. and justly c. they then doing damage there c. And the aforesayd Robert Kenrick saith That neither the sayd Robert Pargiter for the reason before alleadged the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place in which c. can justly avow nor the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter for the same reason the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. justly can acknowledge Because by protestation that he the sayd Robert Kenrick and all those whose estate the sayd Robert Kenrick now hath and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. had in the sayd Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. time out of minde had not nor used to have or were accustomed every yeare at the first day of August called Lammas day and from thence to the next Feast of the Parification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesayd place in which c. onely for three Horses Mares or Geldings and not more in manner and forme as the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips above have alleadged for Plea the sayd Robert Kenrick sayth That he long before the time of the taking of the Beasts aforesayd and also at the same time of the taking c. was seised of the Mannor of Kings Sutton with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton and Astrop in the County aforesayd whereof the aforesayd Messuage and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. are and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. and also time out of mind c. were parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and the aforesayd House and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances thereof c. and of the taking and likewise time out of mind were parcell of the Demesne Lands of the Mannor of Kings Sutton aforesayd And the sayd Robert Kenrick so of the Mannor aforesayd with the appurtenances in manner aforesayd appearing seised the sayd Robert before the sayd time in which c. put his Beasts aforesayd which then were the proper Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick upon the aforesayd House and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances lying and rising in the aforesayd place in which c. to eate the Grafs there growing in the sayd place in which c. called Great Greens parcell c. the Grass in the same then growing feeding and the aforesayd Beasts were in the place aforesayd untill the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the aforesayd fourth day of August the seventh yeare aforesayd at Kings Sutton aforesayd in the County aforesayd at Great Greene parcell c. took the sayd Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick and those unjustly detained against Sureties and Pledges untill c. as he above against those complaines and this he is ready to verifie whereof and from which the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place c. further acknowledge the sayd Robert Kenrick demands Judgment and his damages by reason of the taking and unjust detaining of those beasts to be adjudged unto him c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillips say that the aforesaid Plea of the said Robert Kenrick above in the Bar avowed pleaded and matter therein contained is very insufficient in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the said John from just acknowledging the taking of the Beasts aforesaid to have and shut up and that he to the said plea in manner and forme aforesaid pleaded hath no need not by the Law of the Land shall be held to answer and this they are ready to averr whereof for default of a sufficient plea of the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in this part the said Robert and John as before demand Judgement and Returne of the Beasts aforesaid together with their Damages c. To them to be adjudged c. And the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in respect he hath sufficient matter in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the aforesaid John from justly acknowledging the taking of the said Beasts to be shut out as above alledged which he is reaoy to verify which truly matter of the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John do not answer according to their verifying they altogether refuse to admit as before and demand Judgment and their Damages occasioned by the taking and unjust detaining of the said Beasts to be adjudged to them c. And because c. Upon the pleadings the Case was thus a Freeholder prescribs to have common in parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor for six Horses and other Cattel in certain Land from Lammas to Candlemas that the Lord of the Mannor hath used to have the said Parcell of Land in severall to his owne use from Candlemas to Lammas and in consideration of that the said Lord hath used to have Common in the said parcell of Land for Horses only and not more and the Lord unjustly puts in other Beasts then the said three Horses in the said parcel of Land and surcharged the Common and the Free-holder distrayned them doing Damage and the Lord brings a Replevin and it was argued that prescription was not good for that that Free-holder claimes that as Common without number in his severall Soyle the Grantee cannot exclude the owner of the Soile 12 H. 8. Brooke so of him which hath Common Fishing in the severall of another he cannot exclude him which hath the severall 18 H. 6. 16. And it is not like to the Case of the time of Edward the first prescription the 55. Where is Prescription that the Owner of the Soile shall be excluded from his Common for part of the yeare for there the other claimes all the Vesture of the Land and so may well exclude the Lord but not when he claimes it but as Common but it was agreed that by Lawes by the Commoners consent they may order that their great Cattell shall be put in in such Feild only untill such a Feast and after that for sheep and swine and this is good as it appears by 46 Ed. 3. 25. And Coke cheife Justice said that such prescription to have Common and to exclude the Owner of the Soyle is not good and he saith that so it hath been adjudged between Whyte of Shirland 31 Eliz. And in
Statute and if the Words do not extend to that then the Equity of the Statute shall not extend to that and he said that Copy-hold is not within any of the Statutes which are made in the same yeare as the Statute which gives Elegit and such like and to Littleton that an Estate by copy is where Lands are given in Fee-simple Fee-taile and that Formedon lies for that with which agrees 10 Ed. 2. Formedon 55. It seems that the Estate taile here mentioned shall be intended Fee-simple conditionall at the Common Law and the Formedon in Discender which was at the Common Law for alienation before Issue And so Littleton shall be intended For the Estate is within time of memory see Heydons case that a Copy-hold Estate is an Estate in being within the Statute of 31 H. 8. And Manwood there said that insomuch the Estate of that is created by custome and the Estate taile is created by Statute yet it shall not be within the Statute and he said that the case of 15 H. 8. B. Copy of Court 24. is repugnant in it self in the words of Formedon for he saith though that Formedon was given by Statute and was no otherwise in Discender yet now this Writ lies at the Common Law and it shall be intended that this hath been a custome there time out of minde c. And so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Pasche 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Yet Bearblock and Read SEE the beginning before Hillary 8. Jacobi this Case was argued by Hutton Serjeant that the Plaintiff in the Action of Debt ought to Recover for if Executor may pay Debt due by the Testator by Obligation before Debt due by Judgement this shall be a Devastavit as it is resolved in Trewinyards Case 6. and 7. Edward 6. Dyer 80. 53. And he shall be charged for the Iudgement with his owne goods And so it was adjudged between Bond and Hales 31. Eliz. that Judgement at the Common Law shall be first satisfied before the Statute which is but a Pockett Record and Medium redditer in invitum Also it was adjudged in Harrisons Case 5. Coke 28. b. That Debt due upon an Obligation shall be first payd before Statute with Defeasans for performing of Covenants the which Defeasens is not broken and also it is adjudged between Pemberton and Barkham here cited that Judgement shall be satisfied before Statute Merchant or Staple or Recognizance though that the Statute be acknowledged before the Judgement had by the Testator See this Case in Harrisons Case 5. Coke 28. b. and in 4. Coke 60. a. Sadlers Case upon which he infers that if an Executor first satisfie a Statute or a Recognisance before a Judgement that this shall be a Devastavit as well as if he satisfies an Obligation first as in Trewynyards Case and that when the Plaintiff which hath Judgement the Executor may aid himselfe by Audit a querela by this matter subsequent Quere of Doctor Druryes Case as in 7 H. 6. 42. in Detinue against Gamishe and Judgment had for the Plaintiff If the Judgement be reversed restitution shall be made to every one which hath losse So here by Audita Querela if the Executrix hath not more then was taken in execution by the Statute and it seemes to him that the Judgement in the Scire Facias shall not be a Barr in this Action for the Judgment remaines Executrix and the Plaintiff may have Action of Debt upon that But of the contrary if the Plaintiff had brought Action of Debt upon the Judgement and had been barred then shall be barred in Scire Facias also But the Plaintiff this notwithstanding may have Scire Facias upon surmise that there are new assets come to the hands of the Executor and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Nicholls Serjeant for the Defendant relies only upon the Judgement had upon the Scire Facias and that till that he Defeated the Plaintiff cannot maintaine Action of Debt for the Action of Debt is nothing but demanding of Execution and for that till the first Judgement be Defeated the Plaintiff hath no remedy at the Common Law All things which barr the Execution of the Judgement in Scire Facias these shall be Barrs in an Action of Debt as in Baxters Case here last adjudged in an Action upon the Case for slanderous words the Defendant pleads that he had justified the speaking of these words at another time in another Action brought against him and had a verdict and Judgement upon that and so demands Judgement and adjudged a good Plea till the first Judgement is reversed for Judgement is the saying of the Law and 13. Eliz. Dyer 299. 34. in Debt for Costs recovered in a Writ of entry the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff hath sued an Elegit which was Executed and a good Barr in an Action of Debt and so 1. and 2. P. and M. Dyer 107. 24. In Debt for Dammages recovered in Assise the Defendant pleads in Barr that after the verdict given and before Judgement the Plaintiff entred into the Land and there no Judgement is given But it seemes if the Plaintiff fayl of Course that the Common Law prescribes that then he shall not have Execution for of those things which rightly are Acted let there be Executions but if the Defendant in the first Action had pleaded a release and Judgement was given upon that against him he cannot plead that againe for it runs into the thing Judged 34. Ed. 3. in Debt against an Executor and part of the assetts found the Plaintiff cannot have new Scire Facias without Averrment that there are new assetts and 34. H. 6. Action with averment that there are assets and Judgement good both waies and presidents shewed of both Courts And he intended that the Executor could not have helped himselfe by Audita Querela unlesse he feares to be impleaded but after Execution he cannot have Restitution and so concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that there cannot be a Devastavit in the Wife unlesse that it be voluntary payment by her for the Statute of 23. H. 8. gives present Execution of a Statute Staple without Scire Facias So that the Wife had no time to plead the Judgement and for that this unvoluntary Act shall not be a Devastavit for she is no agent but only a sufferer And at the Common Law if the Plaintiff hath Judgement in an Action of Debt after the yeare he hath no remedy but new Originall and this mischeife was remedied by the Statute of Magna Charta which gives Scire Facias in place of new Action But it seemes to him that the Barr in the Scire Facias shall remaine good Barr till it be reversed as in 2 Rich. 3. A man hath election to have action of Detinue or action of Trespasse and he brings his action of Detinue and the Plaintiff wages his Law and after
brings an action of Trespasse and the first Nonsuit pleaded in Barr and adjudged a good Barr 12 Edw. 4. accordingly Foster Walmesley and Warburton agreed without any doubt but they sayd that if the first execution had been had by Covin then it should have been otherwise In Debt upon buying of diverse severall things the Defendant confesseth part and for the residue the action being brought by an Executor in the Detinet onely the Defendant pleads he oweth him nothing and upon this Tryall was had and Verdict for the Plaintiff and after Verdict it was moved that this misjoyning of Issue was ayded by the Statute of Jeofailes but it was resolved by all the Justices that it was not ayded for it was no misjoyning of the Issue but no Issue at all but if there had been Issue joyned though that it were not upon the direct matter yet this shall be ayded and at the end the Plaintiff remitted the part that the Issue was joyned and prayed Judgment for the residue and this was granted but if the Plaintiff had been nonsuited that would go to all Administrators during the minority had Judgment in debt and before execution sued the Executor came to his age of seventeen yeares and how this execution shall be sued comes the question for the power of the Administrator was determined by the attaining of age of 17. yeares by the Executor and the Executor was not party to the Record and for that he could not sue execution but it seems that the Executor may sue speciall Scire facias upon the Record and so sue execution in his owne name See 27 H. 8. 7. a. Action upon the Case for these words He hath stolne forty Staure of Lead meaning Lead in Stauce from the Minster and resolved by all that action doth not lye for it shall be intended that the Lead was parcell of the Minster and the Innuendo shall not helpe that Pasche 9. Jacobi 1611. In Common Bench Crane against Colepit THomas Crane Plaintiff in Replevin against Bartholemew Colepit the only question was if Tenant by discent of the age of twenty years and more ought under one and twenty yeares to attorn to a Grant of the signiory or not and it was adjudged that the Attornement is good for three reasons First For that he gives no Interest and for that it cannot be upon condition for it is but a bare assent Secondly His Ancestors held the same Land by the payment of the Rent and making of their Services and it is reason that the Rent should be payd and the Services performed and for that though that he shall have his age for the Land yet for the Rent he shall not have his age and though that it is agreed in 32 Ed. 3. That he shall have his age In per que servitia yet after his full age the Grantee shall distraine for all the arrerages due from the first so that the Attornement is no prejudice for this Infant and he is in the number of those which shall be compellable to attorn see 41 Ed. 3. age 23. 26 Ed 3. 32. 32 Ed. 3. and 31 Ed. 3. Per que servitia 9 Ed. 3. 38. 32 Ed. 3. Infant of the age of three years attorned and good and 3 Ed. 3. 42. Husband attornes and that shall bind the Wife 12 Ed. 4. 4. 18 H. 6. Attornement of an Infant is good to binde him for that it is a lawfull act Thirdly The Attornement is a perfect thing of which the Law requires the finishing that is the grant of the signiory which is not perfect till the Tenant attorn and Foster Justice said that so it had been adjudged in this Court in the time of the Reigne of Elizabeth in which Judgment all the Justices agreed with one voyce without any contradiction See 26. Ed. 3. 62. Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. As yet Rowles against Mason see the beginning Michaelmas 8. Jacobi DOdridge Serjeant of the King argued for the Plaintiff he saith that there are two Copies first that a Copy-holder for life under a 100. l. may nominate his Successor Secondly That such Copy-holder after such nomination may cut down all the Trees growing upon his Copy-hold and sell them and he saith that it hath been adjudged that the custome that Copy-holder for life may sell the Trees growing upon his Copy-hold is void between Popham and Hill Hillary 45 Eliz. in this Court so if the first custome doth not make difference by the nomination the second is resolved to be void and it seemes to him that the first custome doth not make difference and to the objection that the first custome hath been adjudged to be good between Bale and Crab he saith that the custome adjudged and this custome as it is found differs in many points First It was found that every Copy-holder for life solely seised without Remainder but here is sole Tenant in possession and this may be where there is a Remainder so that uncertainty in this makes the custome void as in 6 Ed. 3. custome that an Infant at the age of discretion may alien is void for uncertainty also in the case here it is found that the Copy-holder may name who shall be next Tenant to the Lord and doth not say to whom the nomination shall be made but in the first case the custome is found to be that the nomination ought to be to the Lord in the presence of two Copy-holders also in the first it is found that if they cannot agree of the Fine that the Homage shall assess it but in this custome here found there is not any mention of that he ought to seek to be admitted and doth not say at what court the which ought to be shewed in certain as it is resolved in Penimans Case 5 Coke 84. Where custome that a Feoffment ought to be inrolled is expressed shall be inrolled at the next court also in the first case to be found that after the Fine is payd or offered he which is named shall be admitted and here is not any mention of that so that he concluded that this is a new custome and not the same custome which was in question between Bayle and Colepit also it is found that the trees were cut immediately after nomination of a new Tenant and before any admittance or Fine payd for him so that insomuch that the Benefit was not equall as well as to the Lord as to the Tenant as in 2 Ed. 4. 28. and 22 Ed. 4. 80. For plowing and turning upon the Land of another for that the custome shall be void And to the second custome also it seems that that is voyd and unreasonable First for that when any is alledged in the custome that is inconvenient though that it be not mischeivous yet the custome shall be void as in 4. Assisarum 27. in Assise brought against an Abbot which pleads custome that all the houses of the South side of
