in a Garden then minutae decimae And it was agreed by the Court that it might have been so found that it should be Majores decimae and prâ—â—diall as if all the Profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are minutae may become majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therin As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hops there they are great Tithes and so it may be of Wholl and Lambs Beddingfields Case Pasch 3 Jac. in the Kings Bench Beddingfeilds case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the small Tithes And a Feild was planted with Saffron which contain forty acres And it was adjudged that the Tithes therof belong to the Vicar Potmans case There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the question was for Hops in Kent and adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were resolved to belong to the Vicar as Minutae decimae There was a Case in this Court for tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produce Weild And that was a speciall Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Iudgment And if Tobacco he planted here yet the tithes therof are Minutae decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Wood c. if it doth not appear by materiall circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae decimae And so this case was adjudged for the Defendant Hil. 1 Car. Townley versus Steele FRancis Townley and three others the Executors of William Peacock brought a Writ of Ravishment of Ward against Richard Steele and Anne his Wife for the Ravishment of the body of Ralph Smith Cosin and Heir of Ralph Smith In Ravishment of Ward brought by Executors are Non-suited whether they shall pay costs and count of the Tenure by Knights-service in Ralph Smith of William Peacock and that Ralph Smith died the said Ralph his Cosin and Heir being within age and that William Peacock the Testator seised of the body and died possessed therof and made them his Executors and they being possessed of the said Ward the Marriage of whom belong to them the Defendants Rapuere illum abduxere And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury was at Bar and the Plaintiffs after Evidence were Non-suited And whether the Defendants shall have costs in this case was the question upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 15. or by the Statute of 4 Jac. cap. 3. And it being argued by Davenport and Attho the Court this Term the chief Iustice being absent gave their opinions And Iustice Crook argued that they should not have costs and put many cases when Executors bring actions they shall not pay costs and so is Common Experience after the Statutes which is the best Interpreter of the Law And if it should be otherwise Executors would be discouraged to bring actions for the debts of their Testator And Iustice Harvy was of the same opinion but Iustice Yelverton and Hutton to the contrary And they agreed that in all actions brought by Executors upon Contracts Obligations or other things made to the Testator there shall be no costs for that is not within the Statute viz. Contracts or Specialties made to the Plaintiff or if an action be De bonis asportatis in the life of the Testator or upon any Tort supposed to be done not immediatly to the Plaintiff there shall be no costs because that the Statute gives not costs in these cases 20 Mariae Debt upon a Demise for years if the Plaintiff shall be Non-suited there shall be costs for it is upon Contract though in some sort reall But in this case though the Plaintiffs are named Executors and their Title is derived from their Testator yet the action is brought upon an immediate Tort done to themselves and it is within the very words of the Statute and this Statute which is to prevent Vexatious Suits shall be taken favourably If Executors have a Lease for years and they demise it rendring rent and for Rent arrear they bring an action it shall be in the Debet and Detinet and they shall pay cost if they be Non-suited and yet their Title is as Executors but it is founded upon their own Contract so if they bring an action of Trespasse for the taking of Goods which came to their possession which Goods were in truth tortiously taken by the Testator and he died possessed therof and they being Non-suited they shall pay costs And Executors in actions brought against them shall pay costs and if they have no Goods of the Testator it shall be De bonis propriis And vide that upon Contracts made by them or Rent arrear in their time the action shall be in the Debet and Detinet vide Coke lib 5 Hergraves case But when Debt in brought by Executors and recovery had and after a recovery an escape and Debt upon this escape this shall be in the Deticet only according to the first cause of action And this Ravishment of Ward is an action within the Statute of 23 H 8. and the Statute of Westminster â— gives no Damages and therfore costs by the Statute of Glocester cap 1. and the Statute of 4 Jac. inlarge the actions and not the persons Hil. 1 Car. Beverley versus Power VPon an Assembly this Term of all the Iustices at Serjeants Inne by vertue of an Order of the Star-chamber made the last Term at reading the Case was Iames Beverley was Plaintiff against Robert Power Pardon and Mary Beverley and others which Bill was exhibited Hil 16 Iac. and the Bill was for scandalous matter not examinable in this Court and for other matter which was examinable and Witnesses examined and published And then the 19. of Febr. 21 Iac. the generall Pardon is made by Parliament by which all Offences Contempts and Misdemeanors del 20. Decemb. before except such Offences contempts c whereof or for which any Suite or Bill within eight years before was exhibited into the Star-chamber and there remaining to be prosecuted this last day of this present Parliament And afterwards viz. Mich. 1 Caroli the Cause came to hearing at the Suit of the Defendant and upon the hearing Power was fined two hundred pounds and for the abuse and contempt to the Court for exhibiting the scandalous matter the Plaintiff was fined five hundred pounds and for damage to the Defendant five hundred marks And yet because of the difficulty
when the Plaintiff is supposed to speak Treason and it might be when he was an Infant or that it is pardoned To which it was answered by the Court First That these words ought to be alledged as they were spoken and that was Indefinite 2. The time is not materiall unlesse the Defendant make it materiall by his plea viz. When he was in giving Evidence for the King against a Traytor and then he repeated such words or when that the Plaintiff was frantick and of that he intended and so justifie there the time may come in question 2. The second Exception was that there is not any expresse affirmative to that it was answered by the Court that it was more then an Affirmative for he had as he said proof therof and not a report or hearsay And if one say it is reported c. that will not bear action unlesse he justifie the report by charging it upon him which was the Author of the report 3. Also it was objected that the speaking of treason was not treason But it was holden clearly that it is as well as Preaching or writing Et Index animi Sermo 4. Also it is not said what treason and it may he high or petit treason To which it was answered that when he speaks generally of treason it shall be intended according to the common intendment which is treason against the King vide Sir William Mulgraves case Coke lib 4. And two Cases were vouched to be adjudged in the Point Johnson and Atewod one between Johnson and Atewood 8 Eliz. Thou hast spoken Treason and I will hang thee for it adjudged actionable The other was between Pewall and Vardoffe Pewall and Vardoffe 9 Jac. Thou hast spoken treason and I will prove it adjudged actionable And it was resolved by all that the Plaintiff should have his Iudgment Flight versus Gresh Case THomas Flight brought an action upon the case against Gresh and count that wheras the Plaintiff and one Baleman were bound in an Obligation to the Defendant In consideration that the Obligor pay the summ the Obligee assume to deliver the Bill for the payment of such a summ at such a day The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would pay to him the laid summ at the day assumed to deliver the Obligation to the Plaintiff and shewed that he had paid the money at the day and the Defendant did not deliver it but after sued it and recovered and had the Plaintiff in prison in execution by the space of a year The Defendant protestando that he did not assume for plea saith that the Plaintiff did not pay it and therupon Issue and found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Serjeant Gwin that this action lies not for want of consideration for the Plaintiff did nothing but that which he was obliged to do and no profit to the Defendant for if he had not paid the summ the Obligation had been forfeited And he resembled it to the case of 9 E 4. 19. An accord in Trespasse that the Defendant should deliver to the Plaintiff his Evidences and permit him to enter into his Land is no good Bar So in an Arbitrement 12 H 7. that the one permit the other which was disseised to enter and that he should give to him his Charters and Evidences is not good And he vouched one to be resolved in the Kings Bench Greenwood and Becket between Greenwood and Becket where one had forfeited three Bills in consideration that the Plaintiff will pay the three severall summs three daies after he would deliver them to the Plaintiff And the Court was of opinion that it was no sufficient consideration Richardson to the contrary and said that the payment without Suit was for the advantage of the Obligee to be sure of his money and may be more available to him at this time then the forfeiture afterwards And he vouched a Case to be adjudged that where one had bought Cattle in a Market and had paid for them and the party which had bouoght them because that he which bought them had them in possession and would not deliver them in consideration that the party would deliver them promised to pay him a certain summ an action lies therupon And the opinion of the Court was that the action lay for for any thing that appears the monies were paid before the time that in Law they might be paid viz. before the setting of the Sun And it is without question if a man to whom money is to be paid come to the party the same day and pray him to pay it in the morning and that in considerations therof promise to pay him five pounds to abate five pounds or to deliver an Obligation this is good And a voluntary promise to do that which is in good conscience good and just for him to do shall bind him and the rather because he had benefit viz. to be sure of the performance And the forfeiture is but means to obtain the principall summ And if one had Iudgment and in consideration that he will not sue execution the other promise to pay it is good And because that in this case it appears that by the non-performance of this promise the Plaintiff had prejudice and the Iury had found solvit the Plaintiff had Iudgment Hil. 21 Jac. Rot. 3150. Trevors versus Michelborne EDmond Trevors brought a Scire facias against Michelborne Sheriff of Surrey Sci. fac Sci. fac against the Sheriff for taking of insufficient Pledges for the returning of insufficient Pledges in a Replevin brought by one Ray against the now Plaintiff in which the said Richard Ray made default wherupon a Retorn habend was awarded an Averia elongata returned and then a Withernam and then a Nichil c. And for this taking of insufficient Pledges this Scire facias is brought upon Westminster 2. cap. 2. And the Defendant demurred Somerford and Beamont vide the lake President Hil 11 Jac. Rot. 3563. between Somerford and Beamont Hil. 1 Car. Uvedall versus Tindall Enter Hil. 21 Jac. Rot 705. Southamp SIr Richard Uvedall brought an action of Trespasse against William Tindall Clark Vicar of Alton Trespasse What things are smal tithes and what great and John Loveland for taking bona Cattella and count for the taking of two Carectac glaci Anglice Wood And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury gave this speciall Verdict Viz. For the Moyety of a Lead of Wood Si videbitur Curiae quod decimae glasi ne sunt minutae decimae then the Defendants not guilty but si sunt minutae decimae then they are guilty And this case was argued at Bar by Serjeant Bridgeman adn Serjeant Henden And the Court unement agreed that for ought that here appears this Verdict being found without any circumstance that this Wood shall be taken to be Minuta decimae It was agreed by Henden that if it had been found Wood growing
