against Bates a Schoolmaster who as it was alledged taught School without the Bishops Licence and it was granted because they endeavoured to turn him out whereas they could only Censure him he coming in by the Presentation of the Founder In a Feoffment of Tythes and Lands where there is no Livery if they do adjudge the Tythes to pass notwithstanding there is no Livery a Prohibition will lye In Debt upon a Lease at Will there must be an Averment that the Lessee occupied the Lands But it is otherwise upon a Lease for Years Anonymus THe Court was moved to grant an Attachment against a Justice of the Peace who upon Complaint refused to come and view a Force But the Court denied it and directed the party to bring an Action of Debt for the 100 l Forfeiture given by the Statute in that case It was said by the Court That in an Execution upon a Statute Merchant there is no need of a Liberate as there is upon a Statute Staple And in the Case of a Statute Staple the Conusee can bring no Ejectment before the Liberate neither can the Sheriff upon the Liberate turn the Terre-Tenant out of possession as he is to do upon an Habere facias possessionem Dier versus East AN Action was brought against the Defendant upon an Indeb ' pro diversis Mercimoniis venditis deliberatis to the Wife to the use of her Husband it being for her wearing Apparel And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that this Declaration being laid That the Sale was to the Wife tho' it was to the use of the Husband it was not good as if it had been sold to the Servant of the Plaintiff Nevertheless the Court were of Opinion That it being for her Apparel and that suitable to her Degree the Husband was to pay for it as had been Resolved in this King's time in Scot and Manby's Case in the Exchequer Chamber and that the Declaration was well enough Anonymus THe Defendant in an Action of Debt upon a Bond sued out an Injunction in Chancery where after the Case had depended for two years the Court was moved that the Plaintiff might accept of his Principal Interest and Charges The Court said If the Defendant comes before Plea pleaded and makes such a proffer they are ex debito Justitiae to allow it But now he having delayed the Plaintiff in Chancery two years it was in their discretion And the other three against the Opinion of Keeling thought fit to deny it Clarke versus Phillips al' UPon the Trial in an Ejectment the Title of the Plaintiff's Lessor appeared to be by a Remainder limited to him for Life upon divers other Estates and that there was a Fine levied and Proclamations passed but he within the Five years after his Title accrued sent two persons to deliver Declarations upon the Land as the course is upon Ejectments brought The Court Resolved that this was no Entry or Claim to avoid the Fine he having given no express Authority to that purpose and the Confession of Lease Entry and Ouster by the Defendant should not prejudice him in this respect In this Case Keeling and Twisden were of different Opinions in this Point Viz. If he that hath power of Revocation over Lands c. makes a Lease for Life whether it suspends the Power only as a Lease for years would do or extinguisheth it as a Feoffment The King versus Monk al' IN an Information for a Riot it was concluded contra formam Statuti 13 H. 4. which appoints Justice of the Peace upon complaint of Riots to View and Record them And after Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that this Information was not good it being grounded upon this Statute which only mentions Riots and appoints them to be punished in the manner there expressed But the Chief Justice Keeling was of Opinion that it being a Crime at the Common Law and mentioned in this Statute the Information was well concluded But the other Justices inclined to the contrary Anonymus DEbt upon a Bond Conditioned to perform Covenants in an Indenture The Defendant pleaded That there were no Covenants contained in the Indenture on his part to be performed The Plaintiff demands Oyer of the Indenture which is Entred verbatim and then Demurs which he could not well do before the Entry of it whereby it becomes part of the Bar so the cause of the Demurrer appears Then it was alledged by Saunders whose Hand was to the Plea That the Plaintiff could not have Judgment because he had set forth no Breach But the Court was much offended with him For they held the Plea in Bar meerly for delay and advised against the Statute of Westm 1. Robinson versus Pulford IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would deliver such silver Threads and other Wares into the Shop of J. S. that he should require that he would see him paid Now after an Assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that J. S. had not paid for the Goods For the promise to see him paid was no more than if he had said If J.S. doth not pay you I will in which Case such Averment must have been But the Court Resolved that a Promise to pay and to see him paid was all one and the Averment unnecessary Rushden versus Collins IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared the Consideration to be pro opere preantea facto After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that opere was too general and might intend so inconsiderable a matter as would not amount to a Consideration for the Plaintiff But they gave Judgment for they said labore or servitio had been adjudged sufficient Lee versus Edwards IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That in Consideration that he would employ his skill and pains and provide Medicaments for and Cure a certain person of a Pthysick that he would pay what he deserved and lays another Promise at the same time in Consideration as aforesaid and alledges the Promise somewhat varying from the first and concludes with an Averment That he had bestowed his pains and cured accordingly Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff the Court was moved to stay Judgment because the Plaintiff had made no Averment of the Cure upon the first Promise and entire Damages were given so it was ill in all But the Court were of Opinion That in regard he had Averred it upon the second Promise so as it appeared upon Record that the Cure was done it aided the omission of it in the first especially being after a Verdict Nota There is an Inquisition upon every ones death that dies in the Kings-Bench by the Master of the Crown-Office and Coroner Pomfret versus Rycroft IN a Writ of
the Scrivener and that the Agreement of the parties was for no more than just Interest and this was held a good Averment to save the Bond from being void by the Statute of Usury And a Case between Lewknor and Mountague was cited where the Condition of a Bond was If William Mountague shall do c. whereas there was William Mountague the Father and William Mountague the Son and by the Averment of the meaning of the parties this was expounded of the Son But the whole Court were here of Opinion that the Averment in the Case at Bar was not to be admitted for it would carry the Condition to another sense then the words import As to the Case upon the Statute of Usury there it depends upon the Agreement and the party may shew any to make appear there was no Corrupt Agreement Vid ante hoc Termino the Case of Bush and Buckingham And as to Lewknor's Case the Averment was but to ascertain which William Mountague was meant and stands well with the words of the Condition But whether as the Condition is penned for the payment to be during the Life of Peter Becket and the Minority of Mary that the payment should determine upon the death of Peter the Court did not deliver their Opinion according to the Opinion in Brudnell's Case in 5 Co. 9. it would seem that it should But the Case of Cross and Tooker in Latch 162. seems strong to the contrary Vid. that Case in Popham 201. and in 1 Anderson 151. absque impetitione vasti during their Lives held that the Priviledge shall continue to the Survivor But the whole Court held the pleading of the tender insufficient because it is not said that Peter Becket refused otherwise if a place of payment had been in the condition and it had been shewn in pleading that the party which was to receive the Mony was not there 1 Cro. 888. Plea of tender without setting forth a refusal not good Lea and Exellies Case And the acceptance after the day signifies nothing and upon that point the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff but Iudgment was not given because the parties shewed an inclination to compose the business Mason versus Watkins AN Action of Debt upon a Bond of 20 l The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Condition which was that the Obligor should not himself bring any Evidence at the Assizes to prove the two Cows now in question between one Owen Mason the younger and the said Watkins to be the Cows of the said Watkins or of Robert Gillo and that the said Gillo shall set in a Bill of Ignoramus that then the Bond should be void The Defendant pleaded quod ipse de deb ' praedict ' virtute Scripti Obligat ' praedict ' onerari non debet because that one of the said Cows was the Cow of the said Watkins and the other of the said Gillo and that before the Bond Owen Mason jun. in the said Condition mentioned being the Plaintiffs Son stole the said two Cows and was imprisoned thereupon and the Defendant Watkins was bound by Recognizance to prosecute him at the Assizes for the said Felony and there the said Mason jun. was indicted and convicted and the Defendant did give Evidence that one of the Cows was his prout bene licuit and that the Defendant did not give any Evidence by himself or any one else to prove the two Cows to be the Cows of the Defendant or the Cows of the said Gillo hoc paratus est verificare c. unde petit judicium c. To this the Plaintiff demurred and upon the first opening Iudgment was given for the Defendant for the Condition is against Law viz. to shift off evidence of Felony and that makes the Bond void vide Jone's Case 1 Leon. 203. and the Court recommended it to Serjeant Pawlet who was a Iudge in Wales where the Plaintiff lived to see to have him prosecuted for taking such a Bond. Termino Sancti Hillarii Anno 1 2 W. M. In Communi Banco Trippet versus Eyres Lond ' ss Debt upon a Bond to perform an Award JOHANNES Eyre nuper de Sheffeild Mannor in Com' Eborum Gen ' al' dict' Johannem Eyre de Sheffeild Mannor ' in Com' Eborum Gen ' summonitus fuit ad respondend ' Burrowes Trippet Gen ' de placito qd ' reddat ei trecentas libras quas ei debet injuste detinet c. Et unde idem Burrowes ê‘ Rich. Milward Attorn ' suum dic ' qd ' cum praedict ' Johannes nono die Marcii Anno Regni Domini Regis nunc tercio apud London ' in Paroch ' beatae Mariae de Arcubus in Warda de Cheap ê‘ quoddam Scriptum suum Obligatorium concessisst se teneri eidem Burrowes in praedict ' trecentis libris solvend ' eidem Burrowes cum inde requisit ' fuisset praedict ' tamen Johannes licet saepius requisit ' praedict ' trecentas libras