that the Husband was subject to that then by consequence it was intended that all persons which were chargeable by the common Law shall be chargeable by the Statute and by the action which is formed upon that and by the common Law the Husband was chargeable and by consequence shall be chargeble by the Statute and he intends that there would be difference between actuall wrongs and others which are come by omission and if the VVife be the person which did the wrong then she shall be punished as well by Statute as she was before by the common Law also she shal be out-lawed and it hath been agreed that Ravishment of Ward shall be maintainable against the Husband and the wife if they both are Ravishers and also if the wife be Ravisher before marriage and after takes a Husband the Husband shall be charged with the damages and his Body shall be imprisoned and by consequence shall be abjured also shee may make an Executor by the consent of her Husband but admitting that she could not then the remedy is given against the Heir and she shall be within this Statute as well as other Statutes made in the time of the said King as the Statute of Westminster 1. 37. And shall be a Disseisor with force and shall be imprisoned whether the Husband joyn with her or not as it is adjudged 16 Assise 7. for all Statutes which provide for actuall wrong a married VVife shall be intended within them as it is 9 H. 4. 6. But the pleading of Joyntenancy there the Plea is the act of the Husband and so fayling of Record upon the Statute of 34 Ed. 3. as it is 16 Assise 8. for the Husband propounds the exception but if the VVife propounds the exception then she shall be within the Statute and shall be imprisoned 21 Assise So if a married VVife make actuall disseisin with force she shall be imprisoned 9 H. 4. 7. b. 8 Ed. 3. 52. 22 Ed. 2 Damages 20. 27 H. 6. Ward 118. And so the President Trinity 33 H. 8. Rot. 347. in a case between Thomas Earle of Rutland against Lawrence Savage and his VVife in Ravishment of Ward at the Nisi prius the Defendants make default and the Judgment was that the Husband and the VVife should be taken and upon that he inferred that the Husband should be subject and charged with the damages and so it is taken upon the statute of 35. Eliz. That the Husband shall be charged with Debt for the Recusancy of the VVife and shall be imprisoned for the not payment of it as to the verdict it seems that this is good and it shall be intended the VVard was marryed by the Defendants as in 33 Ed. 3. Verdict 48. It is found by verdict that Mulier enters and resolved that this shall be intended in the life of the Bastard or otherwise it is nothing worth and in Fulwoods case 4 Coke the Jury found that the Defendant acknowledged himself to be bound and that shall be intended according to the statute of 23 H. 8. and so here though that it be not found that the VVard was married by these Defendants yet it shall be so intended notwithstanding that nothing is found but only that he appeared married and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff This case was sollemnly argued this Tearme by all the Justices that is Coke and Walmesley Warberton and Foster and upon their selemn arguments Coke and Walmesley were of opinion that a married wife is not within the statute and Warberton and Foster were of the contrary opinion and so by reason of their contrariety in opinion the Judgment was staid Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Burnham against Bayne THE case was A Man seised of divers Lands the halfe of them were extended by Elegit and before Judgement was had against him a new Elegit Awarded and if all the halfe which remaines or but the halfe of that which was the fourth part of all should be extended was the question And it was agreed by all the Justices that but the halfe of that which remaines and not the halfe of all which he had at the time of the Judgement But the halfe of that which he had at the time of the Elegit And if all which remaines be extended the Extent shall be void by all the Justices see 10. Ed. 2 Execution 137 16. E. 2. Execution 118. And here the principall case was A man hath a Rent of forty pound reserved upon a Lease for years and two Judgments in Debt were had against him at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and three Judgments at the Suit of the Plaintiff the halfe was first extended by Elegit upon the first Judgment had at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and after upon the Judgment had at his Suit the halfe of the residue was extended and after upon the Judgment at the Suit of the Plaintiff all the residue was extended and all the Justices agreed that the Extent was void for they ought to extend but the halfe of that which remaines and that was but the fourth part Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Trobervill against Brent THE Case was A man makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after grants the Reversion for life to which Grant the Lessee for years attornes the Grantee acknowledgeth a statute and after surrenders his Estate the Conusee extends the Statute and distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes for the cause aforesaid and adjudged that the Avowry was good Agreed that Creditor may sue the Executors and the Heir of the Debtor also but he shall have but one Execution with satisfaction see the Statute of 23 H. 8. for such course in the Exche quer Note that no Court of Equity may examine any matter of Equity after Judgment which was precedent the Judgment see the Statute of 4 H. 4. chapt 23. Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Hamond against Jethro THe case was this Edward Hamond was Plaintiff in Debt upon a Bill against VVilliam Jethro and the Bill was made in this manner Memorandum that I VVilliam Jethro do owe and am indebted unto Edward Hamond in the Sum of ten pound for the payment whereof I binde my self c. In witnesse and after the in witnesse it was thus subscribed Memorandum that the said VVilliam Jethro be not compelled to pay the said ten pound untill he recovers thirty pound upon an obligation against A. B. c. And in the Count was no mention made of this Subscription but this appears when the Defendant prayes hearing of the Bill the which was then entered Verbatim of Record and upon that the Defendant demurred in Law Harris Serjeant for the Plaintiff agreed that if it had been in the Body of the Bill it ought to have been contained in the Count to inable the Plaintiff to his action but that which is after in witnesse
to certaine times as the statute of Westminster 2. chapt 11. Which gives power to Auditors which finde accountants in Arrerages to commit them to prison but it ought not to be forthwith and this for the favour of the Defendants and this is the reason also of the Judgment in Fogassas Case by the statute of Agreements that every agreement shall be taken within the statute and so the Statute of 23 H. 6. Provides that the Sheriff shall not let out his County and 20 H. 7. 21. It is agreed that the letting out of a Hundred is not within the Statute and it is also agreed in Partridges case Com. 87. that the statute of 32 H. 8. of buying of Tithes shall not be taken by Equity and the reason is there given insomuch that it is a penall Law and if it be so that the statute shall not be taken by Equity he considered if it be within the words and to that he intended that it is not Corne which is bought for it is changed into another thing and also it is not dead Victuall for it is not Victuall till another thing is made of it also the same thing that was bought ought to be sold again or otherwise it shall not be within the Words of the statute and by consequence out of the penalty as if a man buy Corn and make that into Meale Bread or Puddings this is not within the statute so the buying of Apples and selling of them again it is no victualls within the statute so Butcher which buyes Cattell and those kill and sells again is not within the statute and he sayes that Starch is good Food when it is dry again which proves that this is another thing then the Meale which was bought and so out of the Letter of the statute and to the Proviso which excepts Barley that is bought and made in Malt and Oates made in Oate-Meale and sold again it seems that this is an idle Proviso and surplusage as in Porters Case 1 Coke 24. 6. in the statute of 27 H. 8. Proviso to except good uses out of the statute inables men to devise to such uses and so the statute of 5 Ed. 6. chapter 16. the Body of which extends only to Offices Covenant Administration of Justice or the Revenue of the King as Receiver Controller c. And yet a Keeper of a Park is excepted out of this more for the satisfaction of the ignorant Burgesses then for any necessity and so he concluded and prayed judgment for the Defendant Montague Serjeant of the King for the King and for the Informer argued to the contrary that as to the objection that Costermongers are not within the statute he sayth that that is a thing of Delicacy and not victualls within the statute but he sayth it was adjudged in the Exchequer that the buying of Meale and the selling of that again was within this statute and in this case the Information is that the Defendant had bought Meale and sold the same again by the name of Starch which is confessed by the Demurrer and for the exposition of the statute he considered the mischeife before the making of that the remedy which is provided by the statute and the Office of a good Judge that is to advance the remedy and suppresse the mischeife and he intended that this was punishable by the Common Law in another forme as Waste notwithstanding as Action doth not ly yet Prohibition lyes at the Common Law and by the statute of 27 Ed. 3. Justices in Oyre ought to inquire of all greivances and oppressions to the People and there cannot be greater greivance or oppression then that is which deprives them of their food and for that he is called the Oppresser of the Poore and Fleta calls him Woolfe which ought to be hunted from place to place and 43 Assise was punished by Fine and Ransome and yet then the offence was uncertain but now it is made certain by defining it by this statute so that this is a statute of Definition only and the statute of 31. Ed. 1. infâ—icts the punishment and to the objection that it is not the same thing which is sold which was bought he said it is the same in intent for it produceth the same mischeife Secondly It is the same substance and the same forme that is the formall substance which gives the being but not an accedentall forme and he saith that if a man have Corne and another by wrong takes it from him and doth convert it into Meale he may take that back again otherwise of Iron made into an Anvill but trees made into Timber and plate altered in fashion may be taken back again otherwise if it be converted into Coyne and so upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. If a Servant sells the Goods of his Master and steal the Money that is out of the Statute but if the Servant carry Corne to the Mill and this is converted into Meale and then the Servant steales it this is within the statute for this is the same thing 28 H. 8. A man pleads he appearing seised to the same use it shall not be intended the same but such uses and Browning and Beestons case in the Com. A man is bound to pay twenty pound at Michaelmas and also afterwards to pay twenty pound at the same Feast and that was intended the same Feast in another year and not in the same year so that the word same shall not be so precisely taken but as Patent of the King for making of a thing of which a man hath made new invention is good if it be limited for certain time only as Hastings hath a Patent for making of Frisado only as a thing newly invented by him but insomuch that this varyes only in the form of making of that and not in substance the Patent was adjudged voyd so a Patent made to a Cutler for Gilding insomuch that this varies only in forme this was not allowed to be a new invention so a Patent made to Johnson for new casting of Lead insomuch that that varies only in forme and not in substance this agreed with the ancient this was also void and if the starch made be another thing then the Meale which was bought then it ought to be another in nature and quality but this is not for starch is used for Victuall in Spayne and other Countries as Ryce is used see 46 Assise 8. 27. and he intended that the Proviso made that cleer and without question for there cannot be a difference made between that and Malt and if Malt had not been within the Body of the Act this would not be exempted by speciall Proviso and so the statute of 25 H. 8. chapter 2. for transportation of Victuall in Ireland except Meale which proves also that Meale is included within the words dead Victualls and which hath been within the Body of the statute if it had not been excepted and to the Objection that it
is penal Law and for that shall have strict opposition and not by equity but he saith that this rule failes as to the interest of the Common-Wealth that is when the Common-Wealth is intervenient and to the Objection that this is a thing invented after the making of the statute he answered that with the case of Saint-John 5 Coke 71. b. Which inhibits Hand-Guns and it is there adjudged that Dags and Stone-Bowes which are of later Invention shall be within the statute for they are their invention and their form of the things which are inhibited and so Vernons case 4 Coke if he to whose use infeoffs his Son and Heir this shall be taken within the statute of Marlebridge and yet he to whose use cannot make a Feoffment nor uses were not known till many yeares after the making of this statute and Baker furthers the Meale for the use of man and for that he may sell it in Bread without any punishment and then he sayd it was the Office of a good Judge to suppresse the mischeife and to advance the remedy as the Lord Anderson sayth in Brownes Case 3. Coke And so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the King and the Informer And note that this case was solemnly argued by all the Justices of this Court and it was adjudged that this was ingrossing within the statute by Warburton Foster and Winch. But the Lord Coke agrued the contrary Walmesley being absent that Tearme The same question was argued the same Tearme in the Exchequer upon an Information there exhibited by one Collins an Informer and it was there argued by Hitchcocke of Lincolnes Inne for the Defendant and he argued that the Starch was not the same thing which was bought no more then if it had been made in Bread and he cyted the Booke of 5 H. 7. 15. 16. Where it is agreed that if a man takes Barley and makes Malt of that that he from whom it was taken could not take the Malt for that that there the thing is altered in another nature and he intended that the Starch is not the same in number nor quality but he agreed that if wheat be only grownd that this notwithstanding is within the Statute but if it be made into Bread then sold it is not within the Statute for then it is another Body and other things added to it and the forme is also altered and the forme gives the being and the name and if Water be turned into Wine it is no Water though it be by miracle so if a Parson be made Bishop he is not the same person for Honours change Manners and this is his reason that the Writ shall abate for it is newly created as of nothing 7 H. 6. 15. 22 R. 2. Bre. 93. b. 2 R. 3. 20. Also the Statute of 21 H. 8. Which provides that the party from whom any Goods are stolne after that the Felon is indicted shall have restitution of the same goods but if Corn be stolne and converted into Meale the Owner shall not have restitution for it is not the same which was stolne but if Plate be stolne and altered in other forme yet the owner shall have restitution of that as he sayd which was adjudged for the King 40. Eliz. But where restitution upon a Writ of Errour where the Judgment is the same thing shall be restored that if yet tearm be sold by fieri facias and after the Judgment is reversed by Errour he shall not be restored to the Tearm but shall have the money for which it is sold also he saith it is not the same in number and substance for the 1 thing was corrupt and the corruption of that was the beginning of the new and the Wheate is the matter of which and also Water is and fire and the heat of the Sun and after that it is made in Starch it will not be dissolved and made into victuall no more then Bread and the worst Wheat will make the best starch also he intended that it is not in the same condition nor similitude also he objected that Ligamen which is the word contained in the Count is no Latine word at all but Legumen is the latine word and that is latine for Pulse and that not being any latine word the english which is added will not help it and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Dodridge the Kings Serjeant for the King and for the Informer argued that the starch is the same Numero in number quality and substance not in likenesse and that the statute is no law of explanation but of difinition of three severalls which make dearth without want and the fore-stalling prevented the punishment of Law before the making of this Statute but now these are in severall degrees that is forestalling is commonly ingrossing and regrating and Ingrosser is alwayes Regrator and that the Defendant in this case is Ingrosser of Victualls that is victualls which is the staffe of mans health and the want of that is more greivous then the want of all other things and the dearth of that is the most pinching dearth which may be and the gain of that is a base gain and they which basely buy of Merchants that they may straightways sell not any thing unless they may get great gains or save in the measure they are called Regrators as Grators of the faces of the People and if this Statute had been executed this had prevented many Dearths and to the objection that it is a penall Law and for that shall be taken strictly and there is a generall rule and as true as it is generall but it is true if it be not within the exception that is if publick good doth not intervene and here it concerns the Common-VVealth as much as the lives of men and many other penall Statutes have been taken by Equity as the Statute which makes that to be petty Treason if the Servant kill his Master and in the 19 H. 6. It is agreed that if the Servant after he is departed out of the service of his Master kill him upon any malice conceived during the time that he was in his Service this shall be taken within the Equity of the statute and so the statute of 33 H. 8. Was made precisely against Hand-Guns and Daggs are taken to be within the Equity of that notwithstanding that they were invented after the making of that Statute and were not known at the time of the making of that for they are the same in intention as it is resolved in Streches Case in Coke 71. b. And to the words of the Statute who shall sell the same it intends that starch is the same in all but only in similitude for a thing which is of the same similitude is not the same but like the same for no like is the same Also he intended that it is the same both in number and form and he agreed that forme gave the being for that is