Peter Edgecombe and it was to the intent of granting the Rent to the King and his Heirs and then of the recovery of the Mannor out of which c. to the said Sir Peter Edgecombe in tail the remainder to the King and they being seised by their Deed dated the third of June 11 H 8. sealed and delivered which is found in haec verba and that it was inrolled afterwards viz. 7. June granted the said Rent to H 8. Et si super totam materiam the Court adjudged it a Grant by Deed the third of June 11 H 8. then for the Defendant c. And upon Argument at Bar and conference had we all declared our opinion and agreed that Iudgment should be given for the Defendants The first reason was that the Issue is joyned upon the Grant modo forma and not upon the day as is offered by the Traverse but upon the Grant modo forma And the matter found is generally as is alledged vide Littleton Title Release that modo forma avoid and prevent the matter of day and goes solely to that which is materiall And by any thing which appears by the Verdict there is no intervening matter after the third day and before the seventh when the Deed was enrolled and then it is a good Grant of the third of June vide H 7 31. Then the speciall Conclusion found which is contrary to Law shall not conclude the Iudges to give Iudgment according to Law And so Iudgment was given for the Defendants Mich. 8 Car. Col. versus Wilkes SAmpson Cole brought an action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 H. 6. against Leonard Wilkes Tryall at the Bar Debt Debt upon the Statute of the 2 E. 6. for Tithes A Lease was made to two they enter and occupy and set not out their Tithes Debt was brought against one of them it lies not But here it was found that one only occupyed the Land and therfore the action well lies Sir John Gerards case And a Case was shewn Mich 8 Jac. An action of Debt was brought upon this Statute by Sir John Gerard against two Tenants in Common and it appeared that one of them set out his Tithe and that the other afterwards took it and carried it away and adjudged that the action lies only against him which carried it away Pasch 9 Car. Strilley's Case Amendment of the proclamation of a fine VPon motion made in this Court for the amendment of a Proclamation of a Fine levied by Strilley of Lands in Nottinghamshire Mich 11 Eliz. The Proclamations endorsed by the Chirographer upon the Fine were well but in the Transcript and Note of the Fine which is delivered to the Custos brevium by the Chirographer according to the Statute the second Proclamation was entred to be made the twentieth of May where it should have been the twenty third day of May and that by the misprision of the Clerk And it was moved that that might be amended And the Court was of opinion that it should be amended for the Ingrossement upon the Fine by the Chirographer is the foundation and that being well it is sufficient Warrant to amend the other And the Court was of opinion that it was a good Fine without any amendment But it being the misprision of the Clerk it shall be amended as in the case Coke lib 8. Blackamores case The Proclamation made and entred before the Originall shall be amended And it was objected that this Fine and Proclamations as they found in the Office of the Custos brevium are exemplified under the Great Seal and therfore by a Clause in the Statute of 23 Eliz cap. 3. could not be amended after such exemplification To that it was answered that that Statute extends only to Fines before levied which should be exemplified before the first day of June An 1582. And the latter clause in the said Statute doth not extend but to Fines exemplified according to the said Statute And therfore it was awarded to be amended Pasch 9 Car. Glasier versus Heliar Sussex Case GLasier brought an action upon the case for words against Heliar and shewed that three Colliers being in an house in Sussex were feloniously burnt in the said house and shewed that two or three men were indicted convicted and executed for the said Murther the Defendant knowing therof and intending to bring the Plaintiff in perill of his life Words as accessary to the said Murther sayd to him Thou didst bring Faggots a mile and a half to the burning of the Colliers And after Verdict for the Plaintiff and motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was adjudged that the words were actionable For if a Mansion-house be burnt feloniously to say You brought fire to set in the Thatch of the house which is burnt it is actionable Iudgment pro quaerente Smith versus Cornelius Southamp JOhn Smith Town-Clark of Southampton Case brought an action upon the case against one Cornelius an Attorney of this Court and shew that the Plaintiff was of good fame and Town-Clark of the Major and Burgesses of Southampton and was their Scribe and had the custody of all Rolls Pleas and Certificates Words and other proceedings before the Major and Burgesses in the Court before them to be holden And the Defendant intending to draw him into Infamy and to cause him to lose his Office said to him Thou hast made many false Certificate to the Major and Burgesses in that Court and the more thou stirrest in it the more it will stink And it was adjudged that these words are not actionable 1. Because that it is not alledged that there was any Colloquium concerning his Office of Town-Clark 2. Because that it appears not in the Count that the making of Certificates belong to his Office but only that he had the custody of them 3. It might be false and yet no blame to him if he did know them to be false or that he had made them false maliciously And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant And this Case was moved again by Hitcham the first day of Trinity Term next And then Iudgment was affrmed Hil. 9 Jac. Edwards versus Laurence Trin. 9 Car. Rot. 2488. Suff. RAchel Edwards brought an action of Trespasse against Richard Laurence for breaking of her Close Trespasse The Defendant in Bar to the new Assignment plead Traverse of Seisin that before the time of the Trespasse supposed to be done one Francis Tayler was seised in Fee of the Tenements wherof c. and so being seised died wherby it descended to Francis his Son and Heir who being seised therof 8 Car. demised it to the Defendant for two years by vertue wherof he entred and gives colour to the Plaintiff by a Grant made to him by Francis the Father where nothing passed therby and so iustifie The Plaintiff replyed that long before Francis Tayler the Son had any thing one Francis Tayler Grand-father of
and Beaumount 77 Specot and Shere 91 Simpsons case 92 Shudsouth and Fernell 107 T. TImberly and Calverley 47 Tadcaster and Hallowell 47 Thompson and Green 105 Trugeon and Meron 128 W. WIlde and Woolf 41 Wolley and Bradwell Wrotheys Case Sir George Walker and VVorsley 83 VValcot and Hind 14 PASCH 15 JACOBI Combes versus Inwood THE first day which I sate at the Bench after the day in which I was sworn Ejectione suma A Conveâ—ance delivered to be enrolled and yet not inâ—â—lled shall be accounted a Record i. e. Thursday the twenty second of May A Iury was at the Bar from the County of Surrey in an Ejectione firmae brought by Combes against Inwood upon a Lease made by one John Stockwood which was Heir to one Edward Stockwood and was for a Farm in Chertsey called Haylwick And upon Evidence the Case appeared to be thâ—â—s Edward Stockwood was seised in fee and about the 29 Hen 8. this Land was supposed to be conveyed to King Hen. 8. in fee for the enlargement of the Honour of Hampton but no Deed nor any other matter of Record was in being to prove this originall Conveyance and many Arguments were used to prove that there was never any such Conveyance because there was not one of any such conveyance named in the Act of 31 H 8. But of the other part it was proved that this Land had continued in exchange as the Land of H 8. all his life by divers accounts and that it had been enjoyed by divers Leâses made by Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth and Rent paid for them And that in the year 16 Eliz. she granted it in Fee-farm to the Earl of Lincoln and under that Title the Land had been quietly enjoyed untill of late time And the Court delivered their opinion That it there were a Deed by which Stockwood conveyed the Land to H 8 and that brought into the Court of Augmentation although this Deed be not found nor inrolled yet it is a sufficient Record to intitle the King and it is a Record by being brought into Court and there received to be inrolled And the Report of the case in Lord Dyeâ— fol 355.19 Eliz. was not as it is there reported for it was for Bormiâ— Inne and it was adjudged a good conveyance and in this case the Iury found for the Defendant Trin. 14 Jac. Rotulo 769. Steward versus Bishop Words STeward brought an Action upon the Case for certain words against Bishop because that the Defendant said Steward is in Leicester Gaol for stealing an Horse and other Cattell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Iury found for the Plaintiff and Damages to thirty pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant John Moore that the Action doth not lye for the words do not affirm and Deed or Act or Offence but that he was in prison upon suspition of an Offence And it is the Ordinary speech and communication by way of interrogation What is such a one in prison for For stealing And all the Kalenders are such a one for stealing of a Horse such a one for Murther Vide Coke lib 4. he is detected for Perjury is not actionable And to say such words of a Iustice of Peace or an Attorney peradventure it shall be otherwise yet it seems all one if it touch not him in his Profession To say that I. S. was in Newgate for forging of Writs will not maintain an Action and so adjudged in Nowels case and Iudgment was given that the action will not lye Pasch 15 Jac. ONe brought and Action upon the