the Land to Anne his Wife the Lessor of the Plaintiff for life and died Anne entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff Et si super totam materiam c. And it seems that the Defendant Allen claim under the Title of Anne K. the Daughter but that was not found nor no other Title for the Defendant and therfore of necessity Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff And this case was well argued by Crawley for the Plaintiff And Henden for the Defendant And three Points were argued 1. If the two acres in Langham passed by the words Cum pertinentiis and it seemed to the Court that they did not passe without saying Cum terris eidem Messuagio spectantibus vel pertinentibus And that is agreed in Hill and Granges case by Conveyance and 23 H. 8. 6. and it is all one in a Will Also in this case it is not found for what time these two acres had been used with the house And there was sufficient to supply the words Cum pertinent for ought that appears And if the Law be so the two acres do not passe but discend to Thomas Keene and the Feoffment good 2. If by these words it be an Estate-tail as in Beresfords Case Coke lib 7. fol 41. 9 E 3. Fitz tail 21. 12 E 3. 7 E 6. 16 Eliz in Chapmans case or a Fee-simple And yet Yelverton and Crook inclined that it was an Estate-tail but Lord Richardson Hutton and Harvey to the contrary for an intent against Law shall be void vide Abraham and Twiggs case Coâ—e lib 7. fol 41. 3. If the Collaterall Warranty which descended had extinguishâ— and barred the right of Anne Keene Henden would have maintained it because that the Warranty is speciall although it was collaterall that it did not Bar which is sanâ— question be it speciall or generall it bars the others upon whom it descends vide Coke lib 15. Seniors case he held no descent and then no Bar 12 E 4. discontinuance 50. 7 H 6. speciall Warranty shall be used by Rebutter but not by Voucher And Iudgment for the Plaintiff If a Feme shal have a supersedeas upon an Exigent against Baron and Feme Un supersedeas fuit Misâ— for the Feme upon an Exigent against Baron and Feme And upon much debate it was agreed that the Feme for the safeguard of her self from imprisonment being returned upon the Exigent or upon the Capias viz. upon the one Quod reddidit â—â— upon the other Caepi and as to the Husband Non est inventus may appear and so long as the Processe continues against the Husband she shall have idem dies But when the Baron is returned utlegatus she shall be discharged sans idem dâ—es And that stands well and raconciles all the Books But whether she shall have a Supersedeas de non molestando is doubtfull for by the 11 of H 4. 80. and Dyer 271. if the Baron be outlawed and the Wife Wâ—ived and the King pardon the Feme that shall be allowed and she shall go sine die and vide 4 E â— 34. and 14 H 6. 14. 13 H 4. 1. And it seemed by all to be agreed that the Baron after he purchaseth his pardon or after he come and reverse the Outlawry he shall not have allowance of his Pardon nor his appearance received si non qui il amesne sa feme qui par le presumption de leye est amesnable per luy mes les baron n'est amesnable per le feme vide 18 E 4. 4. there the case was that a Feme Covert was sued as Feme sole her Husband being beyond Sea and not known to be alive and she was outlawed and then her Husband came again and brought a Writ of Error for the reversall therof in his name and in the name of his Wife And there it is said that it is questionable being that he was not party to the Suit And then one said that it would be a good way to be rid of a Shrew And the Prothonotaries said that no Supersedeas was ever granted for the Wife in such a case Hil. 2 Car. Sir Charles Howards Case MEmorand That the Earl of Marleborough Lord Treasurer of England came to Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane 6. Febr. and there assembled all the Iustices to have their opinion upon a Case which was depending in the Exchequer Chamber Where the office of the keeper of a Park is gone if the Kâ—ng dispark it upon an English Bill for the King by the Attorney-generall against Sir Charles Howard for avoiding the possession of a Lodge and desisting from taking the profits of a Park called Putney Mooreclapp the Custody of which Park and three pounds annuall Fee with the Windfalls c. and the custody of the Lodge was granted to him The King which now is by his Charter disparked the Park and after granted all the Dâ—er to Sir Richard Weston Chancellor of the Exchequer And whether by this disparking of the Park the office of the Keepership he determined or no then whether the annuall Fee be determined then if the casuall profits as Windfalls c. may be yet taken by Charles Howard who is the Patentes And upon debate it was unanimously agreed that the King might dispark his Park and that by the disparking therof the Office of the Keepership is gone