not the accidentall as here it is but it is the substantiall forme and every one knows that Meale of Wheat is the same as Pepper beaten in a Morter and Pepper and all other Spices so that it is the same in number existence substance and essence and he intended also the same in intention for Meale is Victuall and is dead Victuall be it Corne or Meale and Corn grownd and made in Meale then sold yet that remains dead Victuall and Meale is the same dead Victuall though that it be not the same Corne and to prove that Corn is Victuall he cyted the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. 5. Stat. Chap. 7. Which provides that no Forester shall make any gathering of Victuals by colour of their Office and hee intended that Corne was within this statute and so also of the statute of the 3. P. and M. Chap. 15. Rastal Universities which provides that to the Purveyor Bargainor for any Victuals within 5 miles of any of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridg where Grain and Victuall are joyned together So the Statute of 25 H. 8. Chap. 2. abridged by Rastall Victual 15. which inhibits the transportation of Victuall if it be not of Meal and Butter into Ireland by which it appears that Meale is dead Victualls And he said that Victuals is that which refresheth men and Victualls are those things which to the use of eating and drinking are necessary So that Meale is the same in number though that the Corne were turned into Meale And he cyted Peacock and Reynolds Caâ—e to be adjudged 42 Eliz. That if a man buy Corne and convert that into Meale and so sell it it is within this Statute And hee said that if a man be made a Knight hanging his action that this shall abate his action but yet he remains the same person but his name is changed which is the cause of the abatement of his action 7 H. 6. 15. Also the Defendant is concluded by his demurrer upon the Information to say that it is not the same thing for this is confessed by the Demurrer and though that the name be changed this is not materiall if the substance be the same and he agreed that a Baker which buys Wheat and makes it into Bread is not within the Statute for he furthers that to the use of man as a Curryer makes the Leather more fit and apt for use but so doth not he which makes it into starch for he furthers the abuse for it is no lawfull Occupation but idle and friâ—olous furtherance of vanity of men And in 35. H. 6. 2. If a man enter into the Land of another man and cut Trees and that square and make into Boards yet if the Owner enter hee may take them But if it be made into a House otherwise it is for there it is mingled with other things as it is 5 H. 7. 15 16. So Iron made in Anvill But of Leather made in Shooes otherwise it is insomuch that it is mingled with other things 12 H. 8. 11. a. A dead Stag is not a Stag but is a certain dead thing and flesh As a man dead is not a man but agreed the Book of H. 7. 15. and 16. That Corne converted into Meale cannot be restored nor reprized no more may that if it remains in Corne if it be not in Baggs And hee said that upon the Statute of Merton the Re-disseisin after the Recovery in Assise if the same Disseisor makes Re-disseisin the Sheriffe may examine that c. And it is agreed in 27 H. 6. That if Tenant in tayle be disseised and recover in assise and is put in possession and after his Estate is altered and he become Tenant in tayle after possibility of Issue extinct and then the Disseisor makes Re-disseisin that this is aided by the statute not that it is alteration of the Estate And also he saith it appears more fully by the Proviso by which it is provided that Barley turned into Malt and Oates turned into Oatmeale if it be by Ingrossing it is within the purview of the statute So if it be by way of Fore-stalling or if they sell them again before that they are converted shall be Regrators And to the Objection that other things that is Water and Fire are added to that he saith that none of them remains for the Fire dryes the water and the fire also goeth out and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the King and the Informer and it was adjourned Michaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. IN Dower against Infant which makes default upon the grand Cape returned and agreed by all the Justices that Judgment shall be given upon the Default for the Infant shall not have his age and so it was adjudge upon a Writ of Error Charnock against Currey Administrator of Allen. IN debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant as Administrator as above he pleads Judgment had against him in an action of debt and over that hath not to satisfie to which the Plaintiff replies that this Judgment was for penalty and the condition was for a lesser sum and that the Plaintiff in the first action had accepted his due debt and had promised to acknowledg satisfaction of the Judgement at the request of the Defendant and at his charges and the Administrator which was the Defendant did not make request upon fraud and Covin to avoid the Plaintiffs action Upon which the Defendant hath demurred and so confesseth the matter of the Plea But Foster seemed that the Plaintiff ought to aver that the Plaintiff in the first action hath offered to acknowledg satisfaction and that otherwise he should be put to his action upon the Case but Coke and Warberton intended that the Replication is very good without such averment for it shall be intended that the Plaintif will perform his promise But further this Demurrer which was only for part was also for another part an Issue joyned for the other part which was to be tryed by the Country and which shall be tryed of the Issue or of the Demurrer was the question and it was agreed by them all that the Issue or Demurrer shall be first at the discretion of the Court see 11 H. 4. 5. 38. Ed. 3. Commission is granted to the Councel in Wales of which the President Vice-president or Cheife Justice to be one And the question was if they might make a Deputy and it was agreed that a delegate power could not be delegated but they might make an Officer to take an accompt in any such act Note that a Caveat was entred with a Bishop that he should not admit any without giving notice that the admission this notwithstanding is good but if he admit one which hath no right he is a disturber but otherwise the Caveat doth nothing but only to make the Bishop carefull what person he admits Foster Justice seemed that if the Ordinary now after the statute of
21 H. 8. grants administration to one which is next of Blood that he cannot repeale it but Coke cheife Justice seemed the contrary and that he incurred the penalty of the statute only And if an Administration be granted to one which is next of Blood upon which the first Administrator brings an action of debt hanging that upon suggestion that the first Administration is void another Administration is granted and it seems that this second Administration granted upon this suggestion shall be repealed from the first though it be generall and without any recitall of it But if the second be declared by sentence to be void from the beginning then the first remains good Action upon the Case was brought for these words that is thou hast killed I. S. And it seems that the action doth not lye for a man may kill another in execution and as Minister of Justice or in Warr in which things killing is justifiable Michaelmasse 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench George Barney against Thomas Hardingham IN Trespasse for breaking the House and taking of a Cowe the Defendant pleades that the King and all those whose Estates he hath in the hundred have had Turne and at the Court held such a day it was presented that the Plaintiff hath incroached upon the high Way for which he was amerced and the amercement was affirmed by two Justices of peace according to the Custome of the Turne aforesaid And that he being Bayliff of the hundred by vertue of a Warrant to him in due manner made and directed hath entred the said house and taken the said Cowe for distresse for the said amercement and carrying it away which is the same Trespasse and so demands Judgement upon which Plea the Plaintiff Demurred And by Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff the Plea in Barr is not good and first he conceived that it was not good insomuch that the King hath made his Prescription by whose Estate and he intended that he could not make his Prescription by whose Estate insomuch that this lies in grant as it is 12. H. 7. 15. where it is agreed that by nothing which lieth in grant a man may Prescribe by whose Estate Also the Plea is that the King was seised in his Demesne as of Fee where it ought to be in Fee only insomuch that it is a thing only in Jurisdiction or Signiory and not Manurable as in 8. H. 7. 7. H. 4. 30. assis In an Action of Debt upon Reservation made upon Lease of a Mannor and hundred it is agreed that the hundred is not in Demesne nor Manurable Also the Plea is not good insomuch that it is not Pleaded before whom the Turne shall be held And allwaies when a man claimes a Court by Patent he ought to shew before whom his Court shall be held otherwise it shall not be good so of Conusance of Pleas otherwise it is if it be in a Turne for that shall be intended a certaine ancient Court See 44. Ed 5. 17. 1. H. 4. 6. 6. H. 4. 1. Also the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 35. requires that it should be held in the accustomed place and so it ought to be alledged or otherwise it is against the Statute and for that it shall not be good for it is of the nature of Sheriffs Turne and derived out of that See the book of Entries in Replevin 2. Also the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 14. appoints that the officers shall be the Sheriffe and this is not pleaded but generally by two Justices of Peace upon their Oath And also it is not pleaded to what Sum the amercement was made Also it is pleaded that he being a Bayliffe of the Hundred by vertue of a Warrant to him in due manner directed and made hath taken the distresse and doth not plead the Warrant certainly nor the place where it was made And for that the Plea is not good Also he pleades that he took and led away the Cowe in name of distresse and he ought to say that he took it and impounded it for that he tooke it and carried it away imports that he tooke it to his owne use 9. Ed. 4. 2. 20. Ed. 4. 6. And so he concluded that the Barr is not good and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff And Barker Serjeant for the Defendant conceived that the Prescription for the Hundred by which the Estate was very good and for that See 12. H. 7. 17. a. 8. H. 7. 13. H. 7. Also he intended that the title to the Court is very good notwithstanding that it is expressed before that it shall be held insomuch that the Law takes notice of the Turne of the Sheriffe and that he is Judge of that and that the Affirance is very good insomuch that this is according to the Custome of the Turne aforesaid And the Warrant of the Baylifâ—e is very well pleaded and more is pleaded then need for it is the duty and appertaineth to his office to gather the amercements and he might do that without Warrant by force of his office But if it be upon plaint between party and party otherwise it is and for that see the book of Entries 553. And also the charge in the Action is for that that he took and carried away and of that he made Justification and he cannot Plead otherwise and to the whose Estate c. That a man cannot Prescribe to have a thing by whose Estate which lieth meerely in grant without shewing of a Deed yet when that is appurtenant to another thing as here the Court is to a Hundred it may very well that do and 33. H. 8. B. Leete when the penalty is Presented by the Jury it selfe there needs not any affirance And so he concluded that the Plea in Barr is very good and praied Judgement upon that for the Defendant And Coke cheife Justice said that Turne of the Sheriffe is derived of Turner which signifies to ride a Circuit and so of that is derived Turner and of that the Turne of the Sheriffe and of this is derived the Hundred and from this the Leete And it seems to him that he ought to plead before that the Court shall be held insomuch that it is against Right and so it was adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Hill against Upchurch NOTE that Coke cheife Justice saith that it was adjudged in 27. of Eliz. For the Mannor of Northhall in the County of Essex that admitting that a Copy-hold may be Intailed by the Statute that then Custome that a surrender shall be a Barr or discontinuance of such Estate tayl is good for as well as the Estate may be created by Custome as well it may be Barred or discontinued by Surrender by Custome Brandons Case NOTE if a Mannor or other signiory be extended upon a Statute and a Ward falls which is a sufficient value to make satisfaction of the Extent yet this shall not be
of Norfolke and Marshall and their Authority and Jurisdiction was absolute and their Judgements not reversable unlesse by Parliament and this appeares by the Statute of 5. Ed. 3. chap. 2. that they might hold Plea of things which did not concerne them of the household and also the words of the Statute of Articuli super chartas chap. 3. 28. Ed. 1. provides that the Marshalsey shall not hold Plea of free hold of covenant nor of any other contract made between the Kings people but only of Trespasse made within the Kings house or within the Verge and of such Contracts and Covenants which one of the honse made with another of the house and within the house and in no other place where Trespasse is Limited to the Kings house or within the Virge but no restraint that the parties shall be of the Kings House or otherwise it shall not be intended which shall be only those which are of the Kings House insomuch that the Trespasse is limited to be made within the Virge also he sayd it was a statute made 30 Ed. 1. which provides that if any causes arise amongst the Citizens of London only that this shall be tryed amongst the Citizens but if it be between them of the House it shall be tryed by them of the House by which it appears that they may hold plea between Citizens of London where none of the parties are of the Kings House also the statute of 6 Ed. 3. chapter 2. provides that in Inquests they shall be there taken by men of the Country adjoyning and not men of the Kings Houshold if it be not betwixt men of the Kings Houshold if it be not for Contracts Covenants and Trespasses made by men of the Kings Houshold of one part and that the same House which referrs to the statute of Articuli super chartas before cited and this expounds and so the Statute of 10 Ed. 3. chapter 2. provides that in Inquests they are to be taken in the Marshalsey that the same inquests shall be taken of men the Country thereabouts and not by People of the Kings House if it be not of Covenants Contracts or Trespasses made by people of the same House according to the Statute made in time of the Grand Father of the said now King and according to that the use hath been that is if none of the parties of were the Kings house then the tryal had been by the men of the country adjoyning And if one of the parties be of the house and another not then the tryall is by party Juries and if both the parâ—ies be of the house then all the Jury hath used to be of the house and if the Cause be between Citizens of London then the tryall hath used to be by Citizens of London and in the Book of Entries the same plea was pleaded in false Imprisonment 9 10. and the Register fol. 1 1. A. in action upon escape in Trespasse and to the Books of 7 H. 6. 30. 10 H. 6. Long 5 Ed. 4 19 Ed. 4. 21 Ed. 4. He saith that none of these Books are in action of Trespasse but one onely and that is mistaken in the principall point and so may be mistaken in one by case And the Booke of 10 H. 6. 30. is directly in the point but Brooke in abridgement of that saith that the practise and usage of the Court was otherwise But it may be objected that this is Indebitatus assumpsiâ— which is in nature of an action of debt and founded upon contract he said that Fitzherbert in his Natura Brevium said that there are two sorts of Trespasses that is General and upon the Case and Trespasse is the Genus and the other are the Species and that the action is founded upon breach of promise which is the Trespasse as for not making of a thing which he hath promised to doe and it is Majesteale breve and not breve formatuâ— and so is an action of Trover and Conversion or Assumpsit are Writs of Trespasse but admit that no yet action of false Imprisonment doth not lye for hee ought not to dispute the authority of the Court for the duty of his Office is only to be obedient and diligent for otherwise he should be judged of the Judg And who by the appointment of the Judge doth any thing doth not seem to do it deceitfully because it is of necessity he should obey and 14 H. 8. 16. a Justice of Peace awarded a Warrant to arrest a man for suspition of Felony where his Warrant was void and yet the party to whom it was directed justifies the making of the Arrest by force of that And 12. H. 7. 14. Capias was awarded to the Sheriff without original yet it was a sufficient Warrant to the Sheriffe and 22 Assis 64. Court awarded a Warrant where they had no Jurisdiction and yet it was a sufficient Warrant for him to whom it was directed And so in Mansells case if the Sheriffe execute an habere facias sesinam awarded upon a void Judgement this is a sufficient Warrant for him So in this case allowing that the Court hath no Jurisdiction yet the Plaintiff cannot be retained by this action but is put to his Writ of Error or to his action upon the Statute and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff argued to the contrary and hee intended that Judgment should be given for the Plaintiff for the matter and also for the Parties and that the Judgement and all other proceedings in the Marshalsey were meerly void and he denyed that they had originally such absolute jurisdiction as Fleta pretended for originally that was only for the preservation of the peace as it appears by the stile of the Court and also by the diversities of the Courts and that Criminall causes which require expedition are there only tryable and that civill causes are incroached of later times and it was necessary to be restrained and reformed by Parliament And it appears by the Statute of Articuli super Chartas that they have encroached to hold plea for free-hold and for that the Court which is mentioned in Fleta cannot be otherwise intended then the Kings Bench which then followed the Kings Court And also that they have not incroached only upon matters as to hold plea for Free-holds but also to persons and place where Contracts and Trespasses were made and this was the cause of the making of the said Statute And to this action of Trespasse for indebitatus assumpsit there begun he intended that it is for another thing of which they could not hold plea and it might be criminall for Civill is that which begun by contract and it is part of the commutative Justice for which is recompence given by one party to another and is not founded upon the Contract but is translated to an action of Trespass which manner of Trespass is not within the Statute and so he intended that