Case and counted that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would take such a woman to his Wife promised to pay twenty pounds when he shall be therto requested after the marriage Request where it shall not be alledged and that the Plaintiff such a day had married the said Woman and the Defendant though often requested did not pay the aforesaid twenty pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that he had not shewn any particular request but yet Iudgment was affirmed for the Plaintiff for this action is grounded upon the promise which imports Debt and not upon any collaterall matter which makes it a duty by the performance of a collaterall Act upon the request Trin. 15 Jac. Resolved upon the Statute of 3 H. 7. Cap. 2. VPon divers Assemblies at Serjeants Inne of all the Iudges to consider by the direction of the Star-Chamber whether by the Statute of 3 H 7. cap 2. the taking of any Woman against her will and the marrying or deflowring of her be Felony or only of such a Woman which hath Substance or Goods or Lands or otherwise be an Heir apparent the body of the Act seems to be generall viz. He that shall take any Woman so against her will And it was said that it were a great inconvenience that it shall be Felony to take an Heir apparent of a poor man or to take a Woman which hath but a very small Portion and of mean Parentage and as it was said of a Woman in a red Peticote and that it shall not be felony to do and commit the said Offence in taking the Daughter of an Earl or some other great man of the Realm But it was resolved that the body of the Act was incorporated to the Preamble for it had been adjudged that if one take a Woman with an intent to marry her or deflower her c. and doth it not this is not Felony and this rests only upon the Preamble then it shall have relation as well to such a Woman which is before named viz. Maid Widow or Wife having substance and to an Heir apparent and to no other And so it was taken in a Case in the Star-Chamber by the like resolution 10 Jac. between Baker and Hall and the Lord chief Baron said Baker and Hall that it had been adjudged that no Appeal did lye upon this Statute and all the Presidents in effect warrant this resolution vide Stamford fol. 37. Statute 1 H. 4. Cap. 14. COnsideration upon the Statute 1 H 4. Cap 14. was had how the word Appeals shall be intended before the Constable and Marshall And 26 Eliz. Doughties Case Doughties case Petition was made to the Queen by the Heir to make a Constable and Marshall but she would not Admitting that the King get a Commission of the Office of a Constable and Marshall whether the King may have any remedy before them by Indictment or information by the Attorney generall Mich. 15 Jac. Andrews versus Hacker AN Assise of Darrein Presentment was brought by Andrews against Hacker and the Earl of Salop Assise and against the Arch-bishop of York for the Church of Gothur in the County of Nottingham the Assise was brought to the Bar and when the Iury appeared the Arch-bishop made default and the others appeared and pleaded in abatement of the Writ that the same
as Servant to the Bishop of Durham Absque hoc that he was guilty at the Castle of York or any where else c. And this Case was long depending and the first point was if the Defendant had confessed any conversion for that is the ground of the action and ought to be traversed or else confessed and avoided It was agreed that the Conversion is the ground of the Action Brook 1 Mar. Trespass 121. and the Inducement ought to be such as contain sufficient matter with the Trespasse vide 9 E. 4 5. 19 H 6.30.22 Then it was agreed H. 6. 35. 8. that when one takes a Distresse and such an action is brought that is no plea for that is not any conversion vide 27 H. 8.22 Coke lib. 10. fol 46 47. Request and refusall to deliver is good evidence to prove conversion but if it be found specially it shall not be adjudged Conversion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant did not claim any property and did not answer to the point of the Action for a Distresse is no Conversion Hil. 15 Jac. Coble versus Allen. Norf. Trespasse COble brought an action of Trespasse against Allen for breaking his Close at Barningham and by the new Assignment divers parcels were assigned the Defendant as to part pleads that he was seised of an House and thirty acres of Land in Colby and prescribe to have a way over them to his Common in Barningham Prescription for a Way and no place to which c. Issue joyned upon the Prescription and for the other parcels prescribe that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said house in Colby used to have for themselves and their Families one way for Pack-horses over the said other parcels of Land in Barningham unto the Kings high way leading to the City of Norwich And Issue was joyned upon these two Prescriptions and found for the Plaintiff But it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Venue was from Barningham and Colby and that in the Plea there is not mention of any place where the Common lies and therefore there is not any tryall but it was adjudged that the tryall was good for though that the proper use of a way is to some end and that ought to be shewn yet if it be only that he had a way over the Closes of the new Assignment and no place or end therof is pleaded for what cause or to what other place and Issue is taken upon the Prescription and found the Prescription is good And another reason was there by Implication it is indifferent whether the way lies in B. or in another Town and by intendment rather it may be taken to lye in B. and then if by one intendment the tryall may be good it shall so be intended But when it appears that the tryall shall be in three Towns and the Ven fac is but in two this is not aided for it is a Mis-triall and there must be a Venire facias de novo but in this case no new Venice can be awarded and then it is but a Jeofaile for not pleading in which Town the way lies and then it is aloâ—â— and also unto the Kings high way may be taken that this Kings high way is contigue adjacent to these Closes where the way is by Prescription And for these reasons and causes Iudgment given for the Plaintiff Harding versus Bodman RObert Harding Plaintiff against Bodman Defendant Case in an action upon the Case recites that wheras the Plaintiff brought an action upon the Case against one Lenning for calling of him c. the Defendant upon the tryall being produced for the Defendant as a Witnesse gave evidence upon his Oath to the Iury Action upon the Case against one foâ—giving evidence that the Plaintiff was a common lyar and so recorded in the Star Chamber by reason of which Evidence though the Iury found for the Plaintiff yet by reason hereof they gave but small Damages to the Plaintiff And upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was adjudged that this is a new invention and that no action lies for it First because that it is impossible to be known whether the Iury gave greater or lesse Damages for that or not Also by this means every man which is produced as a Witnesse by one way or other may be subject to an action upon the Case and also by any thing which appears to the Court the Evidence was true for it was not averred that Revera that the Plaintiff was not a common lyar that he was not recorded for a common lyar in the Star Chamber And for these reasons the Plaintiff Nil capiat per breve c. Trin. 15 Jac. Rot. 1968. Speake versus Richards South HUgh Speake brought an action of Debt against Edward Richards Debt for 523 l 17 s 8 d and declare that Anthony Hall and Henry Paramour 22. June 13 Jac. became obliged to the Plaintiff by Recognizance in the Chancery in 2000 l and that they did not pay it wherupon the Plaintiff had two Sci. fac.'s to the Sheriff of Middlesex Debt for money returned levied by the Sheriff who returned Nihil wherupon Iudgment for the Plaintiff and a Levari facias awarded to the Sheriff of Southampton returnable 15 Mich. which Writ was delivered to the Defendant being then Sheriff to be executed The Defendant before the Return levied by vertue of the said Writ the said 523 l 17 s 8 d of the Lands and Chattels of the said Henry Paramour parcell of the said Debt and at 15 Mich. returned that he had levied the said 523 l 17 â— 8 d parcell c. which summ he had ready at the day to deliver to the Plaintiff in part of satisfaction c. And that the Defendant although often required therto refused to pay the said 523 l 17 s 8 d by cause wherof this action accrued nor brought it into Chancery and to have the parties c. The Defendant as to three hundred and eight pounds part therof pleaded Nil debet to two hundred and fifteen pounds seventeen shillings eight pence residue therof Actio non For he said that after the Writ directed and before the return viz. 31 Augusti 14 Jacobi the Defendant at Westminster paid it to the Plaintiff upon the receit wherof the same day the Plaintiff gave an Acquittance for the same which he pleads and therby acquitted and discharged the Defendant and demands Iudgment if against his own Deed of acquittance he shall be received to demand the said money wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And it was argued by Serjeant Richardson for the Plaintiff and by John Moore for the Defendant An exception was taken that he could not plead Nil debet because that it is a Debt upon Record for he is charged by the return He is not estoppled to plead payment
profits have accrued to them or any of them by the making of Allome since the making of the said Indenture wherupon the Plaintiff demur 1. And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for it is one good Grant of an Annuity to charge their persons And so of a Grant of an Annuity to be paid out of such Coffers or Bags vide 9 H. 6. Margery Parkers case vide 22 H. 6. 12. 