eidem Burrowes nondum reddidit set ill ' ei hucusque reddere contradixit adhuc contradic ' unde dic ' qd ' deteriorat ' est dampnum habet ad valentiam centum librarum Et inde ê“duc ' Sectam c. Et ê“fert hic in Cur ' Scriptum praedict ' Quod debitum praedict ' in forma praedict ' testatur cujus dat' est die anno supradictis c. The Defendant craves Oyer of the Condition Et praedict ' Johannes ê‘ Johannem Gatacre Attorn ' suum ven ' defend ' vim injur ' quando c. Et pet ' audit ' Scripti praedicti ei legitur Pet ' eciam audit ' conditionis ejusdem Scripti ei legitur in haec Verba ss The Condition of this Obligation is such That if the above-bounden John Eyre his Heirs Executors and Administrators for his and their parts and behalfs do in all things well and truly stand to obey abide perform fulfill and keep the Award Order Arbitrament final End and Determination of Francis Barlow of Sheffeild in the said County Gent. and Robert Soresby of Sheffeild aforesaid Gent. Arbitrators indifferently named elected and chosen as well on the part and behalf of the above-bounden John Eyre as of the above-named Burrowes Trippet to Arbitrate Award Order Iudge and Determine of and concerning all and all manner of Action and Actions Cause and Causes of Actions Suits Bills Bonds Specialties Iudgments Executions Extents Quarrels Controversies Trespasses Damages and Demands whatsoever at any time or times heretofore had made moved brought commenced sued prosecuted done suffered committed or depending by or between the said Parties or either of them so as the said Award be made and put in Writing or by word of Mouth on or before the ninth day of April now next ensuing but if the said Arbitrators do not make such their Award of and concerning the Premisses by the time aforesaid that then if the said John Eyre his Heirs Executors and Administrators
if he would but they would not grant him such Writ upon Motion Or if his Priviledge were infringed by the parties prosecuting a Suit against him he might complain to the Lords for a breach of Priviledge Anonymus THere was a Judgment by Default which the Defendant let go by Default depending upon the Mistake in the Original Now suspecting that the Plaintiff had discovered it and so would procure another Original that should be right he moved the Court by Serjeant Birch that he might have Oyer of the Original and this was intended to prevent the procuring of another But the Court denied the Motion and said It was usual for a Plaintiff to take out his Original after Judgment Entred Beaumont versus Weldon IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared upon several Promises three whereof were for finding of Lodging for so many Months for the Wife of the Plaintiff at his Request and the last Promise was an Indebitat ' for Goods and Wares sold to the Defendant himself The Defendant pleaded in Bar That long before the Plaintiff had found his Wife any Lodging viz. such a day his Wife went away from him without his Consent and lived in Adultery with some person or persons unknown to the Defendant from that time to this present and that the Plaintiff before he had provided her any Lodging had notice of that her Departure notwithstanding which the Plaintiff provided her Lodging and also said to her the said Goods and Wares supposed in the Declaration to be sold to the Defendant without any assent or notice of the Defendant absque hoc quod assumpsit super se modo forma prout praedictus Querens supuerius versus eum queritur hoc paratus est verificare c. To this the Defendant Demurred generally and it was Argued that the Plea was naught both as to the Matter and Form It was said the great Case of Scot and Manby was Resolved chiefly upon the express Prohibition that the Husband had given to Trust his Wife Mod. Rep. 9. Dier and East it was said That the Wife should have been Endowed tho' she eloped before the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 34. and as to the manner of pleading it is altogether insufficient for it amounts to the General Issue and he should have traversed the Request And for the Goods and Wares alledged to be sold to the Defendant himself there is no Answer given at all but only said That the Wares supposed to be sold to the Defendant were sold and delivered to the Wife which is nothing to the purpose The Court as to the Special Matter pleaded gave no Opinion but seemed to agree that upon Non Assumpsit pleaded the Matter set forth in the Plea would have been good Evidence for the Defendant Vid. the Opinion of some of the Judges in 2 Siderfin in Scot and Manby's Case 129. and the Court held that the Plea amounted to the General Issue as to the Lodging found for the Wise but then this was cured upon a General Demurrer But because there was nothing pleaded to the Indebitat ' Assumpsit laid for the Wares alledged to be sold to the Defendant himself they were of Opinion to give Judgment for the Plaintiff Nota The Traverse absque hoc as this Pleading is amounteth to no more than a Protestation Vid. Kelway 187. B. Brown versus Rands THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for 400 l and Declared upon two Bonds each of them in the penalty of 200 l The Defendant demands Oyer of the several Bonds and of the Conditions of each Bond which Conditions reciting that a Marriage was intended between the Defendant and the Anne Stow One of them was to permit and suffer her to dispose of her Personal Estate and to permit the person and persons to whom she should dispose of it to enjoy it and the other Condition was to permit her to give away 5 l and that the Defendant should pay it within two Months after her Decease And to each of these Bonds the Defendant pleaded Quod Conditio ejusdem scripti nunquam infracta fuit per ipsum ad aliquod tempus hucusque hoc paratus est verificare To this the Plaintiff demurred It was insisted on for the Defendant that this Plea was good and should drive the Plaintiff to assign a Breach for the Matter did not lye within the Notice of the Defendant whether she had made any disposition of her Personal Estate or had given the 50 l and so could plead no otherwise than thus But the Court held the Plea to be naught and that for saving of the Bond it is necessary for the Defendant to shew how he hath performed the Condition and this manner of Pleading was never admitted Lechmere al' versus Toplady al' Lond. ss Trover brought for a great many Goods ALICIA Toplady nuper de London Vid ' Benjamin ' Thorowgood nuper de eadem Mil ' Thomas Kinsey nuper de eadem Mil ' Georgius Benson nuper de eadem Servien ' ad Clavam attach ' fuer ' ad respondend ' Nicholao Lechmere Sabian ' Coles mercatoribus de placito Transgr ' super Casum Et unde iidem Nicholaus Sabian ' per Humfridum Wall Attorn ' suum queruntur quare cum praedict ' Nicholaus Sabian ' quarto die Junii Anno Domini Millesimo sexcentesimo octogesimo sexto apud London ' videlt in paroch ' Beatae Mariae de Arcubus in Warda de Cheape possessionat ' The particulars of the Goods fuissent de bon ' catal ' sequen ' videlt de ducent ' vigint ' quinque libris legalis monet ' Angl ' in pecun ' numerat ' ac de decem pipis Anglicè pipes quingent ' lagen ' Anglicè gallons Vini Hispanici Anglicè vocat ' Canary duobus buttis Anglicè butts dimid ' Cadi Anglicè half Hogsheads ducent ' quinquagint ' lagen ' Vini Hispanici Anglicè vocat ' Sherry duabus buttis ducent ' quinquagent ' lagen ' Vini Hispanici Anglicè vocat ' Malaga quinque Tonnis Anglicè Tons vigint ' Cadis Anglicè Hogsheads mille lagen ' Vini Gallici Anglicè Whitewine decem tonnis quadragint ' cadis septem vasibus Anglicè vocat ' Fat 's un ' pipa duobus mille lagen ' Vini Gallici Anglicè vocat ' Claret duobus vasibus Anglicè Fat 's tribus cadis trecent ' lagen ' Vini Rhenens ' Anglicè vocat ' Rhenish un ' cado un ' Tertia Anglicè Teirce sexagint ' lagen ' Vini Hispanici Anglicè vocat ' Tent sex duoden ' Anglicè dozen ampullar ' Anglicè bottles implet ' cum Vino Hispanico Anglicè vocat ' Canary octo duoden ' ampullar ' implet ' cum Vino Gallico Anglicè vocat ' Claret septem duoden ' ampullar ' implet ' cum Vino Gallico Anglicè vocat ' Whitewine vigint ' tribus vasibus Anglicê Casks
the Iudgment of the Court yet now the Verdict hath aided these defects Pellow versus Kingsford IN an Action of Debt sur l'Estatute 2 E. 6. for not setting out of Tythes After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment Vid. 2 Cro. 68. Yelv. 63. That the Lands out of which the Tythes were demanded were shewn in the Declaration to lie in two Parishes so that the Plaintiff ought to have made several Titles and also have shewn how the Tythes should have béen set out upon the Land viz. how much in one Parish and how much in the other But it was held to be well enough for this Action is but in the nature of Trespass and to punish the Tort in not performing the Statute Anonymus IN an Information upon the Statute of Usury After Verdict at the Assizes for the King it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Venire was not well awarded for it was entred ideo ven ' inde jur ' whereas it should have béen praeceptum est Vicecomiti c. The Court commanded to search Presidents and were informed that they were generally so Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed on the behalf of a Churchwarden to the Ecclesiastical Court for that they tendred him an Oath upon these Articles following First Whether any Person within his Parish hath Encroached upon the Church-yard Secondly Whether any Person within his Parish were an Adulterer or Filthy Talker Sower of Sedition Faction or Discord amongst their Neighbours Thirdly Whether there were any which did not resort to their Parish Church receive the Sacraments c. It was said to the first of these That it concerned Matter of Freehold But this was Overruled for they may take notice of Encroachments upon the Church yard And to the second Sowing of Sedition amongst Neighbours is inquitable in the Leet and the Bishops Court hath nothing to do with it Besides This Oath would oblige him to charge himself Criminally for it is whether any person within the Parish c. so that himself is included And as to the Sowing of Discord The Court held it did not belong to them But they held That the general words would not extend to the Churchwarden himself but intended to relate only to the rest of the Parish But upon examination of the matter it appeared That the Oath tendred was only in general words Viz. To make Presentations according to the Kings Ecclesiastical Law And these Articles were offered only by way of direction quasi a charge Wherefore the Court denied the Prohibition Anonymus IN Replevin of Beasts taken at D. the Defendant pleads in Abatement that they were taken in another place absque hoc that they were taken at D. Et pro Return ' habend ' he Avows for Rent reserved upon a Lease The Plaintiff replies and Traverses the Lease which should not be for though the Defendant when he pleads such a Plea in Abatement must also