hath the Copy-hold Estate for life in remainder was the question And it was argued by Harris Serjeant that the Estate of Fines in the body of that binds all persons but onely some which have Infirmities and by the saving Rights Titles Claimes and Interests are saved But Title comes in the conditionall perclose of saving that is so that they pursue their Title Claime and Interest c. By way of Act or lawfull Entry within five yeares next after the said proclamations had and made So that in this case the principall matter to be considered is what thing is operated by the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale for if by that the remainder of the Copy-holder be turned to right then insues that the Fine shall be a Barr And it seemes that this determines the first Estate for life and he agreed that it cannot be a surrender insomuch that there is a mesene remainder as it is 37. H. 6. 17. b. 4. H. 7. 10. But this Lease to commence at a day to come cannot be a surrender but shall be determined and extinct by acceptance of a new Lease as it is there and in 22. H. 7. 51. a. agreed and so it was adjudged in Hillary 30. Eliz. between Wilmottand Cutlers Case that if a Husband which was seised of a Copy-hold Estate in right of his Wife accept an estate for life this determines the copy-hold Estate which he hath in right of his Wife in possession So if Lessee for yeares accept an estate of one which hath no Estate yet this determines his Tearme as it was adjudged Hillary 31. Eliz. Rot. 1428. b. That if Lessee for yeares of a Lease made by the Ancester accept an estate of Guardian in Soccage this determines his Lease which he had of the Ancestor and upon that he concluded that in this case the acceptance of a Bargaine and Sale turnes the Copy-holder in remainder to a Right and then it appeares by Saffins Case 5. Coke 125. That he shall be bound though that he hath only Interest and so of Title also and he said that it appeares by Kite and Quarintons case 4. Coke 26. a. that a Right or Title may be of Copy-hold Estate for it is there said by Wray cheife Justice that it shall be with in the Statute of 32 H. 8. chapter 9. of buying of Titles and so concluded Dodridge the Kings Serjeant agreed that the sole question is if any thing be here done to turn the Copy-hold-Estate in remainder into a right for then he agreed that this shall be barred otherwise not and to that hee intended that the first Estate for life shall be sayd to be in Esse notwithstanding the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale as to all estrangers and especially when it is to their prejudice as if Tenant grant Rent and after surrenders his estate now between the parties the Lease shall be extinct by the surrender but to the Grantee of the Rent it shall be sayd to be in Esse and if during his life he in Remainder also grants a Rent hee shall hold the Land subject to both the Rents though that the grants be both to one self sameperson so if he in Reversion grants his Reversion with warranty and after the Tenant for life surrenders and the Grantee be impleaded he shall never vouch during the life of the Tenant for life 5 H. 5. Comment 24 Ed. 3. And here also is a custome which preserves the Copy-hold Estate in Remainder and their particular Tenant cannot that prejudice and for that also it shall not be turned into a right as if a Copy-hold Estate be granted to one for life by one Copy and after the Lord grants another Estate for life by another Copy to another and then the first Copy-holder commits forfeiture he which hath the second estate cannot take advantage of that but the Lord shall hold it during the life of the first Tenant for no act made by the particular Tenant shall prejudice him in Remainder for otherwise many Inconveniencies would insue upon that as by secret conveyances or as if a grantee of a Rent charge grant that to the Tenant of the Land for his life the Remainder over the Remainder shall be good notwithstanding that the particular Estate bee extinct and drowned also he intended that the Copy-hold Estate is another thing then the land it self and for that the Fine shall not be a Barr no more then in Smith and Stapletons Case Com. Where a Fine levied of Land shal not be a Barr of Rent insomuch that it is another thing so in this case he intended that the fine shall not be a Barr of the Copy-hold Estate and concluded c. Wynch Justice was of opinion that the Fine shall not be a Barr to the Copy-hold Estate in Remainder for the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale doth not determine the first Copy-hold Estate for life as to him in Remainder but only to the first Tenant and the Lord and betweene those he agreed that the Copy-hold Estate is determined as in Heydens Case by acceptance of a Lease for years and for that the Remainder shall not be turned to a Right and by consequence shall not be barred and for that he supposed that the reason that the Fine was a Bar in Saffins Case 5 Coke 123. b. was insomuch that the Lessor entered made a Feoffment and after levied a Fine and it is there agreed that the Feoffment turnes the Estate of the Lessee to a Right and for that the Fine shall be a barr and also there the Lease was by limitation of time to have a beginning but if a man makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and before the beginning of that makes a Feoffment or is disseised and Fine with proclamation is levyed yet he which hath future Interest shall not be barred for this is not turned to a Right and it was not the intent of the Statute of Fines to make a Barr of right where there was no discontinuance or Estate at least turned to right and this was the cause that at the Common Law Fine with Non-claime was no Barr but where they make alteration of possession and he cited Palmers case to be adjudged that a Fine of Land shall not be a barr for Rent where the case was Lessee for life Remainder for life of Rent The first Lessee for life of the Rent purchaseth Land and levies Fine of that and adjudged that this shall not binde them in Remainder of the Rent no more if he in remainder levy a fine that shall not prejudice the particular Tenant and so he concluded in this case that the Ramainder shall not be barred and that the Plaintiff shall have Judgment Warburton Justice accordingly and he argued that the Statute of Fines containes two parts The first to barr those which have present right and they ought to make their claim within five yeares after the Fine levied or otherwise they
without title he may have an action of Covenant for the Lessor hath the Evidences and ought to defend the possession of his Lessee and the right also and damages are only to be recovered and so is the difference between a Lease and Inheritance though that the words of the Covenant are all one And also he said that it may be objected that the Incorporation was not well pleaded by Edw. 6. Insomuch that he doth not say after the Conquest for Ed. 3. was Ed. 6. in truth sor there were 3 Edwards before the Conquest and he was the third after And he saith that he hath known many exceptions to be taken to that but hath not known any of them to be allowed and for that he will not insist upon it But the principal matter upon which he insists was that it doth not appear by the pleading that the Deane which made the Lease was dead and it appears by the pleading that he entered in 4 Jacobi and was seised and then of necessity ought to be living and such averment of his life is sufficient as it is agreed in the 13 Eliz. Dyer where a Parson made a Lease for years and the Lessee brought an Ejectione firme and in pleading it was said that the Parson is seised of the reversion and this was allowed to be good without other averment of his life for he cannot be seised if he be not living and then if the Deane shall be intended to be living then they all agreed that the Lease shall be good against him for it was adjudged in this Court between Blackeleech and Smal that if a Bishop makes a Lease for years and after makes a Lease for life the Lease for years being in Esse and dyes and the Successor accepts Rent this shall bind him and by this it appears that the Lease was good against the Dean himself which made it and also against the Successor till he enter and avoid it and then by consequence the action of Covenant shall be very well maintainable and so he concluded also that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Browning against Strelley MIchael 2 Jac. Rot. 531. In debt the Margent of the Count contains Nottingham and the Count it self contains that the Obligation was made at the Town of Nottingham which is a County of it self and the Defendant pleads non est factum and the view was of the Town of Nottingham and it was tryed by the Jury of the County of Nottingham and this was moved in arrest of Judgment after verdict for the Plaintif by Nichols Serjeant And it was agreed by all the Justices that Judgment shall be given accordingly to the verdict insomuch that notwithstanding that the Town of Nottingham is a County of it self yet it may be that some part of the Town may be within the County and for that possibility they would not arrest the Judgment Ireland against Smith IN action upon the Case for these words the Plaintiff counts that he was and is Proctor in the Arches and in communication between one Morgat and the Defendant of him the Defendant said to the said Morgat You take part with Ireland against me who is an arrant Papist and hath a Pardon from the Pope and can help you to such an one if you will And after verdict it was moved by Hutton Serjeant in arrest of Judgment that the action doth not lye and he saith that it hath been adjudged in this Court 3 Jacobi Rot. 7031. between Kingstone and Hall that an action doth not lye for like words he is an arrant Papist And it were good that he and all such as he is were hanged for he and all such as he is would have the Crowne from the Kings head if they durst And it was adjudged that an action doth not lye for these words which are more strong then the words in this action but of the other part it was said by Haughton Serjeant that he did not insist upon these words that he is a Papist but that he had obtained a Pardon from the Pope the which by the Statute of 13 Eliz. is made High Treason and then notwithstanding that no time was limited when the Pardon should be procured that is before the Statute or after yet it shall be intended such a Pardon which is against the Statute for the presumption of the Law shall be taken in the worst sense and not like to the Case where a man saith to another that he hath the Pox And also it is alledged by the Count that the Plaintiffe is not above the age of 40. years so that he cannot obtain a Pardon before the Statute of 13 Eliz. And for that he supposed that the action is very well maintainable Coke cheif Justice said that it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in the time of Catlyn cheife Justice there that an action upon the Case doth not lye for calling a man Papist And Winch Justice said that if a man call a Bishop or another man which is trusted with government of the Church and Ecclesiastical causes that he thought the action lyes otherwise not Also he supposed that the Pardon might be for Purgatory or other matters which are not within the Statute of 13 Eliz. And also the Pardon may be procured by another and come to his hands by delivery over afterwards that it had passed two or three and the averment is not sufficient for it is onely Implication and Inference Coke and Warberton Justices sayd that a Papist is one that errs in his opinion and though that the Papists are Authors of many Treasons yet the Law doth not intend so and so of Heretick which is alwaies in a fundamentall point of Religion and yet an action doth not ly for calling a man Heretick also the Pope is a temporall Prince in Italy and for this cause also may pardon and this is out of the statute of 13 Eliz. and so they all agreed that the Action doth not ly for these words Pasche 1612. 10 Jacobi In the Common Bench. Marstones Case IN a common Recovery the Tenant appears by Attorney and vouches one which is present in Court which appears and vouches the common Vouchee and the Attorney hath a Warrant of the party acknowledged before a Judge but this was not entred of record and this was in Hillary tearme 16 Eliz. And it was moved by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Warrant of Attorney might be now amended and entred upon the record and Coke supposed cleerly that it shall not be entred insomuch that it is a want of a Warrant of Attorney but if there had been a mis-construing of the Warrant of Attorney otherwise it is for this seems to be within the Statute of 27 Eliz. Chapter 5. Concerning amendments In Debt upon an obligation with condition to perform Covenants in an Indenture of Lease the Defendant pleads that after
and before the originall purchased the Indentnre was by the assent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancelled and avoyded and so demands Judgment if action and it seemes by Coke cleerly that the Plea is not good without averment that no Covenant was broken before the cancelling of the Indenture Pasch 12. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Barde against Stubbing IT was moved in arrest of Judgment that the Venire facias wants these words Et habeas ibidim nemina Juratorum but the words Venire facias duodecim c. were incerted and it seems by all the Justices that it was good and that the first words are supplyed in the last and they are aided by the statutes of Jeofai es after verdict and so it was adjourned In Audita querela sued by the sureties upon an escape made by the principall they being in execution offered to bring the Money into the Court or to put in sufficient Sureties to the Court and so prayed that they might be bayled and it was agreed that if Audita querela be grounded by specialty or other matter in writing or upon matter of Record Supersedeas shall be granted before that the party be in Execution and if he be in execution he shall be bayled but if it be founded upon a matter in Deed which is only surmise he shall not have Supersedeas in one case nor shall be bayled in the other case and so was the Opinion of all the Justices In an Action of Waste for digging of earth to make Brick Estrepement was awarded and upon Affidavit that the Writ of Estrement was delivered to the Sheriff and that he gave notice of that to the party and he notwithstanding that continues to make waste attachment was awarded Pasch 12 Iacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Fetherstones Case Trinity 1612. IN Ejectione firme The Plaintiff had Judgment and an Habere facias possessionem to the Sheriff of Coventry which returnes that he had offered possession to the Plaintiff and he refused to accept it and it seems that the Plaintiff cannot have Habere facias possessionem insomuch that it appeares by the Record that he hath refused to have the possession The case was A Dean and Chapter being Lord of a Maunor parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor being severall adjoyned to the Common which was parcell of the wast of the Mannor and one Copy-holder which had Common in the sayd Wast puts his Beasts into the sayd waste to take his Common and they for default of inclosure escape into the sayd Demesnes by which the Lord brings his action of Trespass and upon this the Defendant pleads the speciall matter and that the Lord and all those whose Estate he had in the said place where the trespass is supposed to be made have used to fence the said place which is parcell of the Demesnes of the sayd Mannor against the Commoners which have Common in the sayd Common being parcell of the waste and also of the demesnes of the sayd Mannor and that the Beasts of the sayd Defendant escaped into the sayd place in which c for default of inclosure and so demands Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurrs in Law In the agreement of which it was agreed by Hutton and Haughton the Serjeants which argued it whether a man by prescription is bound to make fence against Commoners as it is agreed in the 22 H. 6. 7. 8. 21 H. 6. 33. But the doubt which was made in this case by Haughton which demurred was for that that the Lord which by the prescription ought to inclose is owner of the soyle also against which he ought to inclose and so he ought to inclose against himself and for that he supposed that the pleading should have been that there is such a custome there and of time out of minde that the Lord shall inclose against the Common insomuch that by that the Copy-holder would bind the Lord and upon that it was adjourned c. Pasch 12 Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife IN Warrantia Charte the case was Sir Robert Osborne and his Wife levyed a Fine of the Mannor of Kelmersh with other Lands in Kelmersh to Sir Henry Rowles against all persons and this is declared for the Lands in Relmersh to be to the use of Sir Henry Rowles for life with diverse Remainders over and for the Mannor no use was pleaded to be declared at all and then a Writ of Entry in the Post was sued against the sayd Sir Henry Rowles which vouched Sir Robert Osborne and his sayd wifeâ— and this was declared for the sayd Lands to be to the use of the sayd Sir Henry Rowles for his life with other Remainders over which were declared upon the Fine of the Lands in Kelmersh only and of the Mannor of Kelmersh no uses were declared upon the Recovery also and upon this Recovery pleaded in barr the Plaintiffe demurred and it was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiffe that the Plea in Barr was not good insomuch that it doth not appeare that the warranty which was executed by the Recovery was the same warranty which was created by the Fine and also the Fine was taken for assurance against the Issue in tayle and the Recovery to Barr the remainders and so one shall not destroy the other and for the first he sayd that a man may have of another severall warranties and severall causes of Voucher and all shall be together for warranty is but Covenant reall and as well as a man may have severall Covenants for personall things as well he may have severall reall Covenants for one self same Land as if the Father infeoff one with warranty and the Sonn also releases to the same Feoffee with warranty or if the Father infeoff one with warranty against him and his Heires and the Sonn release with warranty against all men the Feoffee may vouch one and Rebut against the other so of Warranty of Tenant in tayle and release of an Ancestor collaterall with warranty in Law and expresse warranty as it is agreed in 31 Ed. 1. Fitzh Voucher 289. And upon that he concluded that a man may have severall warranties of one selfe same man and the one may be executed and the other remaine notwithstanding that it be for one selfe same Land and he supposed the effect of these warranties are as they are used for if that may vouch generally and bind himselfe upon the Fine or upon his owne warranty or upon the warranty of his Ancestor notwithstanding that the voucher be generally as it is 31. Ed. 3. Warranty of Charters 22. So if he be vouched as Heire though that it were speciall but if he be Heire within age otherwise it is for that is a good Counter Plea that he was within age and so praied that the word might demur during his nonage 17.