2. Also the limitation is to perceive of the clear gaines and plead it by the Counter-part of the Indenture and that ought not to be but they should have demanded Oyer of the Deed and then either demur or plead that the same Deed was granted over c. 3. It is not averred that no other person received or made any clear gain but only that the Defendant made no clear gain Burglary MEmorand At the Assises holden at Winchester in the last Circuite before the Lord chief Baron Tanfield it being the third Circuite which I went with him It was a question whether one which had a Shop in the dwelling house of another and he which had the Shop work'd therin in the day but never lodged there and yet he had a house out of the Shop to the Street if this Shop be broken in the night and divers Goods stoln out therof if it be Burglary Burglary And the Lord chief Baron and I resolved that it was no Burglary because that by the severance therof by Lease to him which had it as a Shop and his not inhabiting therin it was not any Mansion house or dwelling house ergo no Burglary but ordinary Felony Mich. 15 Jac. Adavis versus Flemming Case AN action of the Case was brought for these words Thou hast forsworn thy self before the Councell in the Marches innuendo in the Marches of Wales in a Suit which I have there and I will sue thee for Perjury Words And after issue of Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Chibborn that the Common Law takes no notice of any such Councels and they are to meddle according to instructions and if it be not warranted therby then no Oath wherupon any remedy And therfore it was adjudged that if one say another is forsworn or perjured in Canterbury Court no action lies for we cannot take any notice of any Court in Canterbury which hath power to administer an Oath But Serjeant Harris said that this Councell of the Marches is established by 27 H 8 cap 32. and have power to examine Witnesses and to administer an Oath and is also mentioned in the Statute 5 Eliz. that Perjury committed before the Councellors of the Marches shall be punished by this Statute And the Court was of opinion that the action well lies for the Councell of Marches without innuendo is sufficient for there is no other Councell of Marches And as the Court take notice of the Court of requests for if one saies another is perjured there it is actionable so of this Court which is established by Statute and concern the King and therof the Iudges ought to take notice Iudgment for the Plaintiff And by Lord Hobart if one saies another is forsworn in the Common place an action lies Mich. 17 Jac. Bayshaw versus Walker Case AN action of the case was brought for saying Thou art a filtching Fellow and didst filtch four pounds from me And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words were not actionable And so the Court resolved for the word siltching is dubious and may be by Cousenage by shifting by deceit and is not Felony but by Implication and it is not good to enlarge actions for words Plaintiff Nil capiat per breve Green versus Harrington Case Assumpsit lies not for Rent PEter Green brought an action upon the case against Thomas Harrington and counts that wheras the Defendant such a day was indebted to him in ten pounds for the rent of one House and land which he had demised to him for one year then past the Defendant promised to pay it upon request and upon issue Non Assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Chibborn that no action lies upon this promise because it is Debt for the rent for Land and the Assumpsit is of a lesse nature as if one he indebted upon an Obligation and that being forfeited he promised to pay it no action lies for the Debt is due upon the Obligation Albanies case And the opinion of the Court accorded This was ruled in Albanies case of Lincolnâ— Inne in Banco Regis Trin. 17 Jac. Rot. 1849. Castilion versus Smith AN action of Covenant was brought by Sir Edward Castilion against Thomas Smith as Executor Covenant Iudment against Executors for Covenant broken by them shall be De bonis testatoris Iohnson and Barker a breach assigned by act done by the Executors and after Verdict it was moved if Iudgment should be De bonis propriis by reason the breach was made by the Executors And it was resolved that it should be de bonis testatoris And where the Writ is in the Detinet only there the Iudgment shall be de bonis testatoris vide the like Iudgment Hil. 33 Eliz. Rot 1143. between Johnson and Barker Pies Case PIe exhibited an Information upon the Statute of the 35 of Eliz. for converting of a house in London into many dwelling houses and upon Not guilty pleaded the Defendant is found guilty But be cause the said Statute is discontinued by the 43 Eliz Costs against an Informer and there is now no such Statute the Court upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment award that the Defendant eat inde sine die And whether the Defendant in this case shall have costs upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. was the question The words of the Statute are if any Informer willingly delay his Suit or discontinue or be non-suited or shall have the matter or the tryall passe against him by Verdict or Iudgment in Law he shal pay costs 1. Object It was objected that this Statute doth not extend but only to penall Statutes which then were in Esse Answ To which it was answered by the Court that this Statute was a perpetuall direction to all Informers 2. Object It was objected that if there be no Statute then there is no Informer 3. Object In this case Verdict is sound for the Informer and he may be presumed to be ignorant And there is no reason that he shall pay costs for default of his Councell 4. Object There is no Iudgment against him but that the Defendant eat inde sine die and that is no other then an exception in stay of Iudgment Keldridges case And a President was cited by Henden 25 Eliz. Banco Regis there upon an Information against Keldridge and another upon the Statute of 35 H. 8. for not
and art used by Bakers of Bread in private mens houses as by common Bakers And every â—ooman which bake in private if she be a good Housewife use the art and mystery of a Baker And if a man had said generally that he had gained his living by buying and selling and not shewn what Trade he had used it is not good Therfore the Trade ought to be alledged and so sufficiently that the Court may judge him such a person as is within the Statute of Bankrupts Also Winch said that it is not alledged that he gained his living by buying and selling any thing which concerne his Trade And I was of the same opinion and relyed upon the case of 11 H. 4. 45. An nation upon the case against an Inn. keeper and shewed that he was lodged there and his Horse was stoln And the Defendant pleaded a plea that he delivered to him the Key of the Stable c. And by the Court the Writ shall abate because he did not shew that he was a common Hostler And therfore Iudgment arrested And the Court agreed that if the Count were good the words would maintain an action for a Baker is a Trade mentioned in the Statute 5 Eliz. but it ought to be a Common Baker Trin. 20 Jac. Whiteguift versus Eldersham Second deliverance JOhn Whiteguift brought a Writ of second deliverance against Richard Eldersham for taking of his Cattle at Clanding in quodam loco vocat Corles Paud. The Defendant makes Conuzance as Bayliff to Sir Francis Barrington because that the place c. was parcell of the Mannor of Curles and that John Curles was seised before the time Avowry c. therof and held it of Sir Francis Berrington as of his Mannor of Clanding by Knights servies viz. by Homage Fealty survitium scuti and by the Rent of ten pounds payable yearly at two Feasts of which Rent the said Sir Francis was seised by the hands of the said John Whiteguift as by the hands of his very Tenant in his Demsn as of sea and Avow put Homage infect wherupon the Plaintiff demur And shew for cause that the Defendant had not shewn any Title to have Homage of the said John and that the Cognizance is repugnant and no sufficient Seisin alledged of the Services and that the shewing of the Seisin is not formall vide Bevils case Coke lib 4. fol 6. Seisin of Rent is the Seisin of the Services and he might have traversed the Tenure and the other party ought to shew whether he had done Homage before vide 44 E. 3. 41. when an Avowry is upon the Baron for the Homage of the Feme it is sufficient Avowry without shewing that he had Issue by her and yet if he had not Issue he could not avow upon the Baron but that ought to come on the other party vide 5 E. 2. Fitz. Avowry 209. A man avow for Homage and alledge Seisin of Esenage without Homage and good And after upon motion this Term Iudgment was entred for the Defendant Trin. 20 Jac. Sherwells Case MAry Sherwell brought a Writ of Dower Dower and in But therto it was pleaded that the Father of the Husband of the Demandant was seised of one house and sixty acres of Land in Fire and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of the Husband and the said Mary for their lives Joynture which bars Dower for the Ioynture of the said Mary the remainder to their Heirs And that afterward the Father died in the life of the Husband and aftre the Husband died And adjudged that this is no Ioynture to bar Dower according to the opinion in Varnons Case because that the Estate of the Wife at the Commencement take not effect immediatly after the death of the Husband Et quod abinitio non valet tractu temporis non convalefeit And if a Feoffment to the use of the Baron for life the remainder to I. S. for years remainder to the Feme for her Ioynture this is not a Ioynture he bar Dower Trin. 20 Jac. Francis Curle versus James Cookes AN action of the case was brought and Count Case that the King by his Letters Patents An 12 Jac. reciting the Statute of 31 H. 8. for erecting of the Court of Wards and the Officers therof and that two persons shall be named by the King and his Successors who shall be Auditors of the Land of the Kings Wards And reciting the Statute of 33 H. 8. for the making of the Master of the Wards and Liveries and his power had made him the Plaintiff one of his Auditors and granted to him the Fees due and accustomed to be had and 40. Marks fee and gave power to him as one of his Auditors according to the said Statute and to exercise it with the Fees in as ample a manner as others had used And averred that at the time of the Patent made and at all times after the erection of the said Court the Auditors had engrossed all the Accounts of the Feodaries and that they had taken therfore two shillings and shewed that he was sworn and exercised that Office and shewed the Oath specially and that he had by vertue therof ingrossed divers Accounts of the Feddaries and had taken therfore two shillings and that the Defendant having conference with the Plaintiff concerning his Office and his bone gesture therin said to him You have received money for ingrosement of Feodaries innuendo the said Fees for ingrosement of the Accounts of the Receivers Feodaries and other Officers aforesaid which I will prove is Cousenage And then and there spoke further You are a Couseâ—er innuendo the said Francis decepisse Dominum Regem 8. subditor in executione officii praedicti and you live by Cousenage deceptionem dicti Domini Regis subditorum shorum in executione officii ful Non Culp verdict pro Plaintiff and Damages thirty three pounds It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Attho that first it is alledged that the Fee of two shillings is lawfull and that he said You have received monies for ingrossement of Feodaries which I will prove is Cousenage innuendo the Fees aforesaid which are lawfull and then by his own shewing it is not Cousenage 2. It is insensible Ingrossements of Feodaries for they cannot be ingrossed but their Accounts 3. That Ad tunc ibidem for the other words are for other words spoken at another time of the same day and they are not actionable for they do not relate to his Office Also the words will not maintain action for the word Cousenage is generall and of an ambiguous interpretation and therfore no action lies for that And he resembled it to Sir Edmund Stanhops case He hath but one Mannor and hath got it by swearing and forswearing Midlemore and Warlow And to the Case of Midlemore and Warlow An. 30 Eliz. Thou art a cousening Knave and hast cousened me