and determined for Sublata causa tollitur effectus and this Office is not of necessity and such Offices are not prefumed in Law to be altogether for the benefit of the Patentes but reciprocally for the Commodity of the King and by the disparking of the Park the labour and charge is gone It was also agreed that the King might discharge the Patentee of this Office although the Park continue And iâ— one grant the Stewardship of a Mannor and he dismember the Mannor the Office determines And if a Corporation grant the Office of Town-Clerk or of Recorder and after surrender their Patent and take a new Patent which incorporates them by a new name all the Offices are determined It was agreed that the annuall Fee certain remain in both cases be he discharged or be the Park disparked vide 5 E 4. 9. 4 E 4. 22. 18. E 4. 9 Dyer 71. 6 H 8. Kelway 171. Plowd Sir Thomas Wrothes case The Earl of Lincolns Case Star-chamber MEmorand That the Sollicitor Generall moved that Sir Henry Fines had preferred a Bill against the Earl of Lincoln in this Court Where a Lord may briâ— sworn And there was a Commission De dedimus potestatem granted to take his answer upon Oath and he offered his answer upon his Honor. And the Commissioners returned this speciall matter and he prayed an Attachment And this case was propounded to the Iudgges and it was resolved by them the Lord Keeper and all the Court of Star-chamber that he ought to answer upon his Oath for it is Juramentum purgationis and not promissionis Also
shall be indicted shall not have Councell And the Attorney Generall was commanded to report our opinion to the King And this hapned to be demanded upon the generall inconvenience that might after ensue in the Case of the Earl of Bristoll to whom the King had allowed Councell Mich. 3 Car. MEmorand That the fifth of November at Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street there assembled the Lord Hide Lord Richardson Lord Walter Iustice Doderidge Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Jones Resolves concerning Souldiers Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey Iustice Crook Iustice Yelverton and Baron Trevor to consider of a Case which was propounded which was One receives Presse-money to serve the King in his Wars and is in the Kings Wages and with others is delivered to a Conductor to be brought to the Sea-side and with-draweth himself and runneth away without license The Question was if it were Felony And time being given before to advise concerning it all agreed besides Yelverton and my self that it was Felony And the sole question is if a Conductor be a Captain within the 7 H 7. cap 1. and the 3 H 8. cap 5. And they said that it is not necessary that he should be such a Captain as is to lead and command them in the War or that hath skill to instruct But such as hath the leading of them by agreement between the Deputy Lievtenants and them and that ought to provide for the Billeting of them and to carry them to the place of Randesvous And one part of a Captain is to conduct although that Conduxit be properly to hire a Souldier yet this name Conductor with whom it is so agreed by Indenture to conduct the Souldiers is a Captain within the intent of those Statutes and if it should not be so these Statutes which are for the defence of the Realm shall be of little force But it was agreed by them that if these Conductors which are so called of late times be hired to carry them but to one place and there another Conductor to receive them this is not within the Statute And it ought to be such a Conductor that can give license upon just cause to proceed It was said that they used to send Captains into the Country but then they were so chargable to the Country and full of disorder that upon complaint of the Iustices of Peace about 43 Eliz. this course was invented viz. That the Deputy Lievtenants should provide for them that were pressed for Coats and Conduct and they sent their Souldiers to a place appointed to be delivered to certain persons whom the Queen appointed to receive them And it was said that though this Case as it is propounded might be cleer yet there are many Circumstances which ought to be proved and that are loft to the discretion of them before that he should be tryed It was unanimously agreed that if one takes Presse-money and when he should be delivered over he withdraw himself that is not Felony although he is hired and retained to serve But my Brother Yelverton I were of opinion that this new name newly invented is not Captain within these penall Statutes which ought to be taken strictly vide Plowden 86. that penalties which concern life shall not be taken by equity but if they be within the words of the Statute then they shall As to kill his Mistresse is within the words for Mistresse is Master Another reason was that the Statutes provide punishment for Captains which want of their