appears by 9 Edw. 4. 33. 37 H. 6. 32 H. 6. 1. Ed. 4. 2. 50. Ed. 3. And he conceived that the burying is not any Administration nor the taking of the goods into his custody to preserve them no more then in Trover and Conversion when a man takes the goods for to preserve them And he agreed that where a man intitles himselfe to goods by Administration committed by any but by the Bishop he ought to pleade specially that he which committed it had power to doe it But here it is not so but only conveiance and for that need not here such precise pleading of that insomuch it is only execution of Administration and for that it is good without intitleing the Arch-Deacon And he agreed that an Executor of his owne wrong may pay Debts due to another and shall be discharged And he agreed also that the Confession of one Executor shall bind his Companion and that Judgement shall be given upon that for the Plaintiff And they all agreed that the pleading that the Defendant hath no goods besides the goods which do not amount c. it was not good and for these causes they all agreed that Judgement ought to be given to the Plaintiff Trinity 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Tyrer against Littleton 9. Jacobi Rot. 299. IN Trespasse for taking of a Cow c. Upon not guilty pleaded by the Defendant the Jury gives speciall Verdict as it followes that is that the Husband of the Plaintiff was seised of eighty Acres of Land held of the Defendant by Harriot service that is the best Beasts of every Tenant which died seised that he had at the time of his death and that the Husband of the said Defendant long time before his death made a Feoffment of that Land in consideration of marriage and advancement of his Son to the use of his Son and his Heires with such agreement that the Son should redemise to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that after the marriage was had and the Son redemised the Land to his Father and the Father injoyed that accordingly and paied the Rent to the Lord and after died and that the Plaintiff had no notice of his Feoffment and that the Husband at the time of his death was possessed of the said Cow and that the Defendant took it as the best Beast in name of Harriot and also found the Statute of 13. Eliz. of fraudulent conveiances to deceive Creditors and so praied the direction of the Court and this was agreed by the Plaintiff aforesaid Nicholls Serjeant first that all conveiances made upon good consideration and Bona Fide are by speciall Proviso exempted out of the Statute of 13. Eliz. chap. And he conceived that this is made upon good consideration and Bona Fide and for that it is within the said Proviso and also he said that as upon the Statute of Marlebridge there is fraud apparent and fraud averrable as it appeares 12. H. 4. 16. b. Where in ward the Tenant pleads that his Father levied a Fine to a stranger the Lord replies that this was by Collusion to re-enfeoff the Heire of the Tenant at his full age and so averred that to be by Collusion to out the Lord of his Ward and this is fraud averrable But if the Tenant had enfeoffed his Tenant immediately in Fee-simple this is apparent without any averment and the Court may adjudge upon it And so upon the Statute of 27. Eliz. chap. 4. it appears by Burrells Case that the Fraud ought to be proved in Evidence or confessed in pleading or otherwise this shall not avoid conveiance for it shall not be intended 6 Coke 78. a. and see 33. H. 6. 14. b. Andrew Woodcocks case upon which he inferred that this is but a fraud averrable if it be a fraud at all and of this the Court could not take notice if it be not found by the Jury and he said upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Devisees as it appeares by Knights Case 8 Coke and 12. Eliz. Dyer 295. 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Circumstances which are found in the speciall Verdict are sufficient to satisfie the Court that it is fraud for as well as the Court may give direction to the Jury upon Evidence that it is fraud and what not as well may the Court Judge upon the special matter being found by special Verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. and 268. that is the special matter being found by special verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. 268. that is the speciall matter is found by Inquisition upon Mandamus and leave to the Court to adjudge if it be fraud or not and in 12 El. 294. and 295. 8. the speciall matter was found by Jury upon Eligit directed to the Sheriffe and by him returned to the Court And in Trinity 27. Eliz. between Saper and Jakes in Trover the Defendant pleades not guilty and gives in Evidence as assignement of a Tearme to him with power of revocation And the Court directed the Jury that this was fraudulent within the Statute of 27. Eliz. to defraud a purchasor and in Burrells Case 6. Coke 73. a. before the fraud to the Court upon Evidence to the Jury and the Court gave direction to the Jury that it was fraud and that upon the Circumstances which appeares upon the speciall Evidence And so in this case he conceived that insomuch the circumstances appear by the Verdict that the Jury may very well adjudge upon it and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 13. Eliz. Doth not aid the Defendant insomuch that the Feoffment was made for good consideration and for that shall be within the said Proviso for if that shall be avoided at all that shall be avoided by the Statute of Marlebridge which is ouly affirmance of the Common Law and this is the reason that not withstanding the Statute speakes only of Feoffment by the Father to his Son and Heire apparent yet a Feoffment to a Cosin which is Heire apparent is taken to be within the Statute and in the 24. of Eliz. in Sir Hamond Stranges Case It was adjudged that if the Son and Heire apparent in the life time of his Father purchase a Mannor of his Father for good consideration this is out of the Statute and so it was adjudged in Porredges Case also he said that the Law is an Enemie to fraud and will not intend it being a conveiance made for consideration of a marriage to be fraudulent no more then if the Father had made a Feoffment to the use of a stranger for life the remainder in Fee to his Son and Heire the which is not within the Statute of Marlebridge as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33.
name So by Custome as the Custome that if a Copy-holder will sell his Copy-hold Estate that he which is next of blood to him shall have the refusall and if none of his blood then he which Inhabits in the neerest part of the part of the ground shall have it before a stranger giving for that as much as a stranger would and the Lord shall have him for his Tenant whether he will or no for it shall be intended that so it was agreed at the first and it is reasonable and if it had not been ruled and adjudged before yet he conceived it might now be a rule and adjudged insomuch that it is so reasonable and good and for the second custome that is for the custome of cutting of Trees by such Copy-holder which hath such priviledge he conceived also that it was good But he agreed that a bare Tenant for life cannot be warranted by custome to do such an Act as it was here adjudged between Powell and Peacock But here he had a greater Estate then for life for he hath power to make another Estate for life and shall have as great priviledge as Tenant after possibility c. which is in respect of Inheritance which once was in him and he may do it for the possibility which he hath to give to another Estate as it is agreed in 2. Ed. 4. that a Lease fo a hundred yeares is Mortmain in respect of the continuance of it so here for the Estate may continue by such power of nomination for many lives in perpetuity and that as when at the Common Law they have in reputation and opinion of Law a greater Estate may cut and sell Trees so here insomuch that the Estate comes so neere to Inheritance he conceived that he might cut the Trees by the custome and that the Custome is good and so he concluded that Judgement should be given that the Plaintiff should be barred in respect of Customes and then to the third that is when a man lets Land and by the same Deed grants the Trees to be cut at the will and pleasure of the grantee there the Lessee hath distinct Interest But if the Lessor by one selfe same clause had demised the Land and the Trees there the Intendment is But notwithstanding that there are severall clauses and that he hath distinct Interests yet he conceiveth that the Trees remaine parcell of the Inheritance and free-hold till they are cut and are severed only in Interest that is that may be felled and devided by the Axe for Tythes shall not be paid for them if they exceed the growth of twenty yeares not it shall not be Felony for to cut those and burn them And it is not like to an Advowson for that may be severed and for that he conceived that if the Custome had not warranted the Cutting and Selling that the Copy-holder had forfeited his Estate and that the Lord might very well have taken advantage of it and 29. assis 29. A man sells Trees to be cut at Michaelmasse insuing and before Michaelmasse Haukes breed in them the seller shall have them by which it appeares that the property is not altered So that though they are not parcell of the Mannor yet they are parcell of the Free-hold insomuch that they are not severed in Facto And he agreed that Lessee for yeares of a Mannor shall take advantage of Forfeiture and need not any presentment by the Homage and Littleton fol. 15 saith that the Lord may enter as in a thing Forfeited unto him and so for attainder of Felony And if a Copy-holder makes a Lease for yeares by which he forfeits his Copy-hold Estate And after the Lord grants the Mannor for yeares the Lessee of the Mannor shal take advantage of this Forfeiture made before he had any Estate in the Mannor without any presentment by the Homage But here in this case the Custome warrants the cutting of the Trees by the Copy-holder and for that he concluded all the matter as above that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ Coke cheife Justice agreed and he said that Fortescue and Littleton and all others agreed that the Common Law consists of three parts First Common Law Secondly Statute Law which corrects abridges and exp'aines the Common Law The third Custome which takes away the Common Law But the Common Law Corrects Allows and Disallows both Statute Law and Custome for if there be repugnancy in Statute or unreasonablenesse in Custome the Common Law Disallowes and rejects it as it appeares by Doctor Bonhams Case and 8 Coke 27. H. 6 Annuity And he conceived that there are five differences between Prescription and a Custome And all those as pertenent to this cause First in the beginning Pugnant ex Diametro for nothing may be good by prescription but that which may have beginning by grant and also prescription is incident to the Person and Custome to some place and holds place in many Cases which cannot be by grant as in 11 H. 4. Lands may be devised by Custome and so discent to all the Sons as in Gavelkind and to the youngest Son in Eurrough English and others like which cannot have their beginning by Grant but prescription and Custome are Brothers and ought to have the same age and reason ought to be the Father and Congruence the Mother and use the Nurse and time out of memory to Fortifie them both Secondly they vary in quality for prescription is for one man only and Custome is for many if all but one be not dead Thirdly they vary in extent and latitude for prescription extends to Fee-simple only but Custome extends to all Interests and Estates whatsoever as appeares by pleading for Tenant in tayl for life or yeares cannot prescribe in what Estate nor against the Lord in his Demesnes but they ought to alledge the Custome and against a stranger they ought to prescribe in the name of the Lord and for that prescription b. Copy-holder of Inheritance may sell the Trees is not good but such Custome is good and 5. Ed. 3. 24. And the old Reports 196. One Tenant being a Free-holder prescribes to have Windfalls and all Trees-which are withered in the Top and if the Lord makes them in Cole to have so much in money And so if they sell and this for Sale and this was not-good insomuch that it is alledged in the person as prescription but if it had been alledged as Custome and to be burnt in his house then it shall be good as appendant and 14. Ed. 3. Barr 227. Wilby saith to be adjudged that prescription to have Turbary to be burnt in his house is good but not to sell and 11. H. 6. 17. accordingly by which it appeares that this may be very well by Custome and cannot be by prescription Thirdly he conceived that where a man may create an Estate without nomination there he may create that by nomination And also that which may be done by the
awarded good because it comes in Lieu of Goods which they had as Executors and shall be Assets in their hands as the Goods should have been and for that it is well brought in the Detinet only And they said that in the principall case it shall be mischeivous if the Action shall be brought in the Debet and Detinet for it may be the Rent reserved is of more worth then the Profits of the Land will amount unto and that the Executors or Administrators have no other Assets now shall be the Executor or Administrator be charged with his own proper Goods which shall be mischeivous and the case of 10. H. 7. 5. and 6. that is direct in the point was often times cited and all these three things which were of councell with the Defendant informed the Court that they were of Councell with Hargrave when the Judgement given in the Kings Bench was reversed for Error in this very point and for this cause because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet where it should be in the Detinet only And so they praied that the Judgement should be hindered But by the whole Court except Yelverton And so it was adjudged that the Action was well brought as it is and especially for the reasons given in Hargraves Case 5. Coke 31. And to that which hath been said by Yelverton Justice that in all cases where Executors are charged by the name of Executors or Administrators that there the Action shall be against them in the Detinet only Flemming cheife Justice answered that â—rue it is in all personall things where they are named as Executors Action shall be in the Detinet But as it is an Action of Debt for Rent reserved upon a Chattell reall and an Executor is as an Assignee in Law and so charged as privy in Estate and not meerely as Executor and if he have no more Assets then the Rent which he is to pay he may plead nothing in his hands against all the World and to that that hath been said that the Executor hath been charged of his own Goods If the profits be not more then the Rent or the Rent more then the profits to this he said that in this case where the Executor hath the Tearme and hath not any other Assets that they may wave this Tearme And in Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent may plead to the occupation and that recover The reason of the diversity between this case and the case of 28. H. 8. Dyer 14. is plain for in an Action of Debt against the Termor himselfe Non habuit nec occupavit is no Plea for there was a contract between them and for this privity of contract is the Lessee charged though he did not occupy But in the case of an Executor the privity of the contract is gone and so may be a difference But yet it seemes if he have Assets sufficient to pay the Rent he cannot wave it And to the case 14. H. 4. 28. that hath been cited that doth speake nothing how the Action should be brought And the Justices have seen the record of Hargraves case and the Reversall of that And they said the same error which was in Hargraves case is in this case and for that bring your Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber if you will for we so adjudge And then it was moved that the Lord Rich was Tenant in Tayle of part of the reversion and Tenant in Fee-simple of the other part and so it seemes that he ought to have two Actions because he hath as two reversions But it was resolved by all the Court that if a man have a reversion of part in Fee-simple and of the other part in tayl and makes a Lease for yeares rendring a Rent he shall have but one Action both being in the hands of one But otherwise it had been if the reversion had been in severall hands they should not Joyne in Debt and for that Fenner put this case two Coparceners are of a reversion and they make partition now the Rent is apportioned and they shall sever in Debt But if one dies without Issue and the part discends to the other Parcener now he shall have but one Action of Debt againe and so it is if a man makes a Lease of two Acres rendring Rent and after grants the reversion of one Acre to J. S. and of the other Acre to J. N. now they shall sever in Debt for this Rent but if J. S. and J. N. Grant their reversions againe to the first Lessor he shall have but one Action of Debt and so the exception dissalowed by all the Court and the Judgement given for the Plaintiff according to the Verdict Yates and Rolles THe case was this J. S. covenants by Indenture with J. N. I. D. and A. B. to enter Bond to pay ten pound to J. N. and J. N. dies and his Administrator brings a Writ of covenant and the question was insomuch that this ten pound was to be paid to J. N. if his Administrator shall have Action of Covenant or if the Action shall survive to the other two and it was moved by Stephens that the Action shall be well brought by the Administrator for this shall be taken as a severall covenant and this now is in nature of a Debt and enures only to him which shall have it also the payment of the money which is the effect of the covenant shall be to him only Ergo the Damages for the not performing of it shall goe to him also and by consequence to his Administrator But it was adjudged insomuch that this was a joynt covenant that this shall survive to the others and not well brought by the Administrator So also resolved that insomuch that the words are that he would enter Bond and doth not say to whom that this shall be intended to the Covenantees and though that the Solvendo is but to one of them yet that is very good as an Obligation made to three Solvendum to one of them is good by Fenner and by Williams Obligation to two Solvendum ten pound to one and ten pound to another both ought to joyne in Debt upon this Obligation and Judgement for the Defendant Sammer and Force THe Case was this The Lord of a Copy-hold Mannor where Copy holders are for life grants Rent-charge out of all the Mannor one Copy-hold Escheats the Lord grants that againe by Copy the question was If the Grantee shall hold it charged or not and by the whole Court but Fenner he shall not hold it charged because he comes in above the Grant that is By the custome the same Law of Statutes Recognizances or Dowers but the 10. of Eliz. Dyer 270. by the whole Court that he shall hold it charged but this hath been denyed for Law in a Case in the Common Bench between Swaine and Becket which see Trinity 5. Jacobi But to Coke Justice it seemed that