Avow to have a Return yet the Plaintiff cannot answer to it 1 Cro. 896. but must take Issue upon the other Matter Sir William Smith versus Wheeler IN Error upon a Judgment in the Common Pleas in Ejectment for the Rectory of Hadnam in the County of Bucks where the Jury found as to a third part of the Rectory the Defendant Not guilty And to the other two parts a Special Verdict to this effect That Simon Maine was possessed of the two parts of the Rectory for 80 years and in the year 1643 made by Indenture an Assignment of them to Crook and Bleak upon these Trusts following viz. In trust for himself for Life and after his Decease for the payment of his Debts and for the raising of several Sums to be paid to divers of his Kindred Proviso That if he shall at the time of his Death leave a Child or his Wife Enseint then that it shall be to such Trust and Use as he shall limit and appoint by his Will and if he made no such appointment then to be in Trust for such his Issue Provided further That if Simon Maine should be minded or willing at any time to make void the Present Indenture or to Frustrate any Use or Trust therein or create any new or to dispose the Estate to any other person or any other way and such his purpose shall declare by Writing under his Hand and Seal before Witness c. that then and thenceforth the Trusts therein c. or so many of them c. should be void c. Then they find that in 1644 he had Issue a Son and that he took the profits thereof during his Life and made several Leases of the Premises That the Assignees had no notice of this Trust during his Life and that after his Death one of them assented and the other dissented to it They find that in 1648 he committed Treason and was thereof Attainted They find the Act of 12 Car. nunc cap. 30. Whereby it is Enacted That all Mannors Lands c. Leases for years c. which he or any to his use or in trust for him had 25. Mar. 1646. or a◠any time since shall stand and be forfeited c. and also all Rights and Conditions c. They find that the said Simon Maine died in 1661 and that the King made a Grant to Sir William Smith the Plaintiff It was adjudged for Wheele◠in the Common Pleas Pas 20 Car. 2. by Tinel and Archer who were then the only Judges in the Court and Sir William Smith brought a Writ of Error in this Court and after divers Arguments at the Bar the Iudgment was affirmed this Term by the Opinion of the whole Court Moreton I shall say nothing to the marks of Fraud found in the Verdict for tho' at first the Counsel of the Plaintiff insisted that the Court ought thereupon to adjudge the Settlement fraudulent yet it hath been since by them declined wherefore I shall wave that The matter is whether there be any thing forfeited longer than the Life of Maine It hath béen objected That in regard Simon Maine had a power of altering the Trusts and disposing of them otherwise that this should amount to an implied Trust in him of the whole Term but that cannot be for after his Decease the Trust is expresly limited to others 'T is true he had a power of disposing but that was to be executed at Election and by such Circumstances as were individually privy to himself For it was to be done by his Will according to the first Proviso And by the second to be done by Writing under his Hand and Seal so not like to Englefields Case in the 7 Co. 1.1 b. where the power of Revocation was to be executed by the tender of a Ring which any one might do as well as the party himself But indeed this is the same case with the D. of Norfolks cited in the same Report and the Statute of the 33 H. 8. of Forfeiture
against the rest which therefore was not affected by the Error The fourth was overruled for where the Party is present the Iudgment is always quod committitur as appeared by the Presidents Fifthly the Variances from the Statute were not held to be material for in Old writings 't is written Sea of Rome and declaring in Conscience and in my Conscience are the same The sixth Error was also disallowed for the words of the Statute are shall incur the danger and penalty of Praemunire mentioned in 16 R. 2. which doth not necessarily bind up to the Process Vid. 16 R. 2. 5. which makes this very clear but means that such Iudgment and Forfeiture shall be and it appearing that the Parties were present there was no need of any Process But as to the third Exception which was taken to the Venire they said they would be advised until the next Term and they told the Prisoners who were Quakers and had brought a Paper which they said contained their acknowledgment of the Kings Authority and Profession to submit to his Government and that they had no exception to the matter contained in the Oath but to the Circumstance only and that they durst not take an Oath in any Cause which they prayed might be read but it could not be permitted that their best course were to supplicate his Majesty in the mean time for his Gracious Pardon Radly and Delbow versus Eglesfield and Whital IN an Action sur 13 R. 2. cap. 5. 2. H. 4. cap. 11. for suing the Plaintiff in the Admiralty for a Ship called the Malmoise pretending she was taken piratice whereas the Plaintiff bought her infra corpus Com. It seems there was a Sentence of Adjudication of her to be lawful Prize in Scotland in April 1667. as having carried bellicos apparatus i.e. Contraband Goods in the late Dutch War and the Plaintiff bought her here under that Title The Libel was That the Ship belonged to the Defendants and about January 1665 was laden with Masts c. and had Letters of safe conduct from the Duke of York to protect her from Concussion c. and that certain Scottish Privateers did practise to take the said Ship and after the Defendants took her and being requested refused to deliver her and that ratione lucri cessantis damni emergentis they suffred so much loss c. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty to this Action and upon the Tryal would not examin any Witnesses but prayed the Opinion of the Court who said there was good Cause upon the Libel which now they must take to be true in the first instance for the Admiralty to proceed In 43 Eliz. it was resolved 1 Cro. 685. Yelv. 125. Sty 418. If Goods are taken by Pirates on the Sea tho' they are sold afterwards at Land yet the Admiralty had Conusans thereof for that which is incident to the original matter shall not take away the Iurisdiction and that is Law tho' there were another Resolution in Bingleys Case 1 Rolls 531 Hob. 78. 3 Jac. 7 Ed. 4. 14. and 22. Ed. 4. If Goods are taken by an Enemy and retaken by an Englishman the property is changed Otherwise if by Pirates And if in this Case the taking were not Piraticè it ought to have béen alledged on the other side Had the Sentence in Scotland béen pleaded in the Admiralty the Court would have given deference to it as if a Man had a Judgment in Communi Banco and should begin a Suit for the same in Banco Regis This might be made a good Plea to the Suit but not to the Iurisdiction for for ought appeared this might have been the first Prosecution and no Proceedings might have béen in Scotland This came to be tryed at the Nisi prius before Hales who was of the Opinion ut supra then But because it was a cause of weight he ordered it to be tryed at the Bar. And because 't was for his satisfaction and for a full Resolution the Jury was paid between the Parties Note A Proctour sworn a Witness said when this Cause was in the Admiralty there was a provisionate Decree as they call it or primum Decretum which is a Decree of the Possession of the Ship and upon that an Appeal to the Delegates but my Lord Keeper being informed that no Appeal to them lay upon it because it was but an interlocutory Decree upon hearing of Counsel he superseded the Commission When a Ship is so seized upon security given 't is the course of the Admiralty to suffer her to be hired out Watkins versus Edwards PAsch 22 Car. 2. Rot. 408. An Action of Covenant was brought by an Infant per Guardianum suum for that he being bound Apprentice to the Defendant by Indenture c. the Defendant did not keep 5 Eliz. c. 4. maintain educate and teach him to his Trade of a Draper as he ought but turned him away The Defendant pleads That he was a Citizen and Freeman of Bristol and that at the General Sessions of the Peace there there was an Order made that he should be discharged of the Plaintiff for his disorderly living and beating of his Master and Mistress and that this Order was Enrolled by the Clerk of the Peace as it ought to be c. To this the Plaintiff Demurrs The First question was Whether the Statute extends to all Apprentices or only such as are imposed upon their Master by the Justicies and compellable to serve And Hale and Moreton inclined That it did not extend to all Apprentices Twisden and Rainford contrary Secondly Whether they had power to discharge the Master of his Apprentice as they might è Converso Hale conceived they could not But cause the Servant to have due Correction in case the Master complained of him Twisden Rainsford and Moreton Contra. Hankworthy's Case For he may be so incorrigible that the Master cannot keep him without standing in continual fear and in Mich. 21 and Hill 2. 22 Regis nunc upon the removal of an Order of Sessions from York it was resolved That the Master might be eased of his Apprenetice by the Sessions upon just cause And Twisden said Shelton Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex informed him that such Orders are frequently made Thirdly The great question was whether the Defendant ought not to have applied himself to one Justice first as the Statute directs that he he might if he could have settled the business and if not then to go to the Sessions and not to go thither per saltum as upon the Statute of the 18 Eliz. cap. 3. The Sessions cannot make an Order for keeping of a Bastard but upon an Appeal from the two Justices which are first to make an Order Hale This case differs for the 18 Eliz. gives the first Men power to make an Order which shall bind the Parties until it is avoided by Appeal but this Statute of 5 Eliz. gives no Iurisdiction to