to passe without pain then to indite the Offenders of whom great part be flock of the same Country c. And upon Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Serjeant Bawtry that the Writ had recited the Statute otherwise then it was for the Writ saies Indicari pro indictari and it ought to be written by this Abbreviation Indicāuri And the word Indictari is a word by it self and he resembled it to Freemans case Coke lib 5. fol 45. Fecit vastum vendicōnem destrictionem for destructionem and not amendable Also Coke lib 4. S. Cromwells case upon the Statute of Rich 2. de scandalis magnatum the word Messoignes is said Messuages and not amendable Harris answered that the Cursitor had a Note drawn which was well and it was only his mis-priston Secondly that there is no such Passive Verb as Indicari and so being insensible shall be amended And for that vouched 11 H 6. 2. 14. adjudged upon the Statute of forging of false Deeds Immaginavit were it should be Immaginatus est and amended 3. This Abbreviation is sufficient Also he said that it is only the preamble of the Statute wherupon the action is not founded but upon the body of the Act. Sir George Wrothies case in Ejectment the word Demisit was amended and made Divisit Brickhead against the Bishop of Yorke and Cooke for the Ticaridge of Leeds the Writ was Vacariam and for that the Cursitor was examined and his Instruction being Vicariam it was amended there An 14 Jac. 1. The Lord Hobart inclined strongly that it should be amended by the instruction which was delivered to the Cursitor but as to that Winch and I differed because that this matter of Instruction is not a thing which ought to be informed by the party as all matters of fact are As whether it be a Vicaridge or a Church or in debt for twenty pounds in the Instruction and he make it thirty pounds that shall be amended But in this case it is matter of skill and no difference between this case and Freemans case And in debt if he had Instruction in the Debet and Detinet and makes the Writ in the Detinet only that shall not be amended 2. The Lord Hobart inclined that this recitall is but in the Preamble and may be omitted to which we disagreed he inclined that the Abbreviation was sufficient to supply all the word This Case being long debated the Court Ex assensu ordered that the Defendants should give 80 l. to the Plaintiff Mich. 10 Jac. Rot. 641. Poole versus Reynold IOhn Poole brought a Prohibition against Richard Reynold Farmer of the Moyety of the Rectory of Colleton Prohibition Prescription to have Deer out of a Park in discharge of all Tithes and after the Park is disparked with the Chappell of Shute annexed to the said Rectory And the Surmise was that of time wherof memory within the Parish of Colleton there was a Rectory appropriate and the Cappell of Shute annexed therto Et una Vicaria perpetua ejusdem Ecclesiae de Colleton dotat And wheras the said John Poole for six years last past had occupied one house a hundred acres of Land twenty acres of Meadow forty acres of Pasture called Shute Park in Shute aforesaid within the Parish of Colleton which said Tenements were anciently a Park and now dis-parked which Park De temps d'out memory c. untill the dis-parking therof was used and filled with Deer and severed from other Land and was dis-parked An. 10 Eliz. and converted into the said house a hundred acres c. And that all the Occupyers of the said Park called Shute Park de temps d'out memory c. untill the dis-parking had paid to the Vicar there his Farmer or Deputy one Buck of the Summer season within that time upon request and one Doe of the Winter season within that time c. in discharge of all Tithes of the said Park untill the dis-parking and after the dis-parking in discharge of all Tithes of the said Tenements which they had accepted for all the time aforesaid untill the dis-parking and after or otherwise agreed with the Vicar for them And traversed this Prescription and found for the Plaintiff And now in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved by Henden that this Prescription extends to the Land quatenus it is a Park and that being destroyed the Prescription is gone for a Tenurs to cover a Wall or Thatch an house if the party destroy or pull it down the Tenure is extinct 32 E 14 Avowry And it shall be presumed that this was by grant when it was a Park which is collected by the thing which is to be paid and if it be to be paid or delivered out of the Park then it is determined vide Lutirels case Coke lib 4 Also this Prescription is against the benefit of the Church and shall not be enlarged And the Wood which is sold out of the Park shall not be discharged 14 Jac. in Conyers case in this Court Conyers case Prescription that the person had two acres of Meadow given in discharge of all Tithes of Hay ground viz. of all the Meadow in the Parish it any arrable Land be converted into Meadow it extends not to discharge that vide Lutirels case Coke lib 4 fol 86. That an Alteration in prejudice of the party determine the Prescription but vide the principall case there adjudged that building of new Mills in the same place and converting of Fulling Mills into Corn Mills alter not the Prescription vide Terringhams case lib 4. He which hath Common purchased part of the Land all is extinct for it is his own act And he cited a case which was in this Court argued at Bar and afterwards at Bench between Cooper and Andrewes Mich 10 Jac Rot 1023. for the Park of Cowhurst vide 32 E 1 Fitz avowry 240.5 E 2. Fitz annuity 44.20 E 4.14.14 E 4.4 But this case was adjudged for the Plaintiff Quod stet prohibitio and that which is by the name of Park is for the Land and is annexed to the Land by the name of Park if the Prescription had been to pay a Buck or a Doe out of the Park then it would alter the case But it is generall and had been paid also after the Park dis-parked viz. the tenth of Eliz. And the case of Cowper and Andrewes was the third shoulder of every Deer which is killled in the Park and two shillings in money and that case was never adjudged Hil. 10 Jac. Meredith versus Bonill Case HUgh Meredith a Iustice of Peace in the County of Monmouth brought an action upon the case against Bonill Words for these words I will have him hanged for robbing on the high way and for taking from a man five pounds and an Horse After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words were not actionable for they
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
c. but at the time of taking was so To this it was answered That the Count chargeth not the Defendant absolutely with all the time but Diversis diebus vicibus And also he justifie for two weeks which is the same Trespasse Then upon the matter the question is if he which hath Estrayes or Waifes if he seise an Estray qui est ferox whether he may fetter such Estray It was agreed by the Court that when an Estray comes within a Mannor and walk there this is a Trespasse and the party in whose Land the Estray is Damage-feasant may chase him out of his ground Also it was agreed that untill the Lord or his Bayliff or Tithing-man seise the Estray that shall not be said an Estray but when the Lord seise than he hath the Commencement of a property therby and he is chargable against all others for the Trespasse which this Estray doth and if this Estray within the year estray out of the Mannor the Lord may chase back the Estray untill he be seised by another Lord which hath Estrays But if he be seised by another Lord then the first hath lost all his possibility of gaining the property and the other Lord ought to proclaim it de novo It was moved that if a Lord of a Mannor which hath Estrayes and hath seised an Estray suffer that Estray by negligent keeping to stray away and never can be found again the Owner may have an action upon the case of Trover and Conversion against the Lord Quare vide 44 E 14. there the Lord seised an Asse for an Estray he to whom the property did belong came and challenged the Estray the Lord may detain him untill he tender sufficient recompence for the Pasture vide purc 20 H 7. 1. by Vavisor and 39 E 3. 3. That the Owner cannot take an Estray untill he tender recompence likewise the Lord after seisin of the Estray if he took him not Damage-seasant may have Replevin and he ought to make him amends The Lord cannot work the Estray but may keep him in his Stable And if the Sheriff upon a Fieri facias fetter the Colt and after the Defendant redeem him for money he shall not have trespasse vide 6 E 3. 8. it is not alledged that the fettering was to any damage of the Estray vide 22 Ass 56. Entred Pasch 18 Jac. Rot. 650. Treherne versus Cleybrooke Debt IOhn Treherne brought an action of Debt against Cleybrooke and count of a Lease made by John Treherne Grand-father to the Plaintiff of Lands in S. Olives in Surrey and intituled himself by the Will of the Grand-father by which he devised the Lands to the Plaintiff in tail Devise the remainder over to Leonard Vpon Nil debet pleaded the Iury found specially scilicet the Devise of the Reversion in tail the remainder over to A. in tail the remainder of one Moyety of the Land to one Daughter in tail and the other Moyety to another with Proviso that for the raising of a Stock for John Treherne the Grand-child when he come to the age of one and twenty years or if he dies for the raising of a Stock for Leonard in like manner he willed that Edward Griffin and Anne his Wife shall take the profits and shall receive all the rent of the Land devised to John Treherne to their own use untill he come to the age of one and twenty years upon Condition and so as the said Edward Griffin and Anne shall within three months after the death of the Testator become bound to his Overseers in an Obligation with such penalty as the said Overseers shall think fit to pay to the said John or if he dye without Issue to the said Leonard within three months after he come of age such a summ the Condition to be drawn and devised by his Overseers And if Edward Griffin and his Wife refuse then the Overseers should receive the Rent and Profits to their proper use But the Condition appoint not to whom the Overseers shall be bound And made Edward Griffing and William Iremonger his Executors and I. and others Supervisors and died and that within fourteen daies after the death of the Testator the Will was read to the said Overseers And that they did not devise or draw within the time appointed any Obligation nor tendred any within that time and that notice therof was given to the Defendant and that the Rent was demanded and the Reversion claimed by the Plaintiff sed utrum c. Vpon the Argument of Serjeant Harris which argued for the Plaintiff and vouched 21 H. 6. 6. That when one made Executors and also Coadjutors the Coadjutors are not Executors and that it is a Condition precedent vide 14 H 8. 22. Wheelers case 46 E 3. 5. Truels case Coke lib 5. 127. Palmers case 4 E 3. 39. 11 H 4. 18. And because that in this case the said Edward Griffin and his Wife are to have benefit they ought to require them to nominate the summ But because it appears to the Court that this Action is founded upon a Contract in Law therfore it ought to be brought in Surrey as it was agreed in Ungle and Glovers case An 36 Eliz vide Coke lib 3. fol 23. Nota that the Iudgment is speciall for this cause and no costs upon the Statute of 23 H 8. for the Defendant for the Statute saies that upon a Contract made by the Plaintiff the Defendant shall have costs and yet upon this Statute if the Executor be non-suited or Verdict given against him he shall not pay costs Where costs shall not be against Executors by common experience alwaies after the Statute and yet he shall have costs if he recover And in this case the Plaintiff shall have costs if he recover and yet it seems upon this Iudgment the Defendant shall not have costs against him and especially because that they are expresse words in the Statute that the Defendant shall have costs after Non-suit or lawfull tryall against the Plaintiff and here is neither Non-suit nor lawfull tryall vide Statute 4 Jac cap. 3. seems to be full in all cases where the Plaintiff shall have his costs upon Non-suit or when the Verdict passe against him the Defendant shall have costs yet it hath been taken that it shall be intended in actions of Debt upon the Contract of the Plaintiff himself for Executors neither upon Verdict nor upon Non-suit shall pay any costs because that their actions are brought upon Debts or Contracts not made between them and the Defendants vide the Statute of Glocester cap 1. that where a man recover damages there also he shall have costs Hickson versus Hickson HIckson Demandant in Dower against Hickson They are at issue the Tenant offer to be essoined upon the Venire facias and for want of the Adjornment therof by the Demandant Essoin shall not be allowed in Dower the Tenant had procured a Non-suit and yet the