Grant his Intent was cleerly to pass all but Williams if he had sayd Totum Molendinum suum or all his Estate in the Mill there paradventure it should haue been otherwise and so a difference where he saith he grants the Mill and all his Estate in that and where he grants all his Estate in the Mill for in the first case all passes by the Grant of the Mill and these words which are after are but words explanatory as â—rooke sayd and it was adjourned And after in Easter Tearm next insuing Hitcham the Queens Attorney came again and prayed that the Judgment be affirmed and Yelverton of Grayes Inne sayd that he hath considered of Nokes Case 4. Coke and this was all one with this case for the case was thus A man lets a House in London by these words demise Grant c. That the Lessee should injoy the House during the Tearm without eviction by the Lessor or any claiming from or under him and the Lessor was bound to peform all Covenants Grants Articles and Agreements as our case is and there by the whole Court that the sayd express Covenant qualifies the generalty of the Covenants by the Words Demise and Grant which is all one with our case for first he granted Totum Molendinum and after covenant that he should injoy c. against himself and all which claime in by from or under him and after binds himself to perform all Grants Covenants Articles and Agreements and so it seems to him that it is au expresse Covenant in this Case as well as in other and qualifies the generall Covenant implyed by the word Grant and then the Grantee being outed by a title Paramount no Action of Debt upon such Obligation and prayed that the Judgment be reversed and the Justices sayd they would consider Nokes Case and the next day their opinions were prayed again and the cheife Justice sayd that he had seen Nokes case and said that there is but a small difference between the cases but he sayd that some diflemay be collected For first in our case is a Recitall of the Estate of the Grantor that is that all belongs to him as Survivor and for that this was a manner of Inducement of the Grantee to be more willing and forward to accept of the Grant and to give the more greater consideration for it but in Nokes case there is no recitall and so this may be the diversity Secondly In Nokes Case the Tearm past all in Interest at the first and the Grantee or Lessee had once the effect of this Lease in Interest of the Lessor but in this case when two Tenants in Common and one grants Totum molendinum there passes but a half at the first and so the grant is not supplyed for the other halfe and then if the speciall Covenant shall qualify the generall c. The Grantee shall not have any remedy for a half at all and this may be the other diversity but admitting that none of these will make any difference then he sayd that all the Court agreed that this point in Nokes Case was not adjudged but this was a matter spoken collaterally in the case and the case was adjudged against the Plaintiff for other reasons for that that he did not shew that he which evicted this Tearm had title Paramount for otherwise the Covenant in Law was not broken and for this reason Judgment was given against the Plaintiff and not upon the other matter and so the whole Court against Nokes Case And the cheif Justice sayd that to that which is sayd in Nokes case that otherwise the speciall Covenant shall be of no effect if it cannot qualify the generalty of the Covenant in Law he sayd that this serves well to this purpose that is that if the Lessor dyes and any under the Testator claim the Estate that the Action of Covenant in this case lies against his Executors which remedy otherwise he cannot have for if a man makes a Lease by these words Devise and Grant and dyes Action of Covenant doth notly against his Executors as it is sayd in the 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. But otherwise upon expresse Covenant and then this expresse speciall Covenant shall be to this purpose And also it seems to him that if a man devise and grant his Land for years and there are other Covenants in the Deed that in this case if the Lessor binds himself to perform all Covenants that he is not bound by his Bond to perform Covenants in Law and he cited that to this purpose the Books of 22 H. 6. and 6 Ed. 6. B. Tender that if a man makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent this is Covenant in Law as it is sayd 15 H. 8. Dyer and a man shall have Debt or Covenant for that and yet if a man binds himself in a Bond to perform all Covenants where there are other Covenants in the Deed and after doth not pay the Rent no action of Debt lyeth upon this Obligation nor the nature of the Debt altered by that and he sayd that the Munday next they would pronounce Judgment in the Writ of Errour accordingly if nothing shall be sayd to the contrary and nothing was sayd Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Bartons Case THE Case was this A man was taxed by the Parish for Reparations of the Church and the Wardens of the Church sued for this Taxation in the spirituall Court and hanging this Suit one of the Wardens released to the Defendant all Actions Suits and Demands and the other sued forward and upon this the Defendant there procured a Prohibition upon which matter shewed in the Prohibition was a Demurre joyned and Davenport of Grayes Inne moved the Court for a Consultation and upon all the matter as he sayd the point was but this If two Wardens of a Church are and they sue in the Court Christian for Taxation and one Release if that shal barr his Companion or not And it seems to him that this Release shall not be any Barr to his Companion or Impediment to sue for he sayd that the Wardens of a Church are not parties interested in Goods of the Church but are a speciall Corporation to the Benefit of the Church and for that he cited the Case in 8 Ed. 4. 6. The Wardens of the Church brought Trespass for goods of the Church taken out of their possession and they counted Ad damnum Parochianorum and not to their proper damage and the 11 H. 4. 12. 12 H. 7. 27. 43 H. 7. 9. Where it is sayd expresly that the Wardens of the Church are a corporation only for the Benefit of the Church and not for the disadvantage of that but this Release sounds to disadvantage of the Church and for that seems to him no Barr also this Corporation consists of two persons and the Release of one is nothing worth for he was but one Corps and the moyity of the Corps could not release
Chancellor and University of Oxford commanding them that they should remove the University to such a place till the Parliament should be ended And after he sent his Writ to them againe which was directed to the Chancellor and University by which he wild that they should returne againe the Parliament being ended by which Writ he conceived that it appeares that the University was not Locall And this for two reasons First insomuch that this Writ was directed to the Chancellor and University and every Writ is directed to a person and not to a place Secondly the Writ that he should move and remove the University which is a thing impossible to do if it should be a place The other Record was 49. Ed. 3. And this declares that there was contention between the Schollers of Cambridge and the Townesmen there and the Schollers went to Northampton and there they made a Petition to the King that they might erect a University and the King sent his Writ to the Maior commanding him that he would not suffer the Schollers to remaine there and that he would there erect a University which proves that a University may be erected at the Kings pleasure and so cannot a place then admitting that a Corporation may consist upon a place yet the University not being a place that shall not be any prejudice to omit it And he cited a case which was adjudged as he said in the 26. of Eliz. which was thus The Deane and Canons of Winsor made a Lease for years by the name of Deane and Canons of new Winsor And this was adjudged no variance and the case of 5. Ed. 4. 5. of the Abbot of Saint Maries in York which see there and he said the Lord Norths Case was thus That Christ Church in Oxford was incorporate by the name of Deane and Canons of Christ Church in Oxford And they made a Feoffment by the name of the Deane and Canons of Christ Church in the University of Oxford and adjudged a good Feoffment And he said that in the argument of this case it was said by Gaudy that if a corporation were made of Dale and after Dale is made into a City they may make a Lease by the name of a City of Dale and the Lord Popham as he said put these cases That is that if a Corporation be founded of Oxford And that they made a Lease by the name of c. In the Precincts of Oxford this shall be a good Lease yet a thing may be within the Precincts of another place and not in the place and in the 32. Eliz. was the case of one Jermin and Wylles that if a Corporation be made by the name of Deane and Chapter of Saint Maries in Exceter is good But they agreed in this case as he said that if it appeare that they cannot be intended allone otherwise it should be and he conceived in the principall case that it is not necessarily that it should be intended the same place and for that he conceived in all those cases that the Lease shall be good and he said that there were neer two hundred Leases upon the same Title for which c. And after this it was argued in Michaelmasse Tearme 1609. 7. Jacobi by the Justices And the opinion of Crook and Williams Justices was that the Lease was good But Fenner and Yelverton to the contrary and Flemming cheif Justice argued that the Lease was not good but he said this should not be absolutely his opinion but moved a composition betwixt the parties But insomuch that the matter was not compounded in the same Michaelmasse Tearme Judgement was praied And Williams Justice brought into the Court a decree out of the Court of Wards concerning the Case which is put in 7. Eliz. Dyer and 1. Coke Porters Case And upon the decree appeares that an Information being exhibited there against the Master and fellows of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge concerning certain Land they made Title to by a Devise made to them by the name of Masters Fellows and Schollers of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge and this Devise was made four and five of Phil. and Mary and the Decree recyted that upon this were two great Doubts and Questions conceived First If this Devise were good and also by the Statute of 1. and 2. Phil. and Mary which inabled to devise to spirituall Corporations And the second point was That where they were incorporated by the name of Master Fellows and Schollars De sancta and Individua Trinitate in the University and Town of Cambridge if this devise made to them by the name of Master Fellowes and Schollers of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge was good and the Decree rehearsed that the opinion of all the Justices in England was First That it was a good Devise within the Statute of one and two Phillip and Mary as it is reported in the Booke before cited Secondly That this was not such a mis-naming of the Corporation which made the Devise voyd and Williams Justice produced this Record as he sayd to fortify his opinion And he conceived no difference between a Grant and a Devise nor no difference when an Estate or conveyance made unto them and conveiance made by them and for that he cited the Case in the 19 H. 8. in Dyer where if a man devise Land to the Abbey of Saint Peters where the foundation is Saint Paul this is a voyd devise and so in a grant And Crooke Justice to the same Intent Yelverton Justice to that Decree shewed by my Brother Williams I conceive a great Difference First a Will and a grant for in case of a Will it sufficeth if they be described by a name by which the Intent of the Devisor may be sufficiently known and a man is intended to be Inops consilij at the time of the Devise made and for that that he hath not any to instruct him oâ— the precise name of the Corporation for which c. And Fenner Justice to the same intent and if a man devise to one and his Assignes as it is a Fee-simple in case of a Devise so it is not in grant and so devise to one and his Children is an Estate Tayl in case of Devise but not in a grant Flemming cheife Justice to the same intent and to the Decree he sayd that this is as good Law as ever he heard in his life but yet he conceived also that there is a great difference between a Grant and a Devise as if a man devise to a Monke the Remainder over this is a good remainder so devise to one the Remainder over and the particular Tenant refuse this is good in a Devise contrary in grant and to the case which is put by my Brother Williams out of the 19 H. 8. Dyer there is a great difference where there is not any such person at all to take there the Devise shall be void as where the Devise to the Abbot of Saint Peter where
the foundation is of Saint Paul and where it is a person certain but all the name is not so precisely recyted and to that which is sayd by my Brother Williams that no difference between conveiance made to them and by them I agree to him with this difference that is if conveyance be made to them of what by presumption in Law they are knowing and are parties as a Fine levied to them and such like but of a Devise it is not presumed that they have knowledge of that till the Death of the Devisor and he conceived that the Lease is voyd and this Decree shewed hath not changed his opinion but he moved the parties again to an agreement and would not as yet give Judgment Hitcham the Queens Attorney moved the Court for a Prohibition and the case was this two Merchants covenanted by Deed with their Factor to allow him ten pound a Moneth for his Wages and one Merchant sealed the Deed in England and the other sealed that upon the Sea and the Factor came and sued the Merchants in the Admiralty for his wages and by the Court insomuch that one of them sealed it upon the Land this is not any thing done upon the Deepe Sea and for that Prohibition was granted to him Upon a Motion made by Wincolt of the Middle Temple to dissolve a Prohibition granted to the spirituall Court upon a Libel for Tithes there the Court took this rule that when a Consultation is lawfully granted there a new Prohibition shall not be granted upon the same Lâ—bell and yet they qualified that with this difference that is when a Consultation is granted upon any fault of the Prohibition in form by the Mâ—sprision of the Clark or by mis-pleading of any Statute in that or such like there a new Prohibition may be granted upon the same Libell but if Consultation be granted upon the right of the thing in question there a new Prohibition shall not be granted upon the same Libell see the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. Pasch 9. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. BRomehead and Spencer Plaintiffs Rogers Defendant where an Action of Debt was brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant as Administrator during the minority of one J. S. and the Plaintiffs shew in their count that the said J. S. at the time of the Writ brought was and yet is within age of one and twenty years and verdict passeth against the Defendant and Crewe moved in arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was insufficient for they have declared that the Executor was within the Age of one and twenty years and the Administration during the nonage shall cease when the Infant comes to the Age of seventeen years so that he may be of the age of 17. 18. 19. or 20. years and yet the Administration ceaseth and so of Action against Administrator and so was the Opinion of all the Justices and the Judgment was stayed upon that according to the resolution of Piggotts Case 15. Coke 29. a. PLomer against Hockhead the Plaintiff declares in Ejectione firme upon a Lease made to him by three Husbands and their wives and that the Defendant ejected him and at the Issue upon not guilty and in evidence to prove this Lease and the delivery of that was shewed a Letter of Attorney made by the Husbands and their wives and the councel of the Defendant takes exception to the Declaration for they have declared upon a Lease by three Husbands and their Wives with a Letter of Attourney to make delivery and a married Wife cannot make a Letter of Attorney And so this is not a Lease of the Wives and so the Plaintiff had declared upon no Lease And the opinion of all the Court was that a married Wife could not make a Letter of Attorney And Williams Justice compared this to the case of an Infant as if an Infant makes a Feoffment or a lease and delivers that with his hand this is not but voidable But if it be executed by Letter of Attorney that is a disseisin to him but by Flimming and Williams if the Plaintiffs had declared upon a Lease made by the Husbands only this had been very good Thomas Malin Plaintiff in Replevin against Thomas Tully the case was The Queen Mary was seised of a Park called Eestwood Park in her Demesne as of Fee as in Right of her Crown and so being seised by her Letters Patent's let the said Park to two for their lives and after died And the Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents recyting the said Lease for lives and that the said Lessees were alive granted the said Park to Humphrey Lord Stafford and his Wife and to the Heires of the said Lord Stafford of the Body of the said Wife lawfully begotten And by the said Patent the same Queen by these words Ac de Ampliori et Vberiori Gracia Nostris Volumus et Declaramus quod si Predictus Dominus Stafford Solvat seu Solvi faciat prefacto Dominae Reginae 20 s. ad talâ—m Diem Tunc Concedimus quod predictus Dominus Stafford habebit revertionem predictam sibi et Heredibus suis And the Lord Stafford paid the said sum of twenty shillings according to the said Letters Patents and if he shall have Fee-simple or not was the question And it was objected that he shall not have it for the words of the Patent are that if the Lord Stafford paies the money Tunc concedimus the which words seeme that the Grant shall take effect in futuro and it was not a present Grant but when the money shall be paid then shee granted but it seemes to the Justice that it was a good Grant immediatly to take effect upon the payment of the money and the condition was precedent till that be performed the reversion remaines in the Queen Eliz. And the Queen might grant by one selfe same Patent as by diverse See 10. Assise 13. 7. Ed. 3. 8. Ed. 2. Feoffments and that the reversion shall not extinguish the Estate Tayl but they may well be together but otherwise it is of an Estate for yeares or for life Warburton Justice that the King is specially favoured in the Law and for that he shall not be inforced to attend in case as other persons ought to make attendance And for that in case where a common person may make a good Grant the King also may make a good Grant and in the case at the Barr if the Grant had been made by a common Person it had been good without question But the first objection that hath been made was that where a man hath made a Lease for life or for years upon condition to have Fee there the particuler Estate shall be drowned upon the increasiing of the Estate but the Statute of Westminster 2. preserves the Estate tayl that it shall not be drowned and that the Fee in this case doth not vest till the condition be performed for if the
