commence and he is seised in Fee and may hold it charged with both the Rents 2 H 5. 7. 5 H 5. 34. Ass 15. And this Estate surrendred is in Esse as to the benefit of strangers but not as to the benefit of him who accepted it for hee is seised in Fee vide Lillingstons case And the Court was of opinion that the Rent was revived and that the Contract is now determined Nota that this grant to Humphrey the Son for years was but upon confidence to assign it over If Grantee of an Estate for life of a Rent take an Estate for life of part of the Land and surrender it yet the Rent is not revived for it was extinct in this case if he had granted his interest quere and if he had granted his interest over to I. S. and he had surrendred it that shall not revive the Rent because that he had by his granting over of his interest discharged of the Rent extinguish it quaere but in the principall case the Rent was suspended by the acceptance of the Lease and is revived by the surrender And it was agreed that where Lessee for years surrender to which the Lessor agree and accept it the possession and the interest is in him without entry Hil. 3 Car. Sandford versus Cooper SAndford brought a Scire facias against Cooper to have execution of a Iudgment for sixteen pounds Sci. fac which Iudgment was de Oct. Hil. An. 2 Car. And one being returned Ter-tenant pleaded that after the Iudgment viz. 22 Jan. he against whom the Iudgment was viz. John Bill acknowledged a Statute-staple and sheweâ— that by that the Land was extended and after upon liberate delivered in Execution and demand Iudgment wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And the sole question was to what day the Iudgment shall have relation for it appears in the pleading To what day a Judgment shall have relation that the twentieth day of January was the day of Essoin and it seemed to the Court that the Iudgment should have relation to the first day of this return as well as if it had been a return in the Tearm viz. 15 Hil. for otherwise it should be uncertain And he may be Non-suited upon this day vide 5 Eliz. Dyer fol. 200. That a recovery being in the first return the Warrant of Attorney made and dated the fourth day is taken to be a Warrant after Iudgment and vide 33 E 6. fol 45 46. the principall case there If a Nisi prius taken after the day of Essoin shall be good and it is adjudged not for the first day is the return And it was agreed that in Common Parlance the first day of the Tearm is the fourth day viz. If one be obliged to appear or to pay monies the first day of such a Tearm Loquendum est ut vulgus But the Law relate the Iudgment to the first day of every return vide Dyer 361. a Release pleaded after the Darrein Continuance which was dated the one and twentieth of January which was the day after the Essoin day and it was not good for it ought to be before the utas Hillarii Gillinghams case And my Brother Harvey and Crook vouched one Gillinghams case viz. A Release of all Iudgments before the fourth day and after the day of Essoin would not release this Iudgment which was de Octab. Hil. vide many cases vouched to this purpose 4 E 3.34 H 6. 20. a Writ of Error brought after the utas and before the fourth that is good and brought after Iudgment vide 22 H 6. 7. a. a Writ of Error ought to be brought after the Iudgment rendred or otherwise no Execution shall be stayed And all the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff in this Scire facias Hil. 3 Car. Holt versus Sambach Trin. 2 Car. Rot. 731. Replevin Tenant for life with a remainder to him in tail expectant and remainder in fee grant a rent in fee afterwards had fee by fine SIr Thomas Holt brought Replevin against Thomas Sambach in which upon Demurrer the Case was Sir William Catesby being Tenant for life of Land the remainder in tail to Robert his Son the remainder in Fee granted a Rent of ten pounds by the year out therof to William Sambach in Fee and Sir William and Robert his Son levied a Fine with Proclamations which was to the use of the said Sir William in Fee and afterwards the said Sir William enfeoffed Sir Thomas Holt and died Robert had Issue Robert and died And the Court was of opinion that this Grant in Fee is good for he had an Estate for life in possession and an Estate of remainder in tail and remainder in Fee in himself to charge and then the Fee-simple passe by the Grant And although that Robert the Son might have avoided it yet when he had barred the Estate-tail c. by Fine to the use of Sir William now Sir William Catesby had by this acceptance of this Estate to himself avoided the means by which he might have avoided the Rent And although that in Bredons case in the first Book when Tenant for life and he in the remainder in tail joyn in a Fine rendring Rent to Tenant for life that passeth from every one that which lawfully might passe and that the Rent continue after the death of him in the remainder in tail without Issue yet in this case the Estate is barred by the Fine and united to that Estate which William the Grantor had and now William is seised in Fee and this Rent made unavoidable The Case was well argued by Henden and Davenport but it appeared that the Conusance was for twenty shillings part of the rent of fifty pounds behind and for fifty pounds parcell of two hundred pounds arrear for Nomine poenae and did not say in his Avowry that he was satisfied of the rest And therfore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff vide 20 E 4. 