number or which pay not their Souldiers within six daies after they have received their pay upon pain of forfeiting all their Goods And the Statute did not intend other Captains in this point then was in the former and latter part therof But admitting that a Conductor is such a one to whom the Souldiers are delivered by Indenture with all Covenants usuall viz. To pay to them their Wages and to convey them to their appointed place and that he may give license to depart yet they agreed that it is the better and clearer way that they should be made Captains and so named in the Indentures for the King may change the Captain at his pleasure and then it should be no question It was agreed that 7 H 7. cap 1. extends only to them who are retained and pressed to serve the King upon the Sea or upon the Land beyond the Sea And the Statute of 3 H 8. cap 5. adds only the Land here And the Statute makes departure without license from the Captain Felony and the Statute 3 H 8. without license from the Lievtenant And the Statute of 7 H 7. makes the tryall to be in the County where they shall be taken before the Iustices of the Shire as they may try other Felonies within their Commission The Statute of 3 H 8. makes their tryall before the Iustices of the County where they are taken and this being a new Felony and made tryable against the Common Law which appoint tryals by Iurors of the County where the Fact is committed and appoint a speciall Iudge viz. Iustices of Peace that is only tryable before them and not before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer who cannot try any thing but that which is done in the same County But this if all be not done in that County where they are taken makes it tryable only before the Iustices of Peace of the County where they are taken In this point all were not resolved but required longer-time vide 2 Inst 56. Sir Richard Champions Case A Writ of Covenant is prosecuted Jan 23. returnable Oct. Purisicat A Fine of Oct. Puris where the Caption was Feb. 14. 1. The Dedimus potestatem is tested 23 Jan the Iudge certifie the Concord takes Febr. 14. which is two daies after the Term at which time the Writ of Covenant is not depending the Fine is haec est finalis Concordia facta in Oct. Purif And after it is recorded in 15 Pasch and yet adjudged a good Fine vide the Statute of 23 Eliz. 3. Dyer 220. b. Carels Case Mich. 4 Car. Jones versus Powell JOhn Jones Plaintiff against James Powell Defendant in an action â—â— on the Case for a Nusance count That the Plaintiff 10. August 1 Caroli was and is and for forty years last past hath been possessed for divers years yet during of a Messuage Nusans 1. in which he and his family did by the time aforesaid dwell And by all that time hath been Register to the Bishop of Gloc. and kept his Office there that the said Defendant the tenth day of August and ever since hath held in possession another house over against the Plaintiffs And they being so possessed the Defendant the said 10. of Aug. erected a Brew-house and a Privy in the said house and burned Sea-coles in the said Brew-house so that by the Smoke stench and unwholsome vapors coming from the said Coles and Privy the Plaintiff and his family cannot dwell in the said house
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.
if Rent he reserved at the time of the Distresse and it be refused and a Distresse taken that is Tortious 30 Ass 36. 20 H 6. 31. 48 E 3. 9. 2 H 6. 4. And in this case it was said that Reddenda singula singulis that the demand shall be used when the Penalty of the Rent comes in question and not for the Rent And though it be reserved payable at another place thal changeth not the Rent but it is issuable out of the Land and distrainable upon the Lands And lastly it hath been divers times adjudged that the Rent is payable upon the Land 1 Jac Rot 1818. Nich and Langford Skinner and Amery Borman and Bower In Replevin between Nich and Langford Trin 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Between Skinner and Amery vide before between Crawley and Kingswell Trin 3 Car Rot 2865. Rent reserved payable out of the Land And although that the Iudgment is by confession after demurrer yet it was for the reason afore recited Iudgment for the Defendant The Lord Audley's Case Wilts JUratores pro Domino rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Aegideus Broadway de Fountell Gifford praedict in Comitatu praedicto generosus timorem Dei prae oculis suis non habentes Indictment for Rape sed Instigatione Diabolica moti seducti vicessimo die Junii Anno regni Domini nostri Caroli dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae fidei defensoris sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedict Comitatu praedicto vi armis c. in super Annam Dominam Audley Uxorem praefati Domini Martini Audley in pace Dei dicti Domini Regis ibidem Existent insult fecerunt Et