all their Study is practise and that if they have no practise of themselves then they attend upon others which practise and apply themselves to know the nature of Simples And to third objection that in London ought to be choyce men for the Statute appoints that they shall be examined by the Bishop and Deane and four others at least and for that there is a more strict course for them then in other places to that it is agreed But he said that in the University there is a more strict course then this for here he ought to be publickly approved by many after that he hath been examined and answered in the Schooles to diverse questions and allowed by the Congregation house And 35. H. 6. 55. Doctor is no addition but a degree quia gradatim et progressâ—one Doctrine provenit to that and that Doctor is teacher and that he was first taught by others as Scholers afterwards he is Master and Doctor dicetur a docendo quia docere permittitur and they are called Masters of their faculty and that the Originall of Doctor came of the Sinagogue of Jewes where there were Doctors of Law and it appeares that they had their ceremonies in time of H. 1. And when a man brings with him the Ensigne of Doctrine there is no reason that he should be examined againe for then if they will not allow of him he shall not be allowed though he be a learned and grave man and it was not the intent of the King to make a Monopoly of this practise And to the second point that he propounded it seemes that the Justification is not good which is Quia non comperuit upon Summons he was amerced and ordered that he shall be arrested and being arrested being examined if he would submit himself to the Colledge he answered that he was a Doctor and had practised and would practise within the sayd City as he conceived he might lawfully do and for that shewing of this case he was committed to prison and he conceived two things upon the Charter First That it doth not inhibit a Doctor to practise but punisheth him for ill using exercising and making and may imprison the Emperick and Imposter and so prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and after in Hillary Tearm in the same year this case was argued by all the Justices of the Common Bench and at two severall dayes and the first day it was argued by Foster Daniell and Warburton Justices at whose Arguments I was not present but Foster argued against the Plaintiff and Daniell and Warburton with him and that the Action of false imprisonment was well maintainable And the second day the same case was argued again by Walmesley Justice and Coke cheife Justice and Walmesley argued as followeth that is that the Statute of 3. H. 8. was in the negative that no person within the City of London or seven Miles of that take upon him to exercise or occupy as Physitian or Chirurgion c. And he doth not know in any case where the words of the Statute are negative that they admit any Interpretation against that but one only and that is the Statute of Marlebridge chapter 4. Which provides that no Lord shall distrain in one County and the beasts distrayned drive into another County in which case though that the words are uegative yet if the Lord distrain in one County he may drive the Beasts to his Mannor in another County of which the Lands in which the distresse was taken were held but it is equity and reason in this case that the Statute should admit such exception for it is not of malice but for that that the Beasts may remain within his Fee but in the principall case there is not the like reason nor Equity And also the King H. 8. in his Letters Patents recites as followeth that is Cum Regij officij nostri munus arbitremur ditionis nostri hominum felicitati omni ratione consulere id autem vel imprimis fore si Improborum conatibus tempestive occurremus apprime necessarium duximus improborum quoque hominum qui medicinant magis avaritiae sue causa quam ullius bonae conscientiâ— fiducia profitebantur c. By which it appears that it is the Office of a King to survey his Subjects and he is as a Phisitian to cure their Maladies and to remove Leprosies amongst them and also to remove all fumes and smells which may offend or be prejudiciall to their health as it appears by the severall Writs in these severall cases provided and so if a man be not right in his Wits the King is to have the Protection and Government of him least he being infirme wast or consume his Lands or Goods and it is not sufficient for him that his Subjects live but that they should live happyly and discharges not his Office if his Subjects live a life but if they live and flourish and he hath care as well of their Bodyes as of their Lands and Goods for Health for the Body is as necessary as vertue to the minde and the King H. 8. to express his extraordinary care of his Subjects made the said Act in the third year of his Reigne which was the beginning of his Essence to that purpose and by the Common Law any Phisitian which was allowed by the University might practise and exercise the sayd faculty within any place within England without any dispensation examination or approbation of any but after the making of the sayd Act made in the third year of King H. 8. none may practise exercise or occupy as Phisitian or Surgion within theCity of London and seven miles of that if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of London and the Dean of Paules for the time being calling to them foure Doctors of Phisick or Chirurgions c. And that no practiser may occupy or exercise the sayd faculty out of the sayd Precincts if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of the Diocess or in his absence by his Vicar generall every of them calling unto him such expert persons in the said faculty as their discretions thinks convenient and the reason of this difference as he conceived was for that that in this City and the sayd Precincts the King and all his Councell and all the Judges and Sages of the Law and divers other men of quality and condition live and continue and also the place is more subject unto Infection and the Heir more pestiferous and for that there is more necessity that greater Care diligence and examination be made of those which practised here in London and the precincts aforesayd then of those which practise in other places of the Realm for in other places the People have better aire and use more exercise and are not so subject to Infection and for that there is no cause that such care should be used for them for they are not in such danger and
charge to the King and to the Common Wealth and the execution of Writs may be prejudicall and penall to the Sheriff himselfe And for that he may well provide that he shall have notice of every execution which are most Penall And also in all the Indenture now made he doth not constitute him to be his under Sheriff but only for to execute the Office and for these reasons he seemed the Obligation is good and demands Judgement for the Plaintiff But it seemes to all the Court that the Covenant is void and so by consequence the Obligation as to the performance of that void but good to the performance of all other Covenants And Coke cheif Justice said that the Sheriff at the Common Law was elligible as the Coronor is and then by the death of the King his Office was not determined and also it is an intire Office and though the King may countermand his Grant of that intirely yet he cannot that countermand by parcells and also that the under Sheriff hath Office which is intire and cannot be granted by parcells and this Covenant will be a meanes to nourish bribery and extortion for the Sheriff himselfe shall have all the benefit and the under Sheriff all the payn for he is visible the under Sheriff and all the Subjects of the King will repaire to him and the private contracts between the Sheriff and him are invisible of which none can have knowledge but themselves And Warburton sayd that in debt upon escape c. are against the Sheriff of Notingham he pleaded Nihil debet and gives in evidence that the Bayliff which made the Arrest was made upon condition that he should not meddle with such executions without speciall warrant of the Sheriff himselfe and his consent but it was resolved this notwithstanding that the Sheriff shall be charged in and in the principall case Judgement was given accordingly that is that the Covenant is void Note that the Sheriff of the County of Barkes was commited to the Fleete for taking twenty shillings for making of a warrant upon a generall Capias utlagatum for all the Justices were of opinion that the Sheriff shall not take any Fees for making of a warrant or execution of that Writ but only twenty shillings and foure pence the which is given by the Statute of 23. H. 6. for it is at the Suit of the King But upon Capias utlagatum unde convictus est which is after Judgement it seemes it is otherwise A man grants a Rent to one for his life and halfe a yeare after to be paid at the Feasts of the Anunciation of our Lady and Michaell the Archangell by equall portions and Covenants with the Grantee for the payment of that accordingly the Grantee dies 2. Februarâ—… and for twenty pound which was a moyity of the Rent and to be payd at the anunciation after the Executors of the Grantee brings an Action of Covenant and it seems it is well maintainable And Coke cheife Justice sayd That if a man grants Rent for anothers life the Remainder to the Executors of the Grantee and Covenant to pay the Rent during the Tearm aforesayd this is good Collective and shall serve for both the Estates and if the Grantee of the Rent grant to the Tenant of the Land the Rent and that he should distrain for the sayd Rent this shall not be intended the same rent which is extinct but so much in quantity and agreed that when a Rent is granted and by the same Deed the Grantor covenants to pay that the Grantee may have annuity or Writ of Covenant at his Election Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Waggoner against Fish Chamberlain of London JAMES Waggoner was arrested in London upon a Plaint entered in the Court of the Maior in Debt at the suit of Cornelius Fish Chamberlain of the sayd City and the Defendant brought a Writ of Priviledge returnable here in the Common Pleas and upon the return it appears that in the City of London there is a custome that no forrainer shal keep any shop nor use any Trade in London and also there is another Custome that the Maior Aldermen and Commonalty if any custome be defective may supply remidy for that and if any new thing happen that they may provide apt remedy for that so if it be congruae bonâ— fidei consuetudo rationi consentiae pro communi utilitate Regis civium omnium aliorum ibidem confluentium and by Act of Parliament made 7 R. 2. All their customes were confirmed and 8 Ed. 3. The King by his Letters Patents granted that they might make By-Laws and that these Letters Patents were also confirmed by Act of Parliament and for the usage certified that in 3 Ed. 4. and 17. H. 8. were severall acts of Common Councell made for inhibiting Forrayners to hold any open shop or shops or Lettice and penalty imposed for that and that after and shewed the day in certain was an Act of Common counsell made by the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty And for that it was enacted that no Forrayner should use any Trade Mistery or occupation within the said City nor keep any Shop there for retayling upon payn of five pound and gives power to the Chamberlain of London for the time being to sue for that by Action c. in the Court of the Mayor in which no Essoyn nor wager of Law shall be allowed and the said penalty shall be the one halfe to the use of the said Chamberlain and the other half to the poor of Saint Bartholomewes Hospitall And that the Defendant held a shop and used the Mistery of making of candles the seventh day of October last and for that the Plaintiff the ninth day of the same month then next insuing levied the said plaint And upon this the Defendant was Arrested and this was the cause of the taking and detaining c. And upon argument at the Bar by Serjeant Harris the younger for the Defendant and Hutton for the Plaintiff and upon sollemne arguments by all the Justices Coke Walmesley Warburton Danyell and Foster it was agreed That the Defendant shall be delivered and not remanded And the case was devided in to five parts The first the custome Secondly the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Thirdly the grant of the King and the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Fourthly the usage and making of Acts of common councell according to this Fiftly the Act of common councell upon which the Action is brought and upon which the Defendant was Arrested And to the first which is the custome it was also said that this consists upon three parts That is first if any custome be difficult Secondly if it be defective Thirdly if Aliquid de novo emergit The Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty Possunt opponere remedium and that there are foure incidents to that remedy First it ought to be Congruum Retione
but hath nothing in the Soyl according to the 14. H. 2. and 3. H. 6. 45. Ives case 5. Coke 11. So if a man make a feoffment of land except the Woods all woods are except by that and if Woods be cut and after grow againe in the same place this is also excepted But if woods after grow in another place this shall not be excepted for it was no wood in Esse at the time of the feoffment so if a man grants to another to dig Coles in his Soyl this is but to take profit and the Soyl doth not passe as it is agreed in 11. Eliz. Dyer 245. And it was said by Hutton Serjeant that he had seen an Ejectione Firme brought upon a Lease of Vsura terra But it was agreed by Coke cheife Justice and Foster that the Statute of 22. Ed. 4. chap. 7. was repealed by the Statute of 35. H. 8. for this is the negative and for that is repeal of a former Statute but if the last had been in the affirmative otherwise it should be and it was also agreed that this was not within the Statute of 35. H. 8. for that appoints of what age the wood shall be when it shall be inclosed and by this recompence is given to the Commoner but here it is not averred by pleading of what age this wood was which was inclosed and for that it was adjudged that the Action is not maintainable against the Commoner see Pasche 8. Jacobi for another argument at the Bar and also by the Judges Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Vivion against Wilde A Man was bound in an Obligation to another with Condition to stand to abide and performe the award of two Arbitrators and before the award by his writing the Obligor revoked the authority of one of the Arbitrators And it was agreed by all that this Obligation is become single without Condiion and yet it was not pleaded that the Arbitrator had notice of the revocation before the award made And yet for that it was pleaded that Revocavit it was agreed that that implies notice for without notice it is no revocation But it was agreed that if a man submit himselfe to the award of another and after he revokes his authority But before the Arbitrator had notice of that he makes the award the award is good and shall be performed so if a man make a Feoffment and Letter of Attorney to make Livery And before Livery made he revokes the power of the Attorney But before notice the Attorney makes Livery this is good but if the Feoffor makes a Lease or feoffment to another before the Livery made by the other this is a Countermand in Law and shall be good without notice for Fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis But where a man makes actuall revocation of the authority and before notice the other executes his authority and in pleading the other pleades Quod revocavit the other party may reply Quod non revocavit and give in evidence that he hath no notice of that before the execution of his authority and this is good for without notice it is no revocation where revocation is the act of the party The case is entred Trinity 7. Jacobi Rotulo 2629. Vivion against Wild. Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Smallman against Powys A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent and after the Lessor by Indenture in consideration of fifty pound deviseth and granteth the Reversion to have from the day of the date for 99. yeares rendring a Rent also which was lesse then the first Rent and the Grantee of the reversion destraines for the rent reserved upon the Lease for life being behind and the sole question in this case was if the reversion shall passe without Attornment and it was said that in all cases where a use may be raised by the Common Law and that it shall be performed by order of Chancery that in these cases the use shall be executed by the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses and one case was cyted by Harris Serjeant 14. and 15. Eliz. where the Brother was Tenant in tayl the remainder to his Sister in tayl the Brother by Deed which was Indented in parchment but made in the first person and no mention of Indenting in the Deed and the Deed was Inrolled withâ—… three moneths and after Livery and Seisin was made and it wâ—… adjudged that the Deed enures as a Bargaine and Sale and that nothing passes by the feoffment so that it was no discontinuance but that the Sister might enter after the death of her Brother without Issue Coke cheife Justice said that it was a good Bargain and Sale though that the words Bargain and Sell were not in the Deed but he conceived if a Letter of Attorney be incerted in the Deed so that it may appear that the intent of the parties is that it should not enure as a Bargain and Sale but as a feoffment there it is otherwise so if a man covenants to stand seised to a use if it be in consideration of money and the Deed is inrolled there this shall enure well as Bargain and Sale as it was adjudged in Bedels case 7. Coke 40. a. but the Statute of 27. H. 8. of inrollments doth not extend to a Tearme for the words of the Statute are that no freehold shall passe c. But it seemes in the principall case that the Statute of uses executes the use which is raised by this Grant and that the Grantor shall stand seised c. And all the Justices insisted strongly upon the Limitation of the Estate from the day of the date of the Grant and the Reservation of the Rent immediatly and upon this concluded that it was the intent of the parties that the Grantee should have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease and should pay the Rent reserved upon his estate and that when words of diverse natures are incerted in one conveiance the Grantee hath election to use which of them that he will as it appeares by Sir Rowland Haywards case and by Danyel if a man makes a Bargain and Sale in english and makes Livery Secundum forma Chartae this shall not be good But if it be in Latine otherwise it is for this word Vendo is compounded of Do and it is an apt word for Sur. that Livery might be made And agreed all that the reversion passes well without Attornment and that these words Demise and Grant shall be taken and enure to a Bargain and Sale and Judgement was given accordingly A man made a Lease for yeares to two if they lived so long and it was resolved by the Court that this determines by the death of one of them according to the resolution in Bradwells Case 5. Coke 9. a. and Judgement was given accordingly and there the case of Trupenny was recited which was this Lands was let to one for one and