2 a. 48 E. 3. 3. Chichley versus the Bishop of Ely Quare Impedit DAme Dorothy Chichley brought a Quare Impedit against Nich Bishop of Ely and Mark Thompson the Incumbent for the Church of Wimple and counted that Thomas Chichley was seised of the Advowson of the said Church in Fee as in grosse and presented to it being void Edward Marshall which was Instituted and Inducted and afterward the said Thomas Chichley died seised and the Advowson descended to his Son and Heir Sir Thomas Chichley Traverse upon Traverse who by his Deed indented c. for the increase of the Ioynture of the Plaintiff granted the said Advowson to Thomas East and Edward Anger and their Heirs to the use of the said Plaintiff for life and afterwards to the use of the Heirs Males of the body of Sir Thomas Chichley and that by force therof she was seised for life And the Church being hold by the death of the said Edward Marshall she presented and the
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
and 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
of forty pounds And adjudged that no action lay vide Coke lib 10 fol 130. in Osbornes Case Thou art an arrant Knave a Cousener and a Traytor Action lies only for the word Traytor and yet all being spoken at one time aggravate and Damages shall be intended to be given only for these words which are actionable vide ut supra fol 131. if the words be alledged as spoken at severall times and as severall causes of actions there if the Damages be entire the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment if any of the words do not bear action Stanley and Buddens case And other cases were cited that Cousenage is not actionable And Mich 40 Eliz Stanley and Buddens or Boswels case there an Attorney brought an action of the case for these words Thou art a cousening Knave and gettest thy living by Extortion and didst cousen one Pigeon in a Bill of Costs of ten pounds Adjudged that the last words were actionable This case was adjudged for the Plaintiff but I was absent in Chancery and heard not their reasons for it was doubtfull Hil. 17 Jac. Empson versus Bathurst Debt FRancis Empson brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation against George Bathurst the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. That an Obligation taken Colore officii of any one in their Custody Obligation voided by the Statute 23 H. 8. with any other Condition then for appearance at the day mentioned in the Processe shall be void And shewed that an Extent issued out of the Chancery to extend the Land of Robert Leigh upon a Statute Staple of twelve thousand pounds in which he was obliged to the Plaintiff And that Anthony Thirrold was Sheriff and Charles Empson was under Sheriff and shewn an Extent of the Land returned and before any Liberate it was agreed that the Defendant should pay to the under Sheriff two and thirty pounds ten shillings and that he should be bound to the Plaintiff his Brother for the security therof to the use of the said Charles and therupon he entred into the said Obligation which by the said Statute is void the Plaintiff replyed and shewed that by the execution of the Extent he agreed to pay him the said two and thirty pounds ten shilling and pleaded the Statute 29 Eliz cap. 4. wherupon the Defendant demurred And it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Extortion for this Obligation is extortion and Colore officii and void by the Commen Law Extortion is when any one Colore officii extorquet feodum non debitum plus quam debitum aut ante quam debitum vide Dive and Maringhams case an Obligation made by Extortion is against Common Law for it is as Robbery vide Coke lib 10. fol 100. Dyer 144. And in this case the opinion of the Court was that no Fee is due to the Sheriff by the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap 4. because the Fee is not due untill execution Copulative extent and delivered in execution if it were a Statute-Merchant in which is a Liberate included then the Fee is due Also it was agreed that by the Statute the Sheriff ought to have six pence in the pound where the summ exceed a hundred pounds for all and not twelve pence in the pound Mich. 20 Jac. Bullen versus Gervis RObert Bullen brought an action of Debt for 12 l. upon an Obligation against William Gervis Administrator of Owen Godfrey Debt It is no plea for the Administrator to say the Intestate died outlawed Young and Pigot The Defendant pleaded that the Intestate was outlawed at the Suit of Francis Murrell after Iudgment and pleaded it specially and being so Outlawed died and that Outlawry is in full force Iudgment si Action wherupon the Plaintiff demurred 8 E. 4. 