Yelverton and I were opinion that the Debt is gone for it is at the suit of the King and Iudgment is given for the King And there shall be an answer to the King And we relyed upon the cases vouched by the Lord Coke but Iustice Harvey and Crook to the contrary And upon conference with all the Iustices of Serjeants Inne it was resolved that this action was at the suit of the party for he might be Non-suited vide 25 H 8. Br. Non-suit that the Informer may be Non-suited vide 6 E. 2. Fitz Non-suit 13. when the Iury come again to deliver their Verdict the King cannot discharge them and be Non-suited and the King cannot discharge this action And his Attorney reply not as in an Information Clotworthy versus Clotworthy Amendments Debt SImon Clotworthy brought an action of Debt against John C. Cosin and Heir of Bartholmew C. And the Imparlance Roll is Quod cum praedictus B. cujus consanguineus heres idem Johannes est viz. filius Johannis Clotworthy fratris praedicti B. C. And upon the Plea Roll upon which Iudgment is given this space was perfected and Iudgment for the Plaintiff and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was moved to be amended And if the Imparlance Roll shall be amended which is the foundation of the subsequent Rolls is the question For it is commonly holden that the Plea Roll shall he amended by the Imparlance but not e converso Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 67â— Walker versus Worsley Amendments WAlker brought an action of Debt against Worsley Debt as Son and Heir of Thomas W. in the Imparlance Roll which was entred Mich 18 Jac Rot 576. the words which bind the Heir were omitted viz. Ad quam quidem solutionem obligasset se Heredes suos but they were in the Plea Roll And after Iudgment that was assigned for Error in the Kings Bench and it was amended in the Common Bench by the Court vide there that it was by the fault and mis-prision of the Clerk who had the Obligation and so amendable by the Statute of 8 H 6. cap 15. 1. Hil. 9 Jac. Rot. 516. Govard versus Dennet GOvard against Dennet and Iudgment and the name of the Attorney viz. Henry was omitted in the Imparlance Roll and it was in the Plea Roll Henry and after Error brought it was amended Mich. 16 Jac. Rot. 581. Arrowsmith's Case THe Imparlance Roll Trin 16 Jac Rot 1727. Debt for three hundred pounds against Arrowsmith for part sur emisset and the other part sur in simul computasset And in the Imparlance Roll both parcells did not amount to three hundred pounds but wanted six pounds therof and after Error brought it was amended Pasch 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Godhow versus Bennet REplevin by Godhow against Bennet divers spaces in the Imparlance Roll were supplyed in the Plea Roll after Verdict Hil. 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Parker versus Parker THe Imparlance Roll was Mich 12 Jac Rot 547. Parker against Parker in Trover and Conversion the Imparlance Roll wanted the day and year of the possession and conversion but the Issue Roll was after the Verdict and motion in Arrest of Iudgment amended Mich. 2 Car. Crocker versus Kelsey JOhn Canterson and Agnes his Wife Tenants in speciall tail had Issue a Son Lease made by Feme in speciall tail viz. John and John the Father died John the Son levied a Fine with Proclamations to the use of himself in Fee Agnes leased to John Herring and Margaret his Wife Lessors to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years rendring Rent c. by vertue wherof they entred Agnes died John the Son entred and afterward the said John Herring and Margaret his Wife entred And the said John the Son made his Will in writing and by that devised the Land to Kelsey the Defendant and another in Fee and died John Herring and Margaret leased to Crocker the Plaintiff who entred and being ousted by Kelsey brought Ejectione firmae And this speciall Verdict being found Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and now affirmed upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 2 Car. Franklin versus Bradell FRanklin a Woman servant brought an action upon the case upon a promise against John Bradell Consideration in an Assumpsit ex post facto And count that wheras she had served the Defendant and his Wife and done to them loyall service the Defendant after the death of his Wife in consideration of the service which the Plaintiff had done to the Defendant and his Wife promised to pay her thirteen shillings four pence upon request and alledged request and non-payment And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon the Book of 13 Eliz. Dyer that this is no sufficient consideration because that it is not alledged that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant had served him Also it was not sufficient because that it was done after the service performed And it was answered that it was a good consideration and that the service was to the benefit of the Defendant And therfore in consideration that the Plaintiff had married the Daughter of the Defendant he promise to pay twenty pounds it is a good consideration and so in consideration that you have been my surely to such a man for such a Debt I promise to save you harmlesse And in consideration that the Plaintiff was Baile for the Defendant he promised to give him a Horse this is good And in consideration that I.S. being a Carpenter had well built my house I promise to give him five pounds And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Hil. 2 Car. Hearne versus Allen. Entred 22 Jac Rot 1875. Oxford 1. RIchard Hearne brought an Ejectione firmae against John Allen Ejectione firmae for two acres of Land in Langham upon a Lease made by Anne Keene which was the Wife of Edward Keene and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found Richard Keene was seised of an house in Chippin-norton Devise and of two acres of Land there in Fee and of two acres of Meadow in Langham in Fee used with the said Messuage which were holden in Socage And by his Will in writing dated the 20. May 30 Eliz. he devised the said house Cuni omnibus singulis ad inde pertinentibus vel aliquo modo spectantibus to Tho. K. and his Heirs for ever And for want of Heirs of him the said Thomas then to one Anne K. the Daughter of the Devisor and her Heirs for ever And for default c. then to Iohn K. his Cosin and his Heirs for ever And by the same Will devised his Goods and all his Lands to Eliz. his Wife during her Widow-hood and died Elizabeth his Wife entred Thomas the Son entred upon the Wife and disseised her and having enfeoffed one Edward K. in Fee died and Tho. K. also died without Issue Edward K. by his Will devised
Defendants disturbed her The said Bishop died and the Defendant plead that he is parsona imparsonata ex presentatione Domini Regis nunc And said that Sir Thomas Chichley was seised in Fee of the said Advowson and also of the Mannor of Preston and divers other Lands in the County of Cambridge which Mannors and Lands were holden of King James in Capite by Knights-service and being so seised he died and that this Advowson and the Mannor descended to Thomas Chichley his Son and Heir who at the time of his death was within age And that afterwards by force of a Writ of Diem clausit extremum this matter was found wherby the King seised the body and was possessed of the Mannor and of the Advowson and that the said King James died the King which now is suscepit regimen hujus regni and was possessed and the Church became void And the King by his Letters Patents under the great Seal presented the Defendant Thompson and traversed the Grant made by Sir Thomas Chichley to Thomas East and Edward Anger of the said Advowson as the Plaintiff had alledged The Plaintiff replyed protestandâ— that the Defendant is not Parson Imparsonee and that the Plea is insufficient Pro placito dicit quod non habetur aliquod tale recordum talis inquisionis post mortem praedicti Thomae Chichley militis modo forma prout wherupon the Defendant demurred And after many Arguments at Baâ— by Attho Henden Davenport and Hedley it was adjudged for the Defendant And that the Title of the Plaintiff being traversed brought to have been maintained and not to traverse other matter alledged by the Defendant for Traverse upon Traverse is only when the matter traversed is but Inducement Also it appears fully that the King is entituled to this Presentation though there was not any Office vide 21 E 4. 14 H 7. and then all the Titles of the King should be answered and therfore the deniall of the Office is not materiall for if he dies seised the King may present without Office vide Bendoes case 21 Eliz Rot 1378. Crachford against Gregory Lord Dacren when the King is entituled by Office to an Advowson though the very Title be in a stranger yet if the Church be void and he which hath Title present this is but Vsurpation Vide 17 H 7. Kel 43. 11 H. 8. ibid. fol. 200. vide 21 E 4. 1. 5 E 4. 3. or 13. of things which lye in Grant the King is in actuall possession Crachfords case 20 E 4. 11. Stamf. fol 54. 2. R 3. issue 7. 28. 23 H 8. Kel 97. new Book of Entries fol 130. vide there that Traverse is allowed to be taken upon Traverse vide for that 9 H 7. 9. 10 E â— 49. Dyer 107. 10 E 4. 2. 3. 6 E. 3. â— When two Titles appear for the King as here the dying seised of the Advowson of Sir Thomas C. who also died seised of the Mannor of Preston holden in Capite that is a good Title and the Office found is another Title and â—oth ought to be answered in case of the King vide for that matter 37 H 6. 6. 24 H 3. 27. 46. E. 3 25 9 H 6. 37. 39 H 2. 4. 40 E 3. 