one to whom the Promise was made would marry his Kinswoman he would give her 100 l It was adjudged that an Indebitatus will not lye for t is not a Debt but a Collateral Promise Best versus Yates IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant being a Taylor he retained him to make him a Coat well and artificially and that the Defendant maliciously intending to abuse and damnifie the Plaintiff made it tam inepte negligenter inartificialiter that it became of no value or use to him to his damage 20 l To this Declaration the Defendant Demurred First For that he saies he retained him and does not shew that he delivered him any Materials so that the Action might lie for spoiling of them but this amounts to no more than that he bespoke a Garment which when it was made he did not like and so might have refused it therefore there does not appear to be any damage Vid. The president in Astons Entries fol. 12. Secondly He does not shew wherein he had spoiled the Coat or what defect there was in it and this ought to have béen certainly set forth And of this Opinion were the Court and Iudgment was given quod querens nil capiat per billam James versus Peirce IN an Action of Debt for an Escape upon Nil debet a Special Verdict was found to this effect viz. That the Plaintiff recovered 700 l Debt against J. S. who was thereupon committed in Execution to the Fleet and afterwards the Warden permitted him to make a voluntary Escape after which he returned again to the Fleet and the Defendant was made Warden in the place of the other and J.S. being then in the Fleet was turned over with the other Prisoners and afterwards suffered to Escape So that the question was Whether he were so in Execution upon his return as the escape in the now Wardens time should Intitle the Plaintiff to the Action It was principally insisted on against the Action that there being once an Escape that the party could not be in Execution again without new Process Hale said formerly it was held even in the case of a Permissive Escape that if the party were taken again he might discharge himself by Audita Querela and that he might not be retaken unless in case of a voluntary Escape but there the remedy was only against the Gaoler But afterwards it was held that Debt would lie against the party who escaped because the Duty they did not suppose was discharged by the Escape But they held it was a good Plea to a Scire facias But afterwards 9 Car. between the Lord Roberts and Trevilian The Opinion of the whole Court was that a Scire facias quare Executionem habere non debet would lie against one that had made a voluntary Escape and there is no reason but that he may as well be taken by the party again without a Scire facias for the Party has an interest in the Body of the pledge until his Debt is satisfied Tho' if the Prisoner should bring Trespass against a Gaoler that detained him after a voluntary Escape he could not defend it the mischief would be exceeding if the Sheriff c. might at his pleasure put the Plaintiff to an Action only against himself For this last Vacation the Warden of the Fleet turned as many Prisoners at large as their Debts came to 80000 l and ran away himself And so by the Opinion of the whole Court absente Twisden Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Vid. Hob. The Sheriff of Essex's Case which was denied to the Law Sir Thomas Littleton Case DEbt was brought against him by one that Entituled himself by Assignment of Commissioners of Bankrupts Vpon the Evidence it appeared That he with two others had covenanted with the King to provide Victuals for the Seaman that served in the late Dutch War at 8 d per Man and after this they made a bargain with the Pursers of the Ships to provide for such as served in their Ships at other Rates agreed upon between them The Victuallers afterwards falling into the Kings displeasure and being thereupon removed from their Employment and having a great Sum of Money due from the King to them upon thhe Contract aforesaid refused to pay the Pursers supposing notwithstanding their Contract that they were not Debtors being upon the Kings Account until such time as their Accounts with the King were allowed and so was said was the usage of the Navy Board whereupon a Comission of Bankrupt issued forth But the Court viz. Hale Rainsford and Wild were clear of Opinion That this Employment in buying up Stores for Victualling the Fleet did not make the Victuallers Traders nor was it buying and selling within the Statute of Bankrupts And Hale said that every Purveyour might as well be made a Trader or Schoolmaster that keeps Boarders in his House and tho' it were shewn to enforce the matter that where there was a Redundancy of Provisions they used to Victual Merchantmen but in regard it was originally designed for the use of the Navy in pursuance of their Contract with the King they might well dispose of the Surplus to any other use And then it was shewn that they Victualled the French Fleet also and that was more than was contained in their first Agreement with the King but that being proved to be done by the Kings express order tho' that Order was not produced The Court held that it was not sufficient evidence to prove them Traders But Hale said they having made a Contract with the King to provide for the Fleet at so much a Head the King was not chargeable to those with whom they contracted and therefore that Contract with the Pursers of the Ships would make them Debtors to them But upon the other matter they directed the Jury to find for the Defendant Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis Motteram versus Jolly IN Debt upon a Bond Conditioned to perform Covenants in an Indenture one of which was that the Defendant Covenanted with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should elect 20 of the best Trees out of his Wood to be taken within 11 years and the breach was assigned that the Defendant had cut Trees within the time upon which it was Demurred and relied upon Sir Thomas Palmers Cases 5 Co. where Sir T.P. sold 2000 Cords of Wood to be taken at the Election of the Vendee And there it is said if the Vendor cuts the Wood before the Vendee hath elected the Vendee cannot meddle with that which is cut but must supply his bargain out of the residue But here the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff for by the Covenant he hath 11 years time to elect and by cutting any Trees in the mean time the Latitude of his Election is abridged And Hale said for the case in 5 Co. there if the Grantee can have the number of his Cords
is very clear For tho' in M. Portington's Case in 10 Co. 't is said that the word Condition shall not in a Will be taken as a Limitation yet the Current of the Authorities since are otherwise But here the Court held the Condition void for a man cannot be restrained from an Attempt to Alien For non constat what shall be judged an Attempt and how can it be tryed And when the express words are so there shall not be made another sort of Condition than the Will imports And so the Judgment was affirmed Osborn versus Beversham DEbt for Rent incurred at two Half years As to one of them the Defendant pleaded non debet And as to the other Actio non because he says He was ready to pay it at the Day and Place and has been ever since profert in Cur ' the Rent ideo petit Judicium de damnis To which the Plaintiff Demurred For that he did not say quod obtulit for where the Time and Place of Payment is certain Semper paratus is no Plea without an Obtulit For the Defendant it was said That the Plaintiff ought to reply to a Demand 1 Inst 34. 'T is a good Plea for the Heir in Dower to save his Damages to say That he was always ready Rastal's Entries 159. Semper paratus is pleaded without an Obtulit So 1 Rolls 573. no mention made of a Tender But then another Fault was found that it was pleaded in Bar whereas it ought to have been only in Bar of Damages and not to the Action and this was agreed to be fatal But the Court held the Plea to be naught for the other Cause also Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was A man Devised his Land to J. S. after the death of his Wife And after Argument the whole Court were of Opinion that J.S. not being Heir to the Devisor there should go no implied Estate to the Wife for an Heir shall not be defeated but by a necessary Implication Anonymus AN Action for Words for that the Defendant said of the Plaintiff He would have given Dean Money to have Robbed Golding's House and he did Rob the House After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the first part of the words import only an Inclination and not that he did give any Money And the words He did Rob the House shall be referred to Dean as the last antecedent and not the Plaintiff But the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff as was Adjudged where the words were He lay in wait to Rob. Vid. Cockain's Case in the 1 Cro. and in the 4 Co. And the Court said the Words might be construed That the Plaintiff offered Dean Money and he refusing it that the Plaintiff robbed the House himself Smith versus Tracy THe Case being moved again the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Half-Blood should come in for Distribution upon the new Act For as to the granting of Administration the being of Guardian c. the Half-Blood may be taken nearer of Kin than a more remote Kinsman of the Whole Blood Mo. 635 Ro. Rep. 114. Ante. J 's Case J. Brings his Habeas Corpus The Return was that he was Committed by J. S. J. N. T. K. to whom and others a Commission of Bankrupt was awarded for refusing to answer a Question put to him concerning the Bankrupt's Estate c. and so Commissus fuit in custodia by a Warrant to the Officer Virtute Commissionis praedictae haec est causa captionis seu detentionis c. The Counsel for the Prisoner took three Exceptions to the Return First For that there did not appear a sufficient Authority For the Commission is said to be granted to them and others and then they could not act without the rest for the Return does not express any Quorum c. in the Commission Secondly Instead of Commissus in custodia it ought to be Captus for that is the usual Form For this is as if the Commitment were by the Officer that makes the Return Thirdly Haec est causa captionis seu detentionis is uncertain for it ought to be detentionis And upon the first and last Exception the Prisoner was Discharged by the Court but at the same time was told by the Court That he must answer directly to such Questions as were put to him in order to the discovery of the Bankrupts Estate or else he was liable to be Committed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 29 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Harrington's Case AN Information was preferred against him for that he maliciously and traiterously intending to stir up Sedition and to create a Disturbance between the King and his People upon Discourse of the late Rebellion and those Persons which were Executed at Charing-Cross for the Murder of the late King in praesentia audita quamplurium utteravit propalavit haec verba pernitiosa sequentia viz. Gubernatio nostra consistebat de tribus statibus si eveniret Rebellio in Regno nisi foret Rebellio contra omnes Status non est Rebellio Vpon Not Guilty pleaded he was found Guilty of speaking the precedent Words and Not guilty as to other Words contained in the Information It was moved in Arrest of Judment that Gubernatio signified the Exercise and Administration of the Government and not the State of it which Regimen doth Again That it was Consistebat and so might relate to the Britons or Saxons Time or to the late mutations of the Form of Government amongst us and that to put the words in Latin without an Anglicè was not to be allowed for the Translation might either aggravate or mitigate the Sense And that such a President might be prejudicial as well to the King as the Defendant But those Exceptions finding little weight with the Court his Counsel proceeded to justifie or at least to extenuate the Words alledging That the Relation was so great between the King and People that to raise a Rebellion against the King must also affect the other States and this whether the King be taken as some would have it as one of the Three Estates or as others that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal make two of the Estates and the Commons the third and the King as Chief and Head of all as is the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords and Commons call themselves the Queens Obedient Subjects Representing the Three Estates of the Realm of England and so is the 4 Inst 1. But the Court supposing that the Words did tend to set on Foot that Position upon which the War Levied in 1641. by the Two Houses against the King was grounded were much displeased that the Counsel would pretend to defend them or put any tolerable Sense upon them It was also insisted upon by the King's Counsel and agreed by the Court that the Ancient Presidents and many latter also were to express the