6. There by Littleton between Young and Pigot in an action of Debt against Executors it was holden a good plea to say that their Testator was Outlawed for they are charged to the King for the Goods Genny said that the plea amount only to this that they have not any Goods and so answer argumentative And 21 E. 3. 5. By Brian in a Writ of Debt brought against Executors it is a good plea to say that their Testator was Outlawed sans luy intitle 36 H. 6. 27. By Prisot in Debt against one as Executor of Jane the Defendant said that the said Jane was his Wife and demand Iudgment si action and it seems this is no Plea because that a Feme Covert may have many things which the Husband shall not have as Choses in action and she may make Executors if the Baron agree And Prisot said Sir It seems to me that it is no good plea for an Executor to say that his Testator died Outlawed Cansa qua supra Quare cur hona materia Vpon the reading of the Record it seems that it is no plea for it is only by Implication and that may be given in evidence Also the Executor or Administrator may have divers things which are not forfeitable to the King as if the Testator had Mortgaged his Land upon Condition that if the Mortgagee pay not at such a day to him his Executors or his Heirs a hundred pounds that then it shall be lawfull for him or his Heirs to re-enter and after and before the day the Testator is outlawed and makes his Executors and dies and at the day the Mortgagee pay the money to the Executors that is Assets and not forfeited is the King So if Tenant for life of a Rent be outlawed and the Rent arrear and makes his Executors and die this arrearage is due to the Executor and is Assets and not forfeited for the Rent was a Free-hold for which during his life no action of Debt lay and these arrearages recoverable by the Executors are Assets Also if this should be a good plea which is only by Implication he might therby prevent the Plaintiff of his recovery Also though choses in action are by information in the Exchequer recoverable yet if the Executor bring a Scire facias upon the Iudgment he shall recover and shall be accountable to the King therfore and the Debtors of the Intestate though he was outlawed may pay the debts to him and his release is a good discharge to them Also it was agreed that an Executor or an Administrator might bring a Writ for the reversall of the Outlawry and the Outlawry is not a Bar to him Woolley versus Bradwell Trin. 37 Eliz. Rot. 2954. And one case was vouched by Attho which was adjudged upon the like plea in this Court Trin 37 Eliz Rot 2954. Woolley against Bradwell and his Wife Executors of Sir Thomas Mannord and the matter depended a year and was argued and adjudged that it was no plea for it is but by argument and so being Serjeant Hobart said this Argument ought to be infallible also this is the matter and not the form for in this case the Demurrer was generall and the Book of
font and twenty years that then I. S. shall have the Land and it shall be good vide Dyer 33. Coke lib 10.46 Lampets case But Tuesday the eleventh of February the Lord Hobart by our direction because that we were streightned of time and Howell was so importunate for Iustice that we could not argue delivered the opinion of the Court that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant And he declared that as to the point of a Fee-simple which he called the mounting of one Fee-simple upon another we now declared no opinion But we all without difficulty resolved that this release of Noy be it a Condition or not had discharged it And as to him it is an Interest used by the Devise but not executed untill it happen And therfore in Lampers case there the Release discharged it for there he had no Title executed but vested and commenced and so may have Noy Howell the Plaintiff in this case and it is not like to an Heir in the life of the Father for be is a stranger and he hath no Title at all and yet his Release with Warranty bars him and here this Release is accompanied with Warranty of which nothing was spoken Also as to Noy it is a Condition according to the words of the Will and therfore sans question that Noy had barred himself The Vacation after Hil. 20 Jac. MEmorand That on Munday the seventeenth of February at Serjeants Inn upon the assembly of all the Iustices to take consideration upon the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. for the Abjuration of Sectaries the Atturney-generall and Serjeant Crew being there Resolutions upon the Statute of Eliz. cap. 1. concerning Sectaries after the perusall of the Statute and the Continuances