praedictus Aegidius Br. praedictam Annam Dominam Audley vi armis contra voluntatem ipsius Annae ad tunc ibidem violenter felonicae rapuit ac ipsam Annam ad tunc ibidem contra voluntatem suam violenter felonice carnaliter cognovit contra pacem Domini Regis nunc coron dignitat suas contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis Et ultim Juratores praedicti dicunt super sacramentum suum praedict Quod praedictus Martinus Dominus Audley praedicto vicesimo die Junii An. sexto supradicto Apud Fountell Glifford praedictam in Comitatu praedicto felonice fuit presens auxilians Confortans abettans procurans â—adjuvans manutenens praedictum Egidium Br. ad feloniam praedictum in forma praedicta felonice faciend perpetrand contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suas ac contra formam statuti praedicti Wilts IUratores pro Domino Rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Deum prae oculis non habens nec naturae ordinem respiciens Indictment for Buggery sed instigatione Diabolica motus seductus primo die Junii An. Regni Domini nostri Caroli c. sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedictam in dicto Comitatu Wilts in domo Mansionali ejusdem Martini Domini Audley ibidem vi armis in quendam Florence Fitz-Patrick Yeoman insult fecit cum eodem Florente F. ad tunc ibidem nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam rem veneream habuit ipsumque F. ad tunc ibidem carnaliter cognovit peccatumque illud Sodomiticum detestabile abominandum Anglice vocat Buggery inter Christianos non nominandum ad tunc ibidem cum eodem Florence F. nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam Commisit perpetravit in magnam Dei Omnipotentis displicentiam ac totius humani generis dedecus ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suâ—s contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis The like Indictment for the same Offence with the same person 10 June the same year at new Sarum in the Mansion house of the said Martin c. Memorand That these Indictments were sound 6 April An. 7 Car. at new Sarum by vertue of a Commission before Edward Lord Georges Nich. Hide Knight chief Iustice ad placita c. Thomas Richardson chief Iustice de Banco John Denham Knight one of the Barons c. Edward Hungerford Knight Walter Vaughan Knight Laurence Hide Knight Thomas Fanshaw Knight by Letters Patents Ipsius Domini Regis pro eis quibuscunque tribus vel pluribus eorum inde Confect ad Inquirendum c. Memorand That the 25. day of April An. 7 Car. A Commission was made for the Arraignment of the said Lord Audley upon the said severall Indictments by his Peers in which the Lord Coventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was made high Steward And the Peers were in number twenty seven And he pleaded Not guilty And one question was propounded to the Iudges which did attend viz. The Lord chief Iustice of the Kings Bench the Lord chief Iustice of the Common Pleas the Lord chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Jones Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey and Iustice Crook If the Wife might be produced as a Witnesse against her Husband Where a Wife may give Evidence against her Huâ—band And it was resolved that in case of a common person between party and party she could not according to the opinion in Cokes first Institutes fol 6. but between the King and the party upon an Indictment she may although it concerns the Feme her self as she may have the Peace against her Husband Buggary sans Penetration Also it was reported to the Lords by the Lord chief Iustice when they were demanded whether this matter of Fact being as it was proved that Pollution and using of a man upon his Belly Sodomitically without penetration was Buggery by the Statute of 25 H 8. the Lord Richardson was of a contrary opinion upon the Conference yet his opinion was involved in the generall But as he said to me their opinions we delivered only upon this case and upon these examinations if the Lords gave credit to the matter in fact that it was Buggery but they gave not a generall opinion that may be a rule in other cases but upon the foulnesse and abominablenesse of this Fact And afterwards the Lords were not unanimously resolved that it was Buggery but this Point was resolved that they ought to believe and give credit to the Law as the Iudges had declared it And it seems that they could not give a speciall Verdict upon this tryall for it never was seen Also the Commission determines after Iudgment given And the Staff of the high Steward shall be broken And after long debate they seriatim laying their hands upon their hearts as the Mannor is said that he was guilty of Rape beside the Lord North. And for the Buggaries twelve of the Lords acquitted him and fifteen found him guilty and so he had Iudgment And at