of the Proceeding after delivery of the Writ but the place only expressed where the Writ was delivered they thereupon overruled this Specious Exception Post Anonymus ONe A. B. was indicted of High Treason in Conspiring the death of the King and was brought to his Tryal at the Bar this Term and one D. being produced a Witness against him the said A. B. excepted against him for that the said D. had been Outlawed of Felony and Burned in the Hand and produced the Record The Witness to clear himself thereof produced the Kings Pardon whereby he was pardoned of the said Crimes Outlawry c. The Prisoner still objected that the Pardon did not restore him to his Credit and that notwithstanding he was no legal and competent Witness and prayed that he might have Counsel assigned him to argue the Point which was granted And the Court having heard his Counsel and conceived some doubt in the Matter they desired Mr. Justice Raymond to consult with the Judges of the Common Pleas to which Court Raymond immediately went and at his return reported to this Court the Opinion of the said Judges to be that he might be Sworn But if a Man convicted of Perjury were afterwards pardoned yet that would not enable him to be a Witness because it seemed to be an injury to the People to make them subject to the Testimony of such an one Vid. Hob. 81. a Pardon takes away poenam reatum so D. was Sworn Colepeppers's Case HE was indicted of High Treason for Raising Rebellion in Carolina one of the Kings Foreign Plantations in America whereupon he was this Term Tried at the Bar and acquitted Note By 35 H. 8. cap. 2. Foreign Treasons may be either tried by Special Commission or in the Kings Bench by a Jury of the County where that Court Sits Vid. Co. 1 Inst 261. b. Anonymus UPon a Tryal at Nisi prius at Guildhal before my Lord Chief Justice North in Trover and Conversion against an Executor de son tort ' The question came to be Whether the Goods having been taken in Execution upon a Judgment obtained against the Defendant by a Creditor of the Deceased should discharge him against the Plaintiff who brought this Action as Administrator And the Opinion of the Chief Justice was that this Execution was a good Discharge against another Creditor that should Sue him to whom he might plead Riens inter ses mains but it was no Discharge against an Administrator for Men must not be encouraged to meddle with a personsal Estate without Right but to prevent this mischief where the Party dies Intestate and there is contest about the Administration a Man may procure of the Ordinary Letters ad Colligendum Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 32 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus THe Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 2. that enables Justices of Peace where a Parish is unable to provide for their Poor to Tax the neighbouring Parish the words being any other of any other Parish It was resolved that the Justices might impose the charge upon any of the Inhabitants of the neighbouring Parish and were not obliged to put a general Tax upon the whole Parish Anger versus Brower A Prohibition the Plaintiff declared upon an Attachment that at such a day and place he delivered the Writ to the Defendant and that he had prosecuted the Suit in the Court Christian since and upon Judgment by Nihil dicit and upon a Writ of Enquiry 100 l Damages were found and Judgment given and a Writ of Error brought The Error assigned was that the Plaintiff had laid no Venue where the Suing was since the Writ delivered which was the cause of Damage and not the delivery of the Writ so that place would not serve On the other side it was said that the Presidents were generally this way But to that the Court said that where those Presidents were there was no further Proceeding after Judgment as there seldom was when there was Judgment by Nihil dicit but here they reversed it for this Error Ante. The Case of the City of London concerning the Duty of Water Bailage THe Mayor and Commonalty of London brought an Indebitat ' Assumpsit against A. B. for 5 l for so much due to them for divers Tons of Wine brought from beyond the Seas to the Port of London at Four pence per Ton. Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded and Trial at Bar divers Freemen of London were offered as Witnesses for the Plaintiff But the Counsel of the other side excepted to them for that they were Parties the Commonalty of London comprehending all the Freemen and likewise Interested On the other Side it was said that their Interest was in no sort to be considered it being so very small and remote a small Legatee hath been sworn to prove a Will In an Indictment against the County for not Repairing of a Bridge one of the County may be a Witness and this Justice Dolben said he had known in the Case of Peterburgh Bridge In a Robbery sur Statute de Winton the Plaintiff shall be Sworn a Witness and that for Necessity But it was Replied that there was no Necessity for they might have other Witnesses besides Freemen tho' perhaps with difficulty In an Action against the Hundred upon the Statute of Winton an Hundred or cannot be a Witness Scroggs Chief Justice Dolben and Raymond were of Opinion that they were Witnesses Jones contra And a Bill of Exceptions was tendred by the Counsel for the Defendant which the Court profered to Seal and to allow three or four days time to Draw it up But afterwards the Plaintiffs Counsel offered other Witnesses and set by their Citizens but the Verdict went for the Defendant Note It was said that the Lord Mayor could not Release the Action but under the Common Seal and that for a Duty or Charge upon a Corporation every particular Member thereof is not liable but Process ought to go in their Publick Capacity Note A Sheriff was ordered to attend the Court for demanding an excessive Fee for the execution of an Hab ' fac ' possess the Court saying there was none due Anonymus A Prohibition was granted to the Consistory Court of the Bishop of London for Citing one for calling of her Whore because such words by the Custom of London are punishable in the Courts of Law there Anonymus IF the Plaintiff dies after the Term began tho' before Judgment Entred yet Judgment may be Entred because every Judgment relates to the first Day of the Term. Anonymus A Motion was made to quash an Inquisition taken before the Coroners super visum corporis of one that killed himself which found that he was Felo de se But the Court were Informed that the party was Non compos mentis and that there had been an undue Practice by the Coroner of both which great Proof was made and upon that it was quashed Note The Court said that if the Body
feeds to their damage it will be a Surcharge and an Action upon the Case will lie against him The Lord cannot improve but he must leave them sufficent and there can be no reason why the Owner should not have the Surplusage if any be I know they will cite an Authority against me in the Case between Webb and Littleburgh which was in C. B. 1654. There I confess the Declaration was grounded upon a Prescription much like to this and the Plaintiff had a Verdict and the Court would not arrest Iudgment upon it The Answer that I must give to that Case is grounded upon the difference between a Demurrer and a Verdict The Court may intend that after a Verdict which may help it for I allow an exclusion of the Lord upon a Special Case disclosed in pleading and that Special Matter may be supplied by the Verdict Besides I must observe that it was a Case of small consequence that concerned the Lord only for his Costs for he hath enjoyed his feeding against that Verdict ever since I can say it upon my own knowledge for I know the Parties and know the Place it was at Elinswell near Bury St. Edmonds in Suffolk The Iudges listen to Exceptions after a Verdict but will give Judgment if there be any possibility to maintain it I may add that this was a Popular Times when all things tended to the licentiousness of the Common People I shall Conclude praying Judgment against this Prescription for these Reasons It is a new and unheard of way of Pleading and against the Rule of Law joyning Freehold Tenants in the generalty which have no relation one to another and annexing an entire Interest to several Estates and mixing Prescription and Custom which are of contrary Natures and are great Absurdities It is against Reason to oust the Owner of all the feeding which for ought appears is all the Profits without any Special Matter or Recompence appearing in Pleading There is great inconvenience in admitting of such a Prescription new Inventions bringing unknown Consequences No inconvenience in ousting Tenants of this Prescription seeing that they claim the same Usage the ordinary way and the Lord can do them no wrong either by feeding or improvement In this Case the Court of common-Common-Pleas had been divided in Opinion upon the Matter in Law as appears by Vaughans Reports and therefore Sir Henry North thought not fit to wave the Matter of Law in the Kings-Bench altho' he had so good a Case upon the Fact that if it had been no prejudice he would joyn Issue and try the truth of this Prescription at the Bar whereupon the Demurrer was by consent waved and the Cause tried at the Bar and the Verdict passed for Sir Henry North with the approbation of the whole Court Afterwards another Action was brought to trial in the Exchequer at the Bar and it appearing to the Court that there had been Proposals towards an Agreement a Juror was withdrawn and my Lord Chief Baron Hale gave the Tenants advice to comply with this saying Redime te captum quam queas minimo So that the Matter of Law was never adjudged against Sir Henry North but the Matter of Fact tried for him and the main Question upon the Act of Level never came in