therof it was first upon debate considered whether this Statute was in force or discontinued and upon the perusall of the Proviso in the Statute of Subsidy and upon reasoning the matter these Points were resolved 1. If a Parliament be assembled and divers Orders made What shall be said a Session of Parliament and a Writ of Error brought and the Record delivered to the higher house and divers Bills agreed but no Bills signed That this is but a Convention and no Parliament or Session as it was An. 12 Jac. in which as it was affirmed by them which had seen the Roll it is entred that it is not any Session or Parliament because that no Bill was signed vide 33 H 6 Brook Parliament 86. every Session in which the King signes Bills is a Parliament 2. It was agreed that if divers Statutes be continued untill the next Parliament or next Session and there is a Parliament or a Session and nothing done therin as to continuance all the said Statutes are discontinued Beriatim Jones Chamberlain Hutton Denham Haughton Dodderidge Winch and Bromley declared their opinions that this Statute is discontinued And that the Statute of Subsidy is a Parliament and that every Parliament is a Session but not e converso for one Parliament may have divers Sessions as the Parliament 1 Jac had four and ended An 7 Jac. vide 33 H 6. Br. Parliament 86. And that this Proviso is not to any other purpose but to continue their proceedings in the same Estate as if this Act had not been made and if this Proviso had not been then this Statute had been discontinued by this act of Subsidy but when this ends and is determined then is the Session ended then it is a Session scilicet a Parliament which ought to be pleaded at the Parliament holden c. and all the Commissions of Subsidy are accordingly and the Proviso call it a Session Then this being done the Lord chief Baron did not deliver any opinion for he said that he had not considered the Statute and afterward it was desired that the Lords would deliver their opinions and therupon the Lord Hobart declared his opinion accordingly That it seemed to him that it was a Session and that it was not safe to meddle with such Law and that he would never refuse to declare his opinion with his Brethren After the Lord chiefe Iustice Ley made a long discourse concerning the purpose and intent of Parliament scilicet That it was not their purpose to destroy so good Lawes and therfore it was not any such Session as was within the intent of the preceding Parliament which was that these should determine when it is a Parliament or Session in which good Lawes are made And Doderidge said that it was fit to see the Commission and that that which hath been said was not to bind any one but every one spoke what then he was advised of and peradventure might change upon better consideration And afterwards upon Tuesday on an Assembly of the two chief Iustices the chief Baron Iustice Haughton Baron Denham Hutton Chamberlain and Jones the Attorney-generall brought the Commission de 12 El. June 1. and that had these words Pro eo quod nullus Regalis Assensus nec responsio per nos praestat fuit nullum Parliamentum nec aliqua Sessio Parliamenti lata aut tent fuit They have power to adjourn this Parliament thus begun And the Commission to dissolve this Parliament 38. Feb. An. 19 Jac. had the same words saving that he recite that he had given his Royall assent to an act of Subsidy by which was intended that it should not be a Session And upon view of the Commission the Lord chief Iustice moved that the King was mistaken in this that he had given power to dissolve this Parliament which had not any Session and if it be a Session then he had no power to dissolve it and then it is as it were a recesse and a Parliament cannot be discontinued or dissolved but by matter of Record and that by the King alone and if the Parliament yet continue then this Statute also continue during the Parliament by the Proviso but that would not serve for first it is against the intent of the King and against his Proclamation And also the case is truly put in the Commission as to the matter in fact and he is not mis-informed but mistaken in the Law and then the Commission for the dissolving is good semblable to the Lord Shandoi's Case and other Cases vide in Cholmleys case But because that all the Iudges were not at this Conference therfore it was deferred untill the next Term and in the interim the Grand Secretary and the Attorney-generall were to inform the King that the Statute is obscure and had not been put in ure and that we could not agree Mich. 20 Jac. Rot. 2805. Bawtry versus Skarlet Sussex JOhn Bawtry Clerk Case brought an action upon the case against Benjamen Skarlet one of the Attorneys of this Court by Bill and count In consideration that the Plaintiff will confesse Judgment the Attorney promise to defer the entry of the Judgment c. that wheras one William Carter Trin. 20 Jac.