Conversion was brought by Abraham Cartwright against Clement Underhill And upon Not guilty pleaded there was found a speciall Verdict to this effect Bankrupt Francis Bayle being a Merchant had made a fraudulent Deed to the Defendant of the Goods contained in the Count but afterwards he went abroad to Church to the Exchange and did Trade and Commerce And yet afterwards it is contained in the Indenture of Sale by the Commissioners to the Plaintiff that he had made this fraudulent Deed and that afterwards he had traded and served the Exchange untill a day after at which day he wholly absented himself And upon this speciall Verdict the Defendant had Judgment For every Deed to defraud other Creditors but those to whom such Deed is made is not sufficient to make one to be a Bankrupt But if he make any Deed after he begins to be a Bankrupt it shall not bind But upon the Statute of 1 Jacobi which makes him a Bankrupt which make fraudulent Deeds it ought not to be as this case was viz. so long before he became a Banrupt And there were many more imperfections in the speciall Verdict Hill 18. Jac. The Earl of Clanrickards Case THe Earl of Clanrikard and Frances his Wife Writ of Right brought a Writ of Right against the Earl of Leicester Essoin upon the return of an alias Summons And upon the Summons being returned but no return of proclamation made at the Church of the Parish where the Land lies upon the Lords day Post praedicationem sive Divinum Servitium there was an Essoin cast and that was adjourned in the Essoin Roll And the Demandauts perceiving the return to be insufficient they sue an alias Summons which having great returnes as all the Writs issuing out of this Court in a Writ of Right or other reall actions ought to have was returnable Oct Hil And the Tenant cast an Essoin upon the alias Summons And it was moved at the day of Essoin and now also at the first day of the Term by Serjeant Harris that an Essoin did not lye for he had an Essoin before And by the Statute de essonii calumniand 1â— E 2. Non faciant quia alias se essoviant And the Statute 31 Eliz cap 3. which gives the Proclamations hath prouided that no Grand Cape shall be awarded upon this default but only an alias Summons so that the Writ is good and stands and therfore he shall not be otherwise essoined But it seemed to the Court to be otherwise here for the first Essoin is as Nul and therfore vide Dyer 252. that when the Sheriff return tarde in a Formedon and the Tenant is essoined and that is adjourned it is of no effect but he shall be essoined upon the other Writ of alias c. vide 24 E. 3. Br Essoin 24. accord also vide 21 H. 6. That upon the resummons after the death of the King the Tenant shall be Essoined and yet the first Writ and all is revived And in this case though the party may appear to the first Writ â—ne note besoigne de ject un essoign for the nature of that is to save a default so that no Grand Cape shall be awarded and there no Grand Cape ought so be avwarded and therfore the Essoin before not avoidable Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 739. Bridgeland versus Post Dower Counter-plea to the View BRidgeland against Post and his Wife in a Writ of Dower the Tenants demand the View and the Demandant counter-pleads the View Quod le tenant n'ad entry nisi per le Baron And therupon the Tenant demur And it was adjudged a good Counter-plea and the Tenant ousted of his View Accord 9 E. 4. fol 6. vide 2 H 4. 24. Pasch 19 Jac. King versus Bowen Case Words KIng brought an action of the case against Bowen a Minister for saying Thou art a false forsworn Knave and didst take a false Oath against me at a Commission at Ecclesall innuendo a Commission sued out of the high Commission the Defendant justifie and after issue tryed and found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words were not actionable for it doth not appear in the Count what Commission nor out of what Court nor what matter he did depose but generally that he had taken a false Oath at a Commission The former words forsworn Knave will not maintain an action otherwise of Perjuted Knave for that shall be intended in a legall sence and no Innuendo will supply matter which give not cause of action nor the Iustification But the words ought to contain scandall in themselves without any supplement An action lies for saying one had forsworn himself in a Court Baron and to say he had forsworn himself in the Common place but to say that one hath forsworn himself at the Bar innuendo the Bar of the Common place will not maintain an action Querens nil capiat per breve Pasch 19 Jac. Tippin versus King Wast SIr George Tippin Plaintiff in an action of Wast against King and alledge Wast in severall Closes Sparsim Inquiry of damages And Iudgment by nihil dicit and an Inquiry awarded the Iury found but eight pence Damages And upon motion for a new Writ it was resolved that the Iury ought not now to enquire of the Wast And therfore the