Question which may extend to this great Waste altho' both the other Points were against Sir Henry North. Afterwards there was another Action brought to trial in the Exchequer and after a full evidence of about 4 or 5 hours the Plaintiff not daring to stand the Verdict was nonsuited THE CASE OF Sir Robert Atkyns AGAINST HOLFORD CLARE Under-sheriff of the County of Gloucester TERMINO Sancti Hillarij Anno 22 23 Car. II. In Scaccario AN Action upon the Case was brought by the Plaintiff Vid. Co. Entr. 439. a Quo Warranto brought for these Hundreds setting forth That he was seised of the Seven Hundreds of Crochon Bright Reppesgate Bradley c. in the County of Gloucester and had Return and Execution of Writs there That the Defendant knowing of it did Execute several Writs there to the Plaintiffs damage c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded Issue is taken and this Special Verdict is found viz. They find the Patent of 11 May 5 Johannis whereby the King restores to the Abbot and Convent of Canons Regular in Cirencester certain Lands granted to them by his Brother Richard the First and also grants That no Sheriff of Gloucester or his Bayliff do intromit in aliquo within the Seven Hundreds except for Pleas of the Crown and Summons which the Abbot c. should receive from the hands of the Sheriffs and execute They find the Patent of 20 Decembris 17 E. 3. wherein the King reciting that Richard the First by Patent granted to this Abbot and Convent the Mannor of Cirencester and the Seven Hundreds and the Return of Writs in them that thereby they had used and enjoyed Retorna Brevium tanquam pertinentia ad Septem Hundred ' praedict ' Reciting also that by a Presentment made it was seised into the Chancery and that He Edward the Third for a Fine of 300 l grants that they should hold the Mannor Hundreds Vills c. quod haberent in Villis Hundredis praedictis c. absque impedimento retorna Brevium Infangthief c. tanquam pertinent ' Hundredis praedictis c. of the King and his Successors c. and confirms the Patent of King John They find that the Abbot c. were seised prout Lex postulat till 4 Febr. 27 H. 8. when the Monastery was dissolved and all came to the Crown They find the Statute for vesting of these Lands c. belonging to the Monastery in the King and the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 20. whereby it is Enacted That all Liberties c. which the late Owners of Monasteries had used c. shall be revived and be really and actually in the King his Heirs c. and shall be in the Rule Order Survey and Governance of the Court of Augmentations and that the same Liberties c. shall be used and exercised by such Stewards Bayliffs c. as the King his Heirs c. shall name and appoint c. and that the said Stewards Bayliffs c. shall be attendant and obedient to all the King's Courts for all Returns of Writs c. as the Officers of the late Owners should have been c. and that no Sheriff Under-Sheriff c. should intromit meddle in with or upon the Premisses otherwise or for other cause than they lawfully might have done before the same Premisses came to the possession of the King They find that Edward the Sixth being seised by descent from Henry the Eight Anno primo of his Reign per Lit ' Patent ' ex gratia advisamento Concilii sui dedit concessit cuidam Tho. Seymour Mil ' Dom ' Seymour de Sudley omnia illa Hundreda de Crochen c. nuper Monasterio
Cirencestrensi dudum spectantia c. omnia Letas executiones Brevium retorna eorundem Sect ' Hundred ' c. reputat ' spectant ' pertinent ' Hundredis praedictis c. They find that the Lord Seymour being seised c. was Attainted of Treason by Act of Parliament 2 3 Ed. 6. cap. 18. and that thereby his Lands and Hereditaments were forfeited and vested in the King They find that 6 Octob. Anno 6 Ed. 6. the King grants the Hundreds by his Letters Patents to Kingston and his Heirs and therein grants omnia amerciamenta Heriotta emolumenta haereditamenta c. dictis Hundredis quoquo modo spectant ' aut ut membrum sive pars eorundem antetunc cognit ' reputat ' vel usitat ' vel habit ' aut accept ' ut pars parcell ' vel membrum And further grants by another Clause Tot talia tanta consimilia Jurisdictiones Privilegia Libertates Franchesias c. quae quot qualia quanta adeo plene integre as Thomas Lord Seymour or any Abbot c. had c. ratione vel praetextu Hundred ' praedict ' virtute vel colore alicujus doni Chartae Praescriptionis c. They find that the Estate which Kingston had came to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant entred into the Hundreds where the Liberty is claimed and executed several Writs c. Et si c. Baron Wyndham had Argued and was of Opinion for the Plaintiff and Baron Littleton for the Defendant Now Argued Baron Turner and my Lord Chief Baron Hale Turner I am of Opinion for the Defendant At the last Arguing my Opinion was for the Plaintiff but upon something which fell from my Brother Littleton I am altered The Case arises upon the Patents I take it to be clear that Retorn ' brevium did not pass by the Patent of King John there is indeed some implication of such a Franchise but it is nothing like a Grant of it 'T is true we must put that Exposition upon Ancient Charters as should have been put in those days wherein they were made But I say this Patent would not have been expounded to have amounted to such a Grant in diebus illis If there had been an Usage of such a Franchise in pursuance of this Patent tho' made since Richard the First 's time I think it might have been allowed to have given the Return of Writs Vid. 2 Inst 282. But here has been no such Usage 'T is true in the Patent of E. 3. it is recited that there was an Usage and that the Franchise was granted by Richard the First and confirmed by King John but the Juries finding of that Patent is no finding of the things recited in it as in the 10 Co. 56. q. the finding of Evidence of a Conversion scil Refusal to deliver on Request upon a Trover is no finding of the Conversion In 17 E. 3. 't is true the Hundreds and the Returns of Writs therein are granted But since my Brother Littleton's Argument I have been and am of Opinion that that Grant is void and that as he observed because of the Statute 2 Ed. 3. cap. 12. Ordaining That henceforth Hundreds and Wapentakes should not be given nor severed from the Counties And 14 Ed. 3. cap. 9. Ordaining That henceforth all the Wapentakes and Hundreds which were severed from the Counties should be rejoyned to the same Counties as before that time had been established by another Statute meaning I suppose the said Statute of 2 E. 3. cap. 12. And thereupon my Lord Coke in the 4 Inst 267. gives his Opinion That all the Grants made of the Bailywicks of Hundreds since this Statute are void and that the making the Bayliffs thereof belong to the Sheriff for the better Execution of Justice and of his Office And for that he cites a Resolution in his own Case for he it was that was the Sheriff of Bucks mentioned in the Case there Fitzh Petition 1. 18 E. 3. is a Case of a man who by colour of the New Statute 't is said was ousted of his liberty of Retorna Brevium which was granted to him and his Heirs by the King in Parliament My Brother Littleton cited a good Opinion of three Judges that an Hundred could not be granted without a Non obstante to the Statute and here is no Non obstante Now a man cannot have the Return of Writs without the Hundred Vid. 2. Inst 452. 2. H. 4. pl. 12. But admitting it did pass and was granted before the Statute then the Statute doth not extend to avoid that Grant But then the Question will be when the Liberties return to the Crown Whether the Crown can grant them out again And therein it will be considerable Whether they are extinct in the Crown or no I think they are not extinct In 9 Co. 25. b. 't is said that all Liberties Franchises c. which were at first created and erected by the King and were not Liberties c. in the hands of the King as Flowers of the Crown are not by their accession to the King drowned in the Crown and there Hundreds and Leets are instanced in and allowed to be such And now the Liberty of Retorna Brevium is more strongly such for that all Jurisdictions of which Hundreds c. are a Branch were once in the Crown But Retorna Brevium is but a Ministerial thing It is expresly Adjudged in the Kings-Bench Keilway 72. pl. 16. that the Liberties of Retorna Brevium are not extinct by coming to the Kings hands But however if they were or were not extinct and drowned I think that they could not because of the Statute be severed and granted to Kingston Lord Chief Baron Hale I am of another Opinion but I am very glad that two of my Brothers are against me and my other Brother I would have been glad to have been excused in this Matter First Because the Case relates to my own Country and is much to the prejudice of it Secondly Because it relates to Retorna Brevium which I always took to be one of the most â—â—â—nicious Liberties to the Common Justice of the Kingdom Thirdly Because it is a Case full of difficulty but We that are Judges must satisfie our Judgments and come to a Resolution and I must Argue as the Law is and not as I wish it I Argue according to my Conscience tho' somewhat against my desire and I am sure against my particular Interest I shall be somewhat long because the Case is very Intricate and requires an Explication of many things In the first place I shall explain three Terms in the Case First The Monastery of Cirencester Secondly An Hundred Thirdly Retorna Brevium First As to the Monastery of Cirencester I shall speak a little Historically to shew the traduction and derivation of this Matter It was a Monastery time out of Mind but in 30 H. 1. it was translated to the Canons Regular