which was Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum adjudged to be joint and severall at the Plaintiffs Election Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform an award and the breach assigned for exhibiting a chancery Bill and adiudged no Breach Action of Debt for Tithes the Defendants time ended before the Coâ—n carried yet held good for the Plaintiff An Action will lie against a stranger that shall carry away the Corn before the Severance Dower may be brought against the Heir or Committee of the Ward Nota. He in Reversion received after Default made by Tenant for Life Return of the Sheriff adjudged insufficient being too general No Writ of Error lies untill the value be inquired upon Implication not good in a Surrender though it be in a Will Challenge because the Sheriff married the Daughter of the Lessors Wife and held no cause Nota. How to execute a Lease to try a Title the Land being in many mens hands Originall against four and count against 3. without a Simulcum and held naught The intent of a will must be certain and agreeable to Law Nota. How to execute a Lease by Letter of Atturney A Venire facias of the Parish adjudged good A mistake of the Cursitor in the Originall amended after Triall Nota. Though the Defendants Plea be naught yet the Plaintiff shall not recover because he shewed not any Title by his replication The question is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8 upon Feoffements made by Husbands during the coverture A verbal averment shall not overthrow a will The mistaking of the Town not hurtfull in a Will Property of Goods cannot be in obayance Difference between Prescription and Custome Copihold Land cannot be demised for three years without license or custome Record of Nisi prius amended by the Roll. Concord with satisfaction a good Plea in Eiectment Misconveyance of process what it is and helped by the Statute A feme covert cannot make a Letter of Atturney to deliver a Lease upon the Land When a demand shall be made to the person and when upon the Land A Lease made to three for their lives with a Covenant that the Land should remaine to the survivor of them for ninety yeares a good interest in the survivor A precise Verdict makes the Declaration good which otherwise is naught A demand of Rent to avoid a Lease upon a condition ought to be in the most open place After an Imparlance cannot plead in abatement 22 H. 6. 6. Foxlies Case 5 Rep. 111. The day of a Copihold of Court roll traversed and adjudged naught Houses in London passe by the delivery of a bargain and sale without inrolment An Ejectment will not lye de aquae cursu A Servant is a sufficient Ejector if he dwell with the pretended owner He that is a Purchaser of Copihold hath nothing in it nor can he surrender to another before admittance How an Abatement shall be traversed 1 E. 4. acr 1 E. 4. 9. acr The Bill amended after a Writ of Error brought and before the Record was removed Where the Prenomen destroyesthe quantity inthe declation Where words in a Declaration shall be voyd rather then the Declaration shal be voyd Nonage shall be tryed where it is alleadged and not where the Landlyes Essoin lies in a writ brought by Journes account although he was essoined upon the first Writ By Deed an implicationbe intended Nota. By the Name of a Mannour the Land in all the Villiages will pass Nota. Action brought by the Servant in his own name part of the Goods being his Masters Nota. Nota. The Record of Nisi prius amended upon motion The Process in Partition Error in Partition upon the first Judgement Defendant pleads he had brought a Writ for the same land and adjudged no plea. Process in a Quare Impedit Exception taken to the Venire and over-ruled Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall men Admittance of a Resignation by fraud takes not away the Kings Title The state is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail A presentment by words good Nota. A subsequent debt to the Qu. related to award an assurance made upon good consideration The King hath lost his presentation by the Clerks death Defendant pleads another writ depending against the said Bishop good The Bishopsplea shall not prejudice the Incumbent Nota. Liberty to make Leases A devise for years in confidence the condition must goe to the estate and not to the use The scisin of rent reserved upon a Feosment within the time of limitation not to be traversed Nota. The beast of a stranger shall not be distreined for rent except they have been upon the land some time Demand not necessary in a Replevin for rent Nota. Exctâ—tion to the advowry too late after judgment entred Replevin not within the statute of 3. Iac. Iudgment arrested for that the plea was naught Nota. Nota. The Plea naught for want of amendment Amends made to the Bailiff not good If one inclose part it is an Extinguishment of Common for cause of vicinage Avowry amended after Entry by consent One of the Juroâ—s names mistaken in the Pannell of the Return and amended upon the Sheriffes Oath that he was the same man If two men distrain one Mare and both have Judgement no Return Court Baron in order to the Mannor Nota. Nota. A lease for life to three to hold successively naught The pannell of the Habeas Corpus amended upon Oath Nota. Atturnment not necessary for a Copy-holder Demand necessary for a Nomine pene Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but not if Appendant Nota. Nota. Demand of Rent service upon the Land sufficient Nota. A Commoner may take the cattell of the Lord damage fesant Judgment arrested for not shewing in what place the Messuage did lye to which the Common did belong Common when the field and acres unsown the sowing of parcell shal not debar him of his common in the residue When a Deed is perfected and delivered as a Deed one agreement after pleaded in defeasance thereof and when the agreement is parcell of the Original contract it may be pleaded The Defendant in his Demurrer â—nswers not the whole Declaration and Judgement reversed The mistake of the day of an Act by way of Bar not prejudiciall A confession after an issue joyned refused A Constable cannot detaine one but for Felony Marshalsey hath no authority to hold plea in debt except both are of the Houshold Judgment before a wrong Officer erroneous The Court could not mitigate damages in trespass which was locall The Defendant justifies the imprisonment by the command of the Maior of London and naught Just of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest in his absence without warrant in writing If a servant be beaten dye the Mr. shall not have an action for the losse of his service Declaration shall not abate for false Latin A man cannot prescribe to be a Justice of the Peace If
a Book that ought not be given in evidence the Court above cannot remedie it except it be returned with the Postea A release to Tenant at sufferance void Commoner cannot chase the Lords Cattell if the surcharge be Common The Statute of 13 Eliz. for non-residence a generall law Where Husband and Wife shall be joyned and where severed in Action The Venire facias vicious no damages in Partition If the Jury find a man guilty in Trespass for a foot where it is layd in an Acre good enough and so in all Actions where damages onely are to be recovered Nota. Error assigned because in trespass nothing was entred of the Fine c. where it was a continued trespass and part of it was layd to be after the Pardon Nota. Nota. If the verdict find the tenure in substance though not in manner and form it is good intrespasse Difference between Replevin and Trespass In a writ to enquire of damages the Plaintif is not bound to prove the property of goods but the value only Where of his own wrong without such cause shall be a good issue and where not The Defendant prescribed for a passage over Land and naught it should have been for a way Nota. If the Lord cut the Wood in which the Commoner hath Estovers he shall have an Action of the Case but not an Assise Nota. Nota. Nota. An action will not lie for the counter-part of an Indenture without a speciall grant Nota. A man cannot Justifie the digging of a mans ground in hunting a Badger Nota. Nota. One Venu out of two places in the same County Whether a Copyholder may lop the trees growing upon his Copy-hold and held he might The Copy-holder is in by custome which is above the Lords estate The Copy-holder shall have trespas upon the Case against the Lord for cutting down of trees Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Waste in the Tenuit for digging of Sea coals Custodes Brev. Capital Prothon Sedi ' Prothon Try ' Prothon Cliri ' Warr. Cliri argenti Regi Cliri Error Cic. lib. 1. de Invent. Rhet. Prohibition upon the statute of 23. H. 8. Chap. 9. Prohibition to the High Commissioners High Commission Prohibition Joynt prohibitions and severall Counts Prohibition upon the statute of Symony upon the stat of 31. Eliz. Prohibition upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the dissolution of the Hospitall of Saint Johns of Jerusalem For not setting forth Tythes Husband sue only Prohibition to the Cort of Requests Against Forreiner for Ornaments for the Church and for Sextons wages Admiralty Contract for retaining of Tithes Admiralty Prohibition At the Archess discussed in right of Office Prohibition Admiralty for staying ships for Ballast High Commissioners and their power in Ministring Oâ—th and taking obligation High Commission Clandestine marriage Admiralty Coâ—rt if a thing done beyond Sea shall be there tried Agreement by word â—…p back tithes Where a Prohibition shall be granted without Action hanging High Commissioners Alimony Adultery Houghton Shirley Barker Court of Admiralty's Jurisdiction Admiralty Prohibition Modus decimandi Prohibition to a Court Baron Replevin 2. Executors one refuses Waste 2. Executors one refuses Bargaine and sale upon Condâ—… Ravishment of Ward Mich. 〈◊〉 Jacobi Rot. 213. Common of Pasture Trespasse Ejectione firmae Common Recovery Judgement in Debt Accompt See the beginning fol. Debt by Executor Administrators during the minority of the Executor Action upon the Case for words Replevin Attornement of Tenant being under age of 21. yeares Shirley Harris Harris Montague Hutton Surrender after Statute acknowledged Executors sued and also the Heire Court of Equity Debt upon a Bill Harris Shirley Fealty gives Seisin of all annuall Services Atturney brings Action of Debt for Fees Survivor doth not hold amongst Merchants to have all Award void Action upon the Case for words Devise that Executors shall sell Land A Towne incorporated with the consent of the greater part Action on the Case for slander Action upon the Case for suing one in a Court which hath no Jurisdiction Prescription for Common for Beasts without number Priviledge out of higher Court Fine amended Feoffinent to a Son and Heir for a valuable consideration Avowry Teste of a Venire facias amended after verdict Ejectione firme Ejectione firme Dodridge Houghton Replevin Grant without date Obligation Accompt Information Dodridge Hanghton Montague Dodridge Dower Debt against Administrator Commission to the Councell in Wales Caveat to a Bishop If administraon to the next of blood cannot be repealed Action for words Trespasse for breaking a House and taking a Cow Haughton Barker Barr not good Copy-hold intailed Extent upon a Statute Summons in Dower Patent of a Judge of the Common bench Action upon the case for slander Haughton Barker Periured Actionable Trespasse for imprisonment Dodridge Hutton Coram non judice Judgement void Shirley Wynch Foster Arbitrement Lease by the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Hutton Haughton Office granted by a Bishop Assumpsit Wilt of Right Haughton Nicholls Dower of titâ—e of Wooll Attachment Executrix during nonage Nicholls Harris Copy-holder Harris Dodridge Coke Replevin Waste Informer Lybell Debt against Administrator Copy-hold Coke Revocation of Uses Dodridge Nicholls Dodridge Nichols Wynch Warburton Coke Common Recovery Obligation to perferme Covenants Arrest of Judgment Audita querela Wast Estrepement awarded Ejectione firme Refusall Lord of a Mannor inclose the Demesnes adjoyning to the Common Warrantia Charte Dodridge Nicholls Devise of a Lease Dodridge Harris Assent to a Legatee Remainder of a Chattell Sherley Debt by Obligation Request is necessary for his Rent though that he have a bond for performing Covenants Nichols Debt Wynch Warburton Debt against Executors Davis What acts doe make an Executor De son tort what not Barker Warburton Wynch Trespasse Harriot Nicholls Harris Coke 253 Eliz. Dyer 193. a. Wrensfords case accordingly Warberton Wynch Release Cinque Ports Tenant for life with warranty Nicholls Haughton Wynch Warburton Ayd granted Coke Wynch Verdict uncertaine Falkland What is so called Warburton Coke Quod non occupantur conceditur Debt against Administrator for Rent in the Debet and Detinet Chibborne Detinet onely 2. Heire charged in Debet and Detinet 3. Towse Crook and Harris Joynt Covenant shall survive Copy-holder shall hold charge Error Elegit Testatum where no Writ had issued Confirmation to a Copy-holder destroys Common Expresse Covenant qualifies Covenant in Law Prohibition Defendant re-enters after Possession delivered by Habere facias possessionem Custome among Copy-holders Nonsuit after Verdict Reservation of Rent Michaelmasse or ten dayes after Grant of Common extinct Exposition of Usage Ejectione firme Errour Abatement of a Writ by entry Markhams Grant Earle of Rutlands Patent Challenge Earl of Rutlands Patent Challenge Abatement Errour Variance Seisin Abridgment of the Plaint in Assise Yelverton Fenner Challenge prin Flemming What matter shall be assigned for Error after Judgement Variante Challenge Seisin Misnaming of a Corporation Walter Yelverton Fenner Flemming Prohibition Prohibition A married Wife cannot make a Letter of Attorney Replevin Warburton Justice Walmesley Re-entry after possession executed Slander of Attorney Grand Cape Petit Cape Waging Law Release Inn-Keeper in London Action of false Imprisonment Serieant Harris the younger Walter Walmesley Coke Priviledge Assise View Coke Walmesley Challenge Errour in a Fine Barwick Returne of Writs Idemptitas nominis Fine Infant Tayle Maintenance Habeas Corpus Prohibition Trespasse for Slander Party Jury of two Counties Action upon the Case for Slander Errour Covenant for Rent Continuance Assumpsit Consideration Debt against Executors Errour Ve. fa. hab Carpus Formedon in Remainder Challenge Partition Dures Action upon the case for slander Prohibition Will. Devise Priviledge Postea 218. Adjournment of Tearm Infant levies Fine brings Errour Action upon the Case Action upon the Case Debt for Obligation Hutton Dodridge Court Sheriff committed to the Fleet. Grant of a Rent Priviledge of London Harris Hutton Where the Owner of Wood may Inclose Hutton Arbitrement Submissior Revocation Devise and grant â—enures to bargaine and Sale Harris Lease to determine upon Limitation Grant of the King that the Burrough should be incorporated Bayle Suit begun hanging another Writ Casuall intire Services Harris Nicholls Foster Dauiell Warburton Walmesley Coke Trade with Infidels without License Prohibition to the Court of Requests Approvement of Common Walmesley Foster Action upon the Case for Slander Bankrupt actionable Grant of Reversion Error in Proclamation Forfeiture of Office of a Chiroghapher Release Error in a Writ of Dower Copy-hold Certificate of the Bishop Minister Arrested Grant of the King of Alnage Haughton Dodridges Statutes how to be understood c. Account Devise of a Teerme Award Submission Arbitrement Where the death of the Defendant in Execution shall be satisfactory Dodridge Certiorari Outlawry Hutton Foster Debt upon escape against whom Warburton Land extended at too high rate Walmsley Coke Harris Haughton Foster Justice Warburton Walmsley Coke Charta de Foresta Assise Office Trespasse Estovers Boote its signification c. Nicholls Walmesley Coke Fee when forfeited Trespass Grant le Roy.