difference is when the Plaintiff upon the distresse recover upon the Statute there the Statute gives power to enquire of the Wast But in this case the Wast is confessed Per nient dedire Ewer and Moyle Dyer 204. a. accord And it was so adjudged between Ewer and Moyle upon demurrer in Wast there the Wast is confessed and the Writ shall be only to enquire of the Damages so if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have a Writ upon Iudgment of the place wasted Mich. 18 Jac. Rot. 2805. Pitt versus Chick MAtthew Pitt brought Replevin against Chick Replevin The Defendant avow for that the place contains five acres which lye between the Lands of Sir George Speck And that the said Sir George Speck and all his Ancestors Prescription to have Herbage de temps d'out c. have used to have Herbage and Pasture of the said five acres viz. if they were sowen then after the reaping untill re-sowing and if they were not sowen then for the whole year and convey Title to the said Herbage by Lease in writing to him and avow Damage feasant And it was urged that he which had all the profit for a time and the sole profit had the Free-hold and that is not a thing which lye in Prescription semble al Common or so pasture for a certain number of years And it was said that a Grant de vestura terrae or de herbag terrae for one and twenty years is a good Lease But it was adjudged that it is a good Avowry and he had only profit a
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
refusall was within the time of six years and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that the request is the cause of the Action for without it he could not have his action And the sole matter upon which Davenport insisted was that this was a Contract by the Husband wherupon the Plaintiff might have an action of Debt against him and then it is but an Assumpsit in Law and the request is not cause of action And therfore he said as well as Debt lies upon the delivery of Cloath to a Taylor for the making Garments therof so an action of Debt lies for the summ accompanying the speciall matter viz. for the payment of so much as the making shall be reasonably worth vide Coke lib 4. fol 147. so Debt lies as well against the said Sir Arthur upon this promise being made then and there he vouched 34 E 1. Fitz Debt 167. vet N. B. fol 62. 30 E 3. 18. 19. 27 H 8. Tatams case But the Court inclined that no action of Debt lay against Sir Arthur upon this Assumpsit but only an action of the case upon the request Mich. 4 Car. Treford versus Holmes Case Assumpsit in consideration of forbearance TReford brought an action upon the Case against Holmes as Executor and counted that wheras the Testator was indebted to the Plaintiff the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the said Debt for a reasonable time assumed to pay it And this promise was made in December and he shew forbearance untill March next And upon Non assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Thinn moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no sufficient consideration for the incertainty of the time if it had been for a little time it had not been good But the Court adjudged it good for the Court ought to judge of the time whether it be reasonable vide Isaac Sidleys case before Then he moved another Exception which was that he had not shewn and averred in the Count that the Defendant had Assets at the time of the promise vide Coke lib 9. fol 93. 94. Baines Case that ought to come on the other part or otherwise it shall be upon Evidence if it be necessary And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Mich. 5 Car. A strange increase of Water in Westminster-Hall MEmorand That on Friday the twenty third day of October by reason of the greatnesse of the Spring-tyde and a great Flood the Hall of Westminster was so full of water that neither the Serjeants could come to the Bar nor any stand in the Hall for there was a Boat that rowed up and down there and therfore all that was done my Brother Harvey went to the Stairs which came out of the Exchequer and rode to the Treasury and by this way went and set in the Court and Adjourned all the Iuries for it was the fourth day del tres Mich. And after that we were in the Exchequer Chamber and heard four or five motions of the Prothonatories there This comming into Court was not of necessity unlesse it had been the Essoin day or that the Court should be Adjourned as Craft Animar The Chancery and Kings Bench sate for they came by the Court of Wards Freeman versus Stacy Mich. 5 Car. BEtween Freeman and Stacy upon a speciall Verdict the Case was y The Plaintiff count upon a Lease by Indenture for one and twenty years rendring Rent and in debt for the arrearages of this Rent it appears that the arrearages of the Rent for which the action was brought were due six years and more before the action brought And the Lord Richardson was of opinion Arrearages of Rent reserved by Indenture is not within the act of 21 Jac. of Limitations that Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff because the Statute of the 21. of King James cap. 16. extends to Debts for arrearages of Rent expresly But I and my Brother Harvey and Brother Yelverton concurred that this action of Debt being upon a Lease by Indenture is not limited to any time by this Statute but is out of it and shall be brought as before the making of this Statute The words are All actions of debt grounded upon any lending or Contract without specialty All actions of Debt for arrearages of Rent c. And this is an action upon a Contract by specialty 4 H 6. 