11. In case of severall charges to the King although the King be not party yet they ought to be answered Hedley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that the presentment of the King tolls all the right of the Plaintiff and therfore only ought to be answered and he ought not to traverse the Title of the Plaintiff which by the Plea was toll'd but notwithstanding that he answered not the dying seised of the Advowson and the Tenure by which the King is intituled upon the Office and therfore all is one And the Plaintiff had waved his Title and not maintained it And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pasch 4 Car. Congham's Case Rescous by the Plaintiff in the primer action IN an action upon the Case against Congham and his Wife That wheras the Plaintiff hath recovered in Debt against one and had a Writ of Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and the Sheriff had arrested the party and had him in Execution for the Debt the Defendants rescued the party and he escaped Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Feme was found guilty of the Rescous And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Aleph that this action lies not because that Debt lies against the Sheriff And the Sheriff shall have an action for the Rescous vide F N B. 102. And properly this action of Rescous lies where it is upon mean processe and that is for the delay by the Rescous and damage may be greater or lesser accordingly And the Rescous is according to the condition of him which is arrested for if he may be easily taken again and that he becomes not more poor that then the damage is the lesse vide 16 E 4. fol. 3. But after divers motions at Bar Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And the Lord Richardson held strongly that it lies And this Tort may be punisht at the Suit of the party who had damage therby viz. the party the Sheriff or Baily And Harvey and Crook agreed but Yelverton and my self doubted therof because that it is an immediate wrong to the Sheriff or Baily and the party had no prejudice in common presumption because that his action is transferred to the Sheriff who hath more ability to satisfie him Farrington versus Caymer LIonell Farrington qui tam pro se quam pro c. brought an Information against William Caymer Information where it shall be brought upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4. against Ale-brewers and Bear-brewers for selling Bear at higher prises then were assessed by the Iustices upon Not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff had a Verdict at Norfolk Assises And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Information was brought in the Common Bench and yet it was brought and tryed in the proper County where the Offence was committed wheras by 33 H. 8. cap 10. 37 H 8 cap 7. 21 Jac cap 4. it ought to be brought in the Country and not in the Common Pleas. And upon grand deliveration and hearing of councell of either part the Court resolved that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff And first it was agreed that wheras by the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4 which appoint that the Iustices of Peace assesse the prises of Barrels and other Vessels of Beer and that they which sell against that rate forfeit six shillings c. to be recovered by action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any Court of Record in which no wager of Law c. and gives one Moyety to the party which will sue and the other to the King no action may be brought in any Court of Record but onely in one of the four Courts of Record at Westminster
to him and he will pay for the making therof that is a good consideration vide Coke lib 8. fol 147. And in this case all the Court were of opinion that the consideration was good for wheras he might have detained the Horse untill he had been paid for the pasture and feeding he at the speciall request of the Defendant had delivered the Horse to him to the use of the Owner which is to the prejudice of the Plaintiff and alienest to him to whose use he was delivered And Iustice Harvey vouched a case which was in this Court adjudged which was in consideration that the Plaintiff had promised to pay to the Defendant ten pounds at a day according to the Condition of an Obligation the Defendant promised to deliver the Obligation and adjudged a good Consideration Turner versus Hodges THe Custom of the Mannor of _____ is found to be for the Copyholders without the License of the Lord of the Mannor they being seised in Fee may make any Lease for a year Custom in a Mannor to make aâ— Lease for years or many years and when they dye that â—â—e 〈◊〉 shall cease and that the Heir or Heirs may enter It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this was a bad Custom and that the Copyholders had by Custom an Inheritance and might by the generall Custom of the Ream make a Lease for one year And that tenor the generall Custom of the Realm but the Custom of every Mannor within the Realm vide Coke lib 4. fol 26. in Melwiches Case Custom creates the Estate and the Custom is as ancient as the Estate and is casuall and upon the Act of God and is reasonable that the Heir who is to pay the Fine should have the Possession And yet a Custom that if the Copyholder had surrendred to the Lord that the Lease should be void had been a 〈◊〉 Custom because that he might subvert and destroy by his own act that Estate that he himself had made and he which took the Lease haâ—ing notice of the Custom takes the Lease at his perill for otherwise he might have procured the License of the Lord and then by this License the Lord had dispenced therwith and that is as it were the Confirmation of the Lord For if a Copyholder makes a Lease for twenty years with the License of the Lord and after dies without Heirs yet the Lease shall stand against the Lord by reason of his License which amounts to a Confirmation And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Hil. 4 Car. EJectione firmae was brought and count upon a Lease made by Husband and Wife Lease by Baron and Feme without reservation of any Rent and that was by Indenture And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given in which the sole question was Whether this Lease was made by Baron and Feme being there was no Rent reserved therby It was objected that this Lease could not be made good by the Feme by any acceptance and therfore it is not the Lease of the Feme no more then if the Verdict had found that the Lease was by an Infant and no Rent reserved that had been a void Lease But it is contrary of a Baron and Feme for the Baron had power and the Feme joyning in the Lease it is not void for she may affirm the Lease by bringing a Writ of Wast or she may accept Fealty And so was the opinion of the Court and Iudgment entred accordingly vide Coke lib 2. fol 61. in Wiscots case Count of a Lease by Baron Feme and shew not that it was by Deed and yet good vide Dyer 91. Pasch 5 Car. Paston versus Utber JOhn Paston brought Ejectione firmae against Barnard Utber upon a Lease made by Mary Paston And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found at the Bar and the Case was thus Custom that the Lord have a Feild-course over the Lands of his Coppyholders if the Tenant inclose it is no forfeifture Barnard Vtber seised of the said Land to him and his Heirs by Copy of Court-Roll according to the Custom of the Mannor of Binham And that within that Mannor there is such a Custom that the Lord had had one field course for five hundred Ewes in the North-field and the West-field wherof these fifteen acres were parcell from the Feast of Saint Michael if the Corn were inned and if it were not then after the Corn were inned untill the Feast of the Annunciation if it were not before that time sown again with Corn in all the Lands of the Copyholders not inclosed And that it is a Custom that no Copyholder may inclose any Copyhold Land without the License of the Lord And if any be inclosed without License then a reasonable fine should be assessed by the Lord or his Steward for the Inclosure if the Lord would accept therof And it is also a Custom that if the Lord will not accept therof then the Copyholder which so incloseth shall be punished at every Court after untill he open that Inclosure And the said Vtber inclosed the 15. acres with an Hedge and Fence of Quick-set 3. feet deep and 6. feet broad and that he had left 4. spaces of 9. feet broad in the said 15. acres And that the said Vtber was required by the Steward to lay open the said Inclosure and he did it not whereupon there was a command to the Bayliff to seise them as forfeit which was done And the said Mary being Seignoress of the Mannor entred and leased to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred upon him Serjeant Davenport argued that it is a forfeiture and against the Custom which creates the Feildage for the Lord as well as the Estate of Copyhold for the Tenant and that this leaving of four spaces is a fraud and device and that it is against his Fealty and is to the damage of the Lord and a thing unlawfull vide Dyer 245. 34 E. 1. Formedon 88. 15 A 7. 10. 29 E 3. 6. That if the Tenant inclose the Commoner may break his hedges And though by Littleton an Inclosure which is a Disseisin is a totall Inclosure wherby he which hath the rent cannot come to distrain yet this also is an Inclosure because that it obstructs the feild-course for they cannot come so freely without interuption or damage for the hedges may deprive the Sheep of their wooll And he compared it to the case of 3 H. 7. 4. One is obliged to make an Estate of his Mannor of Dale if he alien part and then make a Feoffment the Condition is broken and vide 5 E 3. fol 58. a Recognizance with Condition to make a Feoffment to I. S. of the Mannor if he alien part therof he forfeit his Recognizance he vouched 42 E 2. 5. and Coke lib 4. that deniall of Services or making of Wast is a forfeiture 22 H 6. 18. 41 E 3. Wast 82. Dyer 364. And though that the Lord may