the Award of Costs were in full force and effect But that afterwards viz. such a time as well the said Iudgment de non pros as the said Iudgment of thirty pounds Debt against the now Plaintiff were evacuated wherupon the Defendant demurred And it having been often debated by Hitcham for the Defendant and Henden for the Plaintiff And now upon Oyer of the Record and of the Iudgment the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff And the Lord Finch said that this action upon the case is grounded upon two misdemeanours 1. The procurement of the said Iudgment for Edw. L. after a Non pros entred for the Defendant And though the Iudgment was erroneous yet the now Plaintiff was vexed and imprisoned therby which indeed is the cause of this action 2. The taking therof unlawfully when the first Iudgment de non pros was in force and the Plea of Nil tiel Record go only to one of the Causes And admitting that there was never a Iudgment de non pros but that the Defendant had unlawfully procured a Iudgment and taken Execution therupon and procured the Plaintiff to be taken in Execution and Imprisoned this is cause of action And to that he hath not answered and therfore he ought to have pleaded Not guilty to that which he takes by protestation Iudgment pro quaerente Pasch 11 Car. Baker versus Hucking Adjudged B. Rs. Tenant in tail and he in Reversion make a I. case Pro ut aut vic TEnant in tail and he in Reversion joyn by Deed in a Lease for life he in Reversion devise the Land by his Will to one in Fee and dieth Tenant in tail dies without Issue and the Heir of him in Reversion and the Devises claim the Land And the sole question is if this Lease be a Discontinuance and it was adjudged a Discontinuance and then the Devise void for he had not a Reversion And the difference was taken when Tenant for life and he in Reversion joyn in a Lease by Deed for without Deed it is first a Surrender Discontinuance and then the Lease or Feoffment of him in Reversion it shall be the Lease of Tenant for life so long as he live and after the Lease of him in Reversion and yet they shall joyn in a Writ of Wast And in this case there is no question but if the Lease had been made solely by Tenant in tail that then it were a Discontinuance and the joyning of him in Reversion alters it not for that amounts to nothing but as a Confirmation and is not like to Bredons case Coke lib 1. fol 76. Where Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail levy a Fine for every one there passeth that which lawfully he may And upon Argument it was adjudged that it was a Discontinuance and not the Lease of him in Reversion but his Confirmation Iustice Crooke differed in opinion Mich. 11 Car. Lashbrookes Case Somerset LEwes Lashbrook an Attorney of this Court brought an action of Trespasse against I. S. for entring into his house and breaking his Close And in the new Assignment he alledged the Trespasse to be in a house called the Entry and in a house called the Kitchin and in his Garden and in one Close called the Court. The Defendant as to the force c. and to all besides the Entry plead Not guilty And as to his entry into the Court and Kitchin A Warrant to four and two of them execute it and the Tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment he plead that he had brought an action against a woman for Trespasse and had so proceeded that he recovered and had execution directed to the Sheriff of Somersetshire and therupon a Warrant directed to four speciall Bayliffs to arrest the said Woman and two of them at Minehead in the County of Somersetshire arrested her and carried her to the house of the Plaintiff in Minehead being a Common Inn and the Defendant entred into the said houses called the Entry and Kitchin and the Tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment to speak to the Bayliffs and to warn them to keep her safe And as soon as he could he returned wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And now Henden took two Exceptions the first was 1. That the Defendant had not pleaded to all the Closes but that was over-ruled for he justified in the tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment 2. The second was that the Warrant to the Bayliffs was to all and not Conjunctim and Divisim and therfore it should be by all and not by two only To that it was answered and resolved that when a Sheriff makes such a Warrant which is for the Execution of Iustice that may be by any of them for it is Pro bono publico And the very Case was adjudged 45 Eliz between King Hebbs Coke Littleton 181. b. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Hil. 11 Car. Davies Case Hereford DAvies an Attorney of this Court brought an action upon the case for these words If I list I can prove him Perjured Words And the opinion of the Court was that they were not actionable for there is not any Affirmative that he was perjured but a thing which is Arbitrary and saies not that he would do it Iudgment pro Defend Mich. 7 Car. Rot. 1097. Alston versus Andrew Suff. Pâ—ter Alston Executor of Peter Alston brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation of a hundred and twenty pounds against William Andrew The Obligor and the Obligee make the same person Executor and Edward Andrew and count That the Defendants and one Francis A. became obliged to the Testator c. and that they did not pay it is the said Testator in his life nor to the now Plaintiff and one Francis Andrew Co-executor with the Plaintiff who is summoned and the Plaintiff admits to prosecute alone without the same Francis c. The Defendants demand Oyer of the Obligation which is entred in haec verba and plead that Francis A. in the said Writing named after the making therof made the said Francis Andrew and Barb. A. his Executors and died And that the said Francis A. accepted the Burthen of the Testament And after the said Peter Alston the Testator made his will and Constituted the Plaintiff and the said Francis his Executors and died Et hoc paratus est verificare unde c. wherupon the Plaintiff demur Trugeon and Meron Mich 2 Jac. Rot. 2663. Garret Trugeon Plaintiff against one Anthony Meron and others the Administrators of Benjamin Scrivin upon a single Bill The Defendants demand Oyer of the Bill wherby it appears that one John Simcocks was obliged to the said Trugeon joyntly and severally with the said Scrivin Quibus lectis auditis the Defendants sayd that the said Simcocks died intestate and that the Administration of his Goods was granted to the now Plaintiff who accepted the Burthen of the Administration and Administred the Plaintiff demurred
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