31. he ought to declare upon the Indenture and it is a Contract viz. a Lease And there is cause of using the Indenture every half year And it was resembled to the case upon the Statute of 32 H 8. of Limitation a Rent-charge which is founded upon a Deed or a Reservation of a Rent upon a Fee-â—â—mple by Deed are not within the Statute of Limitation And nothing in this Statute was intended to be limited which was founded upon a Deed And the words Debt for arrearages of Rent are supplyed and satisfied by the arrearages of Rent upon a Demise without Deed. And as to the Obligation that he proof of payment might be wanting when the occasion is brought so long after the Rent became due that might be objected to Debt upon an Obligation where the day of payment is for a long time past And afterward the Lord Richardson mutata opinione agreed with us And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 6 Car. Shervin versus Cartwright SHervin brought a Writ De rationabile parte bonorum against Cartwright and counted of Custom in the County of Nottingham Rationabl pars bonorum is not within the â— Statute of 21â— Jac. of Limitations and shew all specially and the conclusion was that he detaineth particular Goods of the party Plaintiff which appertained to him as his part and portion And upon Non detinet pleaded it was found that the Plaintiff was intituled to this Action many years before the Statute of 21 Jac. and that he had not brought his action within the time limited by the said Statute And upon the speciall Verdict the Case being argued by Serjeant Ward for the Plaintiff it was adjudged for the Plaintiff First because that this Action is an Originall Writ in the Register and is not mentioned in the said Act and though that the Issue is Non detinet yet this is no action of Detinue for a Writ of Detinue lies not for money unlesse it be in bags but a Rationabile parte bonorum lies for money in Pecuniis numeratis vide the Book of Entries Rationabile parte bonorum And this action lies not before the Debts be paid And the Account was that therby it might be known for what it should be brought and that in many cases requires longer time then the Statute gives Another reason was that Statutes are not made to extend to those cases which seldom or never happen as this case is but to those that frequently happen Also this Statute tolls the Common Law and shall not be extended to equity And upon all these
and Iudgment against the Plaintiff 8 E 4. 3. 21 E 4 2. Lit. 264. b. 20 E 4. 17. If the Debtee makes the Debtor and others his Executors the Debt is discharged Mich 9 Car. Banco Regis Rot 373. Anne Dorchester Executrix of Anne Row Dorchester and Webb Plaintiff against William Webb in Debt upon an Obligation of five hundred pounds the Defendant demanded Oyer wherby it appears that the Defendant and one John Dorchester were obliged joyntly and severally in the said Obligation The Defendant plead in Bar that the said John Dorchester made the Plaintiff his Executrix who proved the Will and had Goods sufficient in her hands to pay the said Debt The Plaintiff reply that before the death of the said Anne Row the Obligee she had fully Administred all the Goods of the said John Dorchester Demurrer and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in this case it is not shewn that the said Francis and Peter or any of them proved the Will of the said Obligee or that they administred his goods or that they had any goods of the Obligor to administer at the time of the death of the Obligee as it ought to have been shewn And the said Francis Executor of the Obligee and also of the Obligor refused to be Executor to the Obligee and never Administred and never meddled with the Goods of the Obligee and so the Debt is not released in Law as by the said Case and former Iudgment appears This case had been often argued by Serjeant Hedley and of the other part by Serjeant Hitcham and affirmed that once Iudgment was given for the Defendant but it yet depends Trin. 12 Car. MEmorand Vpon Petition exhibited to the King by the Prisoners of quality which were in execution in the Fleet Liberty may not be given to Prisoners by force of a Habeas Corpus Kings Bench and Marshalsey to have liberty in the time of Infection and for preservation of their lives to have liberty by Writs of Habeas Corpus to go into the Country upon security to be given to the Warden and Marshall for their return The King out of his great care of their safety referred their Petition to the Lord Keeper Coventry and that he with the advice of the Iudges should consider by what way it might be done And the eighteenth day of June we attended the Lord Keeper at Durham-house And therupon conference and consideration of a former Resolution which was at Reading in Mich. Term last before the said Lord Keeper where were present all the Iudges besides my self That these abusive Habeas Corpus were not lawfull and that the Warden and Marshall were then called and warned that they should not suffer their Prisoners to go into the Country as they had used to do by colour of such Writs This which followes was subscribed WEE are of Opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is both Ancient and Legall But as the Writ doth not so no Rule can Authorize the Keeper of the Prison to give liberty to his Prisoner by colour of such Writ but the same is an abuse against Law and an Escape in the Keeper if he let the Prisoner go by such Writ We find that neither in the twenty fourth year of Eliz. when the Term was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 34. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 35. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to St. Albans Nor in 1 Jac. in which year the Term was Adjourned to Winchester Nor in the first of King Charles in which year it was Adjourned to Reading In all which years there were great and dangerous Infections of the Plague there was no such course to set Prisoners out of Prison by Habeas Corpus but we find it a Novelty begun of late years But We think that if the danger of Infection shall grow so great as it shall be found necessary to provide for the safety of the Prisoners who may at all times provide for themselves by paying their Debts and yeilding obedience to Justice then a course may be taken that some certaine house may be assigned for the Warden of the Fleet in some good Town remote from the Infection and the like for the Marshall of the Kings Bench in some other Town where they may remove such Prisoners as have been Petitioners to his Majesty and there keep them as Prisoners Sub arcta salva Custodia as they should be kept in their proper Prisons and not to be as House-keepers in their own houses and by this means they will have the like to avoid the Infection as other Subjects have and not make the Infection a cause to abuse their Creditors or delude the course of Justice John Bramsion 1. Richard Hutton 2. George Crooke 3. George Vernon 4. Francis Crawley 5. Humph. Davenport 6. William Jones 7. Thomas Trevor 8. Robert Barkley 9. Richard Weston 10. To Sir John Bramston Knight Lord chief Justice of England My very good Lord I Have acquainted his Majesty with your resolution and your Brethren about Writs of HABEAS CORPUS his Majesty doth exceedingly approve the same And hath commanded me to let you know that his Majesty would not recede from that which you have certified And praies you and the rest of my Lords the Judges to observe it constantly attending to that resolution under your hands Hampton Court 19 June 1636. Your Lordships assured Tho. Coventrey C. S. Mich. 14 Car. MEmorand That 28. Aprilis 14 Car. Iustice Hutton argued in the Exchequer Chamber in the Case Adjourned thither upon a Scâ—re facias by the King against Hampden for Ship-money in which he was of opinion that as well for the matter as for the form upon divers exceptions to the pleading Iudgment should be given against the King Afterwards viz. 4. Maij. Thomas Hanson Batchelor of Divinity and Parson of Creake in Northamp came to the Court of Common Bench Iustice Hutton and Iustice Crawley then being there giving Rules and Orders and said Words against Justice Hutton I accuse Mr. Justice Hutton of high Treason for which he was committed to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet by Iustice Crawley and after by the direction of the King he was indicted in the Kings Bench and convicted and fined to five thousand pounds to the King And Iustice Hutton preferred his Bill against him there and recovered ten thousand pound Dameges Lord Digbies Case MEmorand That in the Parliament holden primo Car. It was resolved by the Iudges upon conference concerning the Lord Digby That when any Peer shall be proceeded against for Treason that ought to be by Indictment and that being done Where tryall of Treason by the Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. shall be and how then the King is to appoint a Peer to be Steward for the time and then to proceed to Arraign him or otherwise to transmit this Indictment by Certiorari to the Parliament and there