proceed by fiue to enforce him to lay it open yet these Affirmative Customs do not toll the Negative And to prove that the Lord had an Inheritance therin he vouched 14 E 2. Fitz. Grant 92. A Rent granted to one and his Heirs out of the Mannor of Dale which he hold of the Mannor of D. this is an Inheritance And if this shall not be a forfeiture then this Customary Inheritance which the Lord had in the feild-course might be tolled at the will and pleasure of the Copyholder Serjeant Hitcham argued strongly to the contrary First That it is no Inclosure because that all is not inclosed Secondly The forfeiture of a Copyhold is alwaies by some thing done to the Copyhold land it self but this is done as it is supposed to the feild-course of the Lord which is not Copyhold and it is better for the Copyhold and makes the land better and also the Feild-course is therby made better and more beneficiall to the Lord and therfore the Copyhold land is not altered but is meliorated and it is like so the case in Dyer 361. Althams case after no Wast done the Evidence was that a Trench was made in a Meadow by which the Meadow was Meliorated and adjudged no wast which might be given in evidence But he said that in Brooks case at the first comming of Popham to be chief Iustice it was adjudged that if a Copyholder build a new house it is a forfeiture for that altoreth the nature of the thing and put the Lord to more charge So if Tenant for yeare makes a Hay-yard in the land that is wast He said that this Custom is qualified by taking a Fine if he would or by imposing a pain in the Court to enforce the Defendant to lay it open And all the Court were of opinion that this is no forfeiture for the reasons before and that this Feild-course is a thing which commence by agreement and is but a Covenant and not of common right And Forfeitures which are odious in Law shall be taken strickly Trin. 5 Car. Starkey versus Tayler Case STarkey an Atterney of this Court brought an action upon the case against one Mr. Tayler of Lincolns Inn for saying of these words to him Words Thou art a common Barretor and a Judas and a Promoter And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words maintain not action for the generality and uncertainty that he shall be called a common Barretor And the chief Iustice seemed to be of opinion that those words are not more then if he had said That he was a common Brabler or Quarreller But it was urged by Serjeant Hicham that the action lies and that it is a generall Rule Quod sermo relatur ad personam As in Birchley's Case He is a corrupt man And in Mores Case it was said of an Attorney That he was a cousening Knave And if these words were spoken of a common person he doubted if they were actionable but being spoken of an Attorney action lies And if these words were spoken of Iudge without doubt they were actionable And in this case being spoken of an Attorney who is a Minister of Iustice and who hath the Causes of his Clients in his hands to gain them or to lose them The Statute of Westminster saies the Sheriffs are charged to expell all Barretors out of their Countries And in the Statute of 34 E. 3. is the description of a common Barretor and his punishment who is a stirrer of false and unjust Suits and that he shall be imprisoned during the pleasure of the King bound to his good behaviour and fined And Littleton in his Chapter of Warranties faith they are hired to keep Possessions and therfore an action lies But to say of another man That he is a common Barretor is not actionable unlesse he saith that he is convicted Hil. 3 Car Rot. 1302. Watt versus Maydewell Leicest WIlliam Watt brought an Ejectione firmae against Laurence Maydewell Where acceptance of a new Lease for years makes a surrender of the former upon a Lease made by Robert Rome upon Not guilty and a speciall Verdict found the Case was thus Francis Griffith seised of Land in Fee by Indenture bearing date the fourteen of November and 14 Iac. demised the said Land wherof c. for one and forty years to Robert Rome rendring two shillings Rent to commence from the Annunciation which shall be An 1619. and after the same year by another Indenture bearing date the third of December 15 Iac. to commence from the Annunciation last demised the same Lands for ninety nine years to Dame Frances Perroint who entred and was therof possessed And after that the said Francis Griffith by another Indenture the same year bearing date the fourteen day of November 16 Iac. to commence from the seventeenth of November An. 1619. devise it to the said Robert Rome for one and forty years who accepted it and afterwards entred and being possessed made his Will and appointed Executors and died the Executors administred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who was possessed untill he was ousted by the Defendant And the only question of this Case was if the acceptance of the second Lease by Robert Rome had determined discharged or extinguished the former Lease And after Argument it was adjudged for the Plaintiff the reason was because that by the Lease made to the Lady Perpoint for ninety nine years and her Entry Francis Griffith had but a Reversion and could not by his Contract made afterwards with Robert Rome give any Interest to Robert Rome This Lease made to Robert Rome viz. his former Lease was good in Interest being to commence at a day to come and is grantable over and may be surrendred or determined by matter in Law before the Commencement therof as if he take a new Lease to commence presently which see in 37 H. 6. 29. 22 E. 4. for it tuures in Contract And in this case it had been without question that the taking of the new Lease had been a surrender of the former if it were not by reason of the Lease for ninety nine years which is for so great a number of years that disables him to contract for one and forty years 37 H. 6. 17. 18. 14 H. 7. 3. Dyer 140. Vide Smith and Stapletons case in Plowden If a man makes a Lease for one and twenty years and after makes a Lease for one and twenty yeares by Paroll that is meerly void but if the second Lease had beene by Deed and hee had procured the former Lease to Attorn he shall have the Reversion vide Ive's Case Coke lib 5. fol 11. there it is adjudged that the acceptance of a Leese for years to Commence at a day to come is a present surrender of a former Lease These Cases were vouched in this Case Baker and Willoughby Serjeant Bakers Case in the Court of Wards with the Lady Willoughby that a
happen as in Chudleys case Coke lib 1. fol 133. a Feoffment to the use of the Feoffor for life and after his death to his first Son which shall be afterwards born for his life and so to divers And afterwards to the use of I. D. in tail It is resolved that all the uses limited to-persons not in Esse are contingent but the uses to persons in Esse vest presently and yet these contingent uses when they happen vest by interposition if the first Estate for life which ought to support them be not disturbed And in this case it was a good Estate for life in Margaret And then gives the remane in the Feoffees for eighty years if Nicholas and Elizabeth Sanders so long should live and if Elizabeth survive Nicholas then to Elizabeth for her life and after her decease to Posthumus in tail and after his decease to the said three Daughters in tail so that there the Estate for years determines upon the death of Elizabeth and so also the Estate for life to Elizabeth which was contingent determines by his death And the Lord Darbies case a Feoffment to the use of Edward The Lord Derbies case late Earl of Derby in tail and then to the use of the two Feoffees for eighty years if Henry late Earl of Darby should so long live and after his decease to Ferdinand and to the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of William now Earl of Derby And it was adjudged that the remainders vest presently And this possibility that Henry might have over lived the eighty years will not make the remainders contingent And in a Suit which was at Lancaster between Farrington and another Farringtons case upon a speciall Verdict there found about 8 Jac. and many times argued at Serjeants Inn it was afterwards adjudged a good remainder and not contingent And the same case in this Court upon a Scire facias for two have executor of certain Land for debt recovered against the Earl of Derby which Land was intailed by the same Conveyance c. brought against the Earl of Bridgwater and his Wife one of the Co-heirs of Ferdinand Earl of Derby was adjudged in this Court vide Borastons case Coke lib 3. fol 20. 14 Eliz Dyer 314. Lovies case Coke lib 10. 27 H 8. 24. 38 E 3. 26. 5 E 3. 27. 30. E 3. Collthurst and Bemchins case was urged that the remainder limited to B. for life and after that C. hath married Ja. S. then to the use of C. in Fee this is contingent and is collaterall And this case is not like to that And after Argument at Bar this Term it being argued before that the Lord Richardson was there who was of the same opinion we all concurred and Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff Pasch 8 Car. Metcalfe versus Hodgson Case MEtcalfe brought an action upon the case against Hodgson and Wharton late Sheriffs of the City of York and count That wheras time out of memory c. there hath been a Court of Record holden before the Sheriffs of the said City upon the Bridge called Ousbridge An action of the case lies not against a Sheriff for taking of insufficient Bail being Iudges and that in this Court every one having cause of action arising within the said City had used to commence any action for debt there and that the Defendants being arrested by their bodies the Sheriffs had used to take Bayle of them and to let them to Bayle finding sufficient sureties and that the Sheriffs are also and time out of memory have been Keepers of the Gaol there And wheras the Plaintiff had brought an action against one Smith and recovered the now Defendants being Sheriffs had taken insufficient Bail of him c. And upon Not guilty pleaded it was tryed before the Lord chief Baron at York for the Bail are supposed to be taken at Wakefield but that was not alledged for any thing which appears to be out of their Iurisdiction And the Iury contrary to the direction of the Lord chief Baron gave Verdict for the Plaintiff And after many motions in Arrest and praying of Iudgment it was resolved that this act was done by them as Iudges and for this Iudiciall Act no action lay And though that the Bail by the event appear to be insufficient yet there is no remedy by action upon the case it being without fraud or corruption and not for reward And this Case differs nothing from the ordinary cases of all insufficient Bailes taken by any of the Kings-Bench Common Bench or Exchequer And that they having two Authorities in una persona it shall be taken to be done by that Authority by which they have power to vail and that is as Iudges of the Court and not as Gaolers for by this they have no power to Bail any and in this capacity they are only subject to an escape vide Dyer 163. Error cannot be assigned in that which the Court of Common Bench do as Iudges vide 12 E 4. 19. Conspiracy lies not for that which a Iustice doth as Iudge of Record Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Hickes versus Mounford Trin. 7 Car. Rot. 514. Replevin REplevin brought by Walter Hickes against Simon Mounford and others the Defendants make Conusance as Bayliffs to Sir John Elliot Executor of Richard Giddy And that the place contain twenty acres and was parcell of the Mannor of Trevelun And that Thomas Archbishop of York and Cardinall and three others were seised of the Mannor wherof c. in Fee Traverse of a day and the third of June 11 H 8. by Deed inrolled granted to King H. 8. a Rent-charge of fifty Marks per annum out therof in Fee with clause of Distresse and convey the Rent by discent to E. 6. Mary and Elizabeth who by her Letters Patents granted it to Richard Giddy for life who made the said Sir John Elliot his Executor and died and for such a summ arrear they Avow c. The Plaintiff pleaded in Bar to this Avowry and confessed the Seisin of the said Arch-bishop and the others and said that the said Arch-bishop and the others the fourth of June 11 H 8. enfeoffed Peter Edgecombe in Fee of the said Mannor who conveyed it to Richard Edgecombe Knight who entred and licensed the Plaintiff to put in his Beasts which he did and that they were there untill by the Defendants distrained absque hoc that the said Arch-bishop and the others the aforesaid 3. June 11 H 8. granted the said Rent to the said King and his Heirs Modo forma prout the Defendants alledged Et hoc paratus est verificare The Defendants say that the Arch-bishop and the others granted the Rent to the King modo forma as they had alledged and Issue therupon and the Iury found That the said Arch-bishop and the others 11 H 8. recovered this Land against Sir