usque diem martis prox ' post tres septiman ' Sanct ' Michael de audiend ' inde Judicio suo quod iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Bockenham versus Thacker IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that J. S. was indebted in a sum of Mony to the Plaintiff not exceeding 12 l and that the Defendant as he the Defendant said was indebted to J. S. in 12 l or there about That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would procure an Order from J. S. in writing to the Defendant for payment of the Mony which the Defendant owed J. S. or any part thereof to the Plaintiff he promised to pay the Mony according to such Order The Plaintiff avers that he procured such Order from J. S for the Defendant to pay him 5 l which he shewed to the Defendant and the Defendant refused to pay c. The Defendant demurs generally to the Declaration Levinz for the Defendant argued that it was no sufficiently set forth that the Defendant was indebted to J. S. and if not there was no consideration Cur ' contra for it must be intended that he was indebted for 't is set forth that the Defendant said so but if not the procuring the Note at the Defendants request by the Plaintiff was a sufficient consideration It was Objected further that the Plaintiff had not alledged that he procured the Note at the request of the Defendant as the agreement was and for that 3 Leon. 91. was cited in consideration that he should repair such part of the House at his request it was held naught for not laying the repairing to be done at request Sed non allocatur for it shall be intended to have been done at request and so is Bretton and Boltons Case 3 Cro. 246. 2 Cro. 404. Berisfords Case and Poynters Case 1 Cro. Sed Nota All those Cases are after Verdict and so is the above cited Case See more of this Case afterwards Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 1 W. M. In Communi Banco SErjeant Trinder moved the Court to set aside a Verdict recovered in an Action for the mesn Profits after a recovery in an Ejectment shewing that the Defendant in the Ejectment had brought another Ejectment since and recovered so that the first recovery was disaffirmed and therefore there ought to have been no recovery for the mesn Profits but the motion was denied by the whole Court Leigh versus Ward DEbt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform an Award and the Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrator made no Award The Plaintiff replied that after the Bond entred into and before the time set in the Condition for making of the Award scilicet tertio die Novembris anno c. per quoddam Scriptum suum arbitr ' adtunc ibidem fact ' c. and so sets forth the Award upon which the Defendant demurred because no place was mentioned where the Award was made Tremain for the Plaintiff said that the adtunc ibidem should refer to the place mentioned in the Declaration where the Bond was made Cur ' contra The adtunc ibidem cannot be referred to the place in the Declaration and there is no place mentioned in the Replication Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Memorandum Mr. Justice Eyres came to this Court at the desire of the Court of Kings Bench who were trying of a Cause at the Bar to know the Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas upon this Question An Infant who was a party to the Ejectment that was upon trial had answered a Bill in Chancery by his Gardian whether that Answer could be read in Evidence against the Infant And the Opinion of the whole Court was that it could not be read for it is not reason that what the Gardian swears in his Answer should affect the Infant Blake versus Clattie TRespass Quare clausum fregir diversa onera equina of Gravel had carried away per quod viam suam amifit After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the diversa onera equina was incertain and then mentioned the loss of his Way and had set forth no Title to the Way nor set forth any certainty of it It was said on the other side that the Incertainty was aided by the Verdict and the other Matter about the Way was only laid in aggravation of Damages But the Court held the Exceptions material and thought it would be very inconvenient to permit such a Form of putting in of a Way to a Declaration in Trespass Anonymus IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared in Michaelmass Term last and laid the Demise to be Anno primo Jacobi Secundi Regis The Defendant pleaded Nil hab ' in Tenementis and the Plaintiffs Attorney delivered a Copy of the Issue where the Demise was laid Anno primo Regis nunc and so the Nisi prius Roll was at first but it was observed that the Plaintiffs Attorney had amended it but gave no Notice thereof to the Defendants Attorney nor delivered him a new Copy of the Issue and so went to Trial which proceeded the Nisi prius Roll being right and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Serjeant Rotheram that there should be a New Trial granted for the Defendant was surprized to find the Record right when they had a wrong Copy of the Issue But it appearing to the Court that the Defendant notwithstanding proceeded in his Defence and the Verdict was after a long Evidence that the Court would not set it aside but ordered the Plaintiffs Attorney to attend for the undue Practice in making of an Amendment in such manner Bailes versus Wenman IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus That Articles of Marriage were made between the eldest Son and Heir apparent of the Defendant and Martha one of the Daughters of one William Nailor whereby the Defendant was to settle the Lands in question upon the Lessor for his Life and after his decease upon Martha for her Ioynture with a Proviso that the Lessor should make a Lease of the Premisses to the Defendant for 99 years if the Defendant and Susan his Wife should so long live and that Susan died before the Lease made to the Plaintiff So the only Question was Whether the Lease for 99 years determined by the Death of said Susan The Court upon the first opening without Argument were all of Opinion that it did determine and Ordered Judgment to be Entred for the Plaintiff 5 Co. 9. in Brudnell's Case Daniel and Waddington 2 Cro. 378. Vide Dyer 67. and 1 Inst 225. a. Trupenny's Case Vide Anderson 151. A Lease made to two for their Lives absque impetitione vasti durant ' vitis of the Lessees and held that this Priviledge would hold to the Survivor for 't is reasonable to give the Priviledge as large a Construction as
c. Quibus lectis auditis idem Querens dicit quod cognitio praed ' in forma praed ' fact ' materia in eadem content ' ac factum indentat ' praed ' in forma praed ' fact ' minus sufficien ' in lege existunt c. and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer It was argued for the Plaintiff that there is no sufficient Grant by this Indenture for it is said to be made between Nicholas of the one part and Elizabeth and Nicholas Cossen junior of the other part and then recited the Surrender of a former Grant after which came the words hath Given and Granted and by these Presents doth Give and Grant c. and no Grantor names but if it should be taken for a Grant from Nicholas Cossen 't is a Grant to Elizabeth an her Heirs and the habend ' cannot alter the Premisses in the limitation of the Estate in the Grant of a Rent and the Defendants in their Plea set forth that the said Elizabeth was seised of the said Rent for her Life ut de libero Tenemento so there is a material variance between the Indenture and the Plea The Court were of Opinion as to the first matter that it was a good Grant the Indenture being between Nicholas Cossen of the one part and Elizabeth of the other part and then after a recital saith hath Given and Granted to Elizabeth c. That must be taken that Nicholas Cossen hath Given and Granted and that the Conisans setting her forth to be seised for Life whereas there passed an Estate in Fee was a material variance The Cheif Justice Pollexfen seemed to incline that it was a Rent-charge for Life for the power of Distress was given to her only for Life and a Rent-seck in Fee and that it was as a Grant of two several Rents and then the Pleading was good But the other Justices held it was one entire Rent and that she had it with a Priviledge of Distress during her Life only but leave was given to amend the Conisans upon payment of Costs Dod versus Dawson SCire Facias upon a Recognizance of Bail in this Court upon condition That if Iudgement should be had against the Principal in an Action of Debt for 2000 l in this Court that he should pay the Debt and Damages recovered or render his Body in Execution to the Prison of the Fleet and sets forth that he recovered the said Debt of 2000 l and 12 l pro damnis Termino Pschae 4 Jacobi Secundi nuper Regis and that the Defendant did not pay the said Mony nor render himself in Execution c. The Defendants plead to this Scire fac ' that the Mony praetextu cognitionis praed ' in praed ' brevi de Scire fac ' mentionat ' de Terris Catallis c. praed ' Defendentis fieri ad usum praed ' Timothei Dod levari non debet quia dicunt quod Narratio super qua Judicium praed ' in praed ' Brevi de Scire fac ' mentionat ' obtent ' fuit versus ipsum Willielmum Dawson seu aliqua alia narratio in placito debiti non fuit exhibit ' in Curia hic in Termino Paschae Anno Regni dicti nuper Regis primo quo Termino recognitio praed ' facta fuit nec ad aliquod tempus infra duos terminos post praed ' Terminum Paschae proxime sequen ' unde pro defectu Narr ' per praefatum Timotheum Dod versus praefat ' Willielmum Dawson in eadem Cur ' ante finem praed ' duorum terminorum praed ' summa duarum mille librarum per cursum legis de Terris Catallis praed ' Defend ' vel eorum alicujus fieri levari non debent hoc parat ' sunt verificare unde pet ' Judicium c. To this the Plaintiff demurs and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for altho' by course of the Court if the Defendant lie in Prison two whole Terms without any Declaration put in he may get a Rule to be discharged yet if a Declaration be afterwards delivered and Iudgment thereupon 't is a good Iudgment and the Bail will be liable in such case Rogers versus Bradly IN a Replevin for taking of a Cow apud Liscard in Cornwall in a certain place there called the Underway The Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to William Trewman and Thomas Coll and sets forth that Joseph Mark diu ante c. was seised in Fee of a Close called Underway parcel of the Mannor of Liscard of which the place where was and is parcel according to the Custom of the said Mannor and being so seised the 9th day of January Anno Domini 1663. demised to Sampson Rogers the Premisses for 99 years from the Date of the Indenture if A. B. c. should so long live tendring 10 l yearly Rent by virtue whereof the said Rogers entred and the said Joseph Mark being seised of the Revertion in Fee secundum consuetudinem Manerii praed ' upon the first day of February Anno 1663. supradict ' at a Court of the said Mannor then held did surrender in Manus Domini Caroli Secundi nuper Regis Angliae c. adtunc Domini Manerii praed ' secundum consuetudinem Manerii praedict ' the aforesaid Revertion and Rent to the use of the said Trewman and Coll and their Heirs to which said T. and C. at the Court praed ' Dominus Rex per quendam Thomam Moulton adtunc Seneschal ' suum Manerii praed ' did grant the said Revertion and Rent to hold to them and their Heirs according to the Custom of the said Mannor and by virtue thereof the said T. and C. became seised of the said Revertion and Rent in their Demesn as of Fee according to the Custom of the said Mannor and for five years Rent ending at Michaelmass c. bene cognoscunt captionem c. To this the Plaintiff replied and the matter in the Replication was frivolous and Demurrer thereupon But the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff because the Conusans was insufficient for the Lands whereupon the Distress was taken being Freehold for so they must be taken to be tho' it is shewn that Mark was seised according to the Mannor because it is not said at the Will of the Lord could not be conveyed by Surrender in Court and an admittance without an Especial Custom to pass them in that Form and 't is not enough to say that he surrendred them secundum consuetudinem Manerii but the Custom should have been fully set forth viz. quod infra Manerium praed ' de tempore c. talis habebatur consuetudo c. but here the Custom is by Implication 1 Cro. 185 Vaughan 253. 2 Leon. 29. Lade versus Baker and Marsh Kanc ' ss THOMAS BAKER Nicholaus Marsh sum̄ fuer ' ad respondend ' Philippo Lade Gen ' de placito quare ceper ' averia
of the Crown so 11. and so it was held in the Case of the Earl of Essex in Queen Elizabeths Time and in the Lord Cobham's Case in the Reign of King James the First And the Chief Justice cited the Statute made 29 H. 6. cap. 1. upon the Rebellion of Jack Cade which Act sets forth that John Cade naming himself John Mortimer falsly and traiterously imagined the Death of the King and the destruction and subversion of this Realm in gathering together and levying of a great Number of the King's People and exciting them to Rise against the King c. against the Royal Crown and Dignity of the King was an Overt act of imagining the Death of the King and made and levied War falsly and trayterously against the King and his Highness c. So that it appears by that Act that it was the Iudgment of the Parliament That gathering Men together and exciting them to Rise against the King was an Overt Act of Imagining the Death of the King Vide Stamford's Pleas of the Crown fo 180. And according to this Opinion Judgment was given against Harding in the following Sessions and he was Executed thereupon NOta At an Adjourned Sessions held the 19th of May 2 Willielmi Mariae it appeared that one of the Kings Witnesses which was to be produced in an Indictment for Treason had been the day before Challenged to Fight by a Gentleman that it was said was a Member of the House of Commons he was by the Court bound in a Recognizance of 500 l to keep the Peace And because it appeared the Witness had accepted the Challenge he was bound in the like Sum. NOta Vpon an Appeal to the House of Lords Anno 2 Willielmi Mariae the sole Question was Whether upon the Statute of Distributions 22 23 Car. 2. the half Blood should have an equal share with the whole Blood of the Personal Estate And by the Advice of the two Chief Justices and some other of the Judges the Decree of the Lords was That the Half Blood should have an Equal share Samon versus Jones IN an Ejectment brought in the Court of Exchequer in the year of the Reign of the late King James the Second The Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect William Lewis seised of a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate for Life did by Deed Poll in Consideration of Natural love and affection which he had to his Wife and Robert Lewis his Son and Heir apparent begotten on the Body of his said Wife and to Ellen his Daughter give grant and confirm unto the said Robert Lewis the Son all those Lands c. the Reversion and Reversions Remainder and Remainders thereof To have and to hold to his Son and his Heirs to the Vses following viz. to the use of himself for Life and then mentioned several other Vses not necessary to be here mentioned as not material to the Point in question and then to the use of the Wife for Life and after to the use of Robert and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such Issue to the use of Ellen the Daughter and the Heirs of her Body c. William Lewis and his Wife died Robert the Son devised the Estate to the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died without Issue Ellen was in possession and claimed the Lands by this Deed in which thâ—re was a Warranty but no Execution of the said Deed further than the Sealing and Delivery was had either by Enrolment Attornment or otherwise So that the sole Question was Whether this Deed should operate as a Covenant to stand seised or be void And it was Adjudged to amount to a Covenant to stand seised in the Court of the Exchequer And upon a Writ of Error brought upon the Statute of Ed. 3. before the Commissioners of the Great Seal and others empowered by that Act to sit upon Writs of Error of Judgments given in the Court of Exchequer the said Judgment was Reversed by the Opinion of Holt Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Pollexfen Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas And upon a Writ of Error before the Lords in Parliament brought upon the said last Judgment it was Argued for the Plaintiff in the VVrit of Error That this should enure as a Covenant to stand seised to the use of the Wife Son c. It appears by Bedell's Case in the 7 Co. and Foxe's Case in the 8 Co. that the words proper to a Conveyance are not necessary but ut res magis valeat a Conveyance may work as a Bargain and Sale tho' the words be not used so as a Covenant to stand seised tho' the word Covenant is not in the Deed and and Poplewell's Case were cited in 2 Roll. Abr. 786 787. A Feme in Consideration of a Marriage intended to be had between her and J. S. did give grant and confirm Lands to J.S. and his Heirs with a Clause of VVarranty in the Deed which was also Enrolled but no Livery was made It was Resolved to operate as a Covenant to stand seised Vide Osborn and Churchman's Case in the 2 Cro. 127. which seems contrary to that Case but the chiefest Case relied upon was that of Crossing and Scudamore Mod. Rep. 175. where a man by Indenture bargained sold enfeoffed and confirmed certain Lands to his Daughter and her Heirs and no Consideration of Natural Love or Money exprest This was Resolved 22 Car. 2. in B.R. to operate as a Covenant to stand seised and upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was affirmed It was said on the other side for the Defendant That the Case at Bar differed from the Cases cited for here the Intention of the Deed is to transfer the Estate to the Son and that the Vses should arise out of such Estate so transferred In the Cases cited no Vses are limited upon the Estate purported or intended to be Conveyed but only an Intention appearing to convey an Estate to the Daughter in Crossing's Case and to the intended Husband in Poplewell's Case and seeing for want of due Execution in those Cases the Estate could not pass at Law it shall pass by raising of an Vse But the Case at Bar is much the same with the Case of Hore and Dix in Siderfin the 1st Part. 25. where one by Indenture between him and his Son of the one part and two Strangers of the other part in Consideration of Natural love did give grant and enfeoff the two Strangers to the use of himself for Life Remainder to the Son in Tail c. and no other Execution was three than the Sealing and Delivery of the Deed this was Resolved not to raise an Vse for the Vse was limited to rise out of the Seisin of the Strangers who took no Estate Vide Pitfield and Pierce's Case 15 Car. 1. Marche's Rep. 50. One gave granted and confirmed Lands to his Son after his Death this Deed had been
Covenant there was therein to exclude from Redemption such Covenant would not be regarded in this Court and that the Person to whom the Conveyance was made might have had a Bill in the life time of him that Conveyed to have a time set for the payment of the Mony or otherwise to be foreclosed But my Lord Keeper dismissed the Bill For he said in a common Mortgage such Covenant to restrain Redemption should not be regarded but this was made with an Intention of a Settlement of his Estate besides the Consideration of the Mony paid And he denied that he could have been by the Decree of this Court limited to any time for payment of the Mony for this Court cannot shorten the time that is given by express Covenant and Agreement of the parties but when that time is past then the Practice is to foreclose Nota This Dismission was afterwards in the Parliament held 1 2 W. M. affirmed Nota If a man makes a Voluntary Conveyance and there be a defect in it so as it cannot operate at Law this Court will not Decree an Execution thereof But sometimes it has been Decreed where it is intended a provision for younger Children The Lord Salisbury's Case MY Lord Salisbury married the Daughter of one Bennet who had two Daughters and bequeathed by his Will to each of them 20000l provided that if they or either of them married before the Age of Sixteen or if that the Marriage were without the Consent of such persons that they should lose 10000 l of the Portion and that the 10000 l should go to his other Children The Case was thus The Lord Salisbury married with one of the Daughters under the Age of 16. but with the Consent of all the parties It was urged That it being with Consent it might be at any Age. But my Lord Keeper was of Opinion that both parts must be observed Anonymus IN a Covenant to stand seised to the use of A. for life and after to two equally to be divided and to their Heirs and Assigns for ever My Lord Keeper declared his Opinion that the Inheritance was in Common as well as the Estate for life He said that it had been held that where the words were to two equally divided that should be in Common otherwise if the words were equally to be divided but since taken to be all one Nay a Devise to two equally will be in Common Here there shall not be such a Construction as to make one kind of Estate for life and another of the Inheritance and Survivorship is not favoured in prejudice of an Heir Note That if a Bill be Exhibited for the Examining of Witnesses in perpetuam rei memoriam if the Plaintiff therein prays Relief the Bill shall be dismissed Termino Paschae Anno 1 Jac. II. In Cancellaria The Lord Pawlett's Case THe Lord Pawlett had made a Settlement of his Estate and had by the Deed charged his Lands with the payment of 4000 l apiece to be paid to his two Daughters at their respective Ages of 21 years or days of Marriage and reserved to himself a Power of otherwise ordering it by his Will And by his Will in Writing made at the same time or within a day after devised by these words viz. I give and bequeath to my two Daughters by name 4000 l apiece to be respectively paid unto them for their Portions in such manner as I have provided by the said Settlement and mentioned that he would be understood to mean only one 4000 l to each of his said Daughters and appointed to each of the Daughters 100 l per annum for Maintenance It hapned one of the Daughters died before Marriage or the Age of 21 years and my Lady Pawlett the Mother of the Daughters took out Letters of Administration to the Daughter that died and preferred a Bill against the Trustees for the 4000 l and the Heir to whom the benefit of the Lands after the Mony raised was appointed The Question solely was Whether this Mony should go to the Administratrix or the Land be discharged thereof and accrue to the benefit of the Heir It was agreed on all hands that if this had been a Legacy or a Sum of Mony bequeathed by the Will altho' the party had died before the Age of 21 or Marriage the Administrator should have had it and that is the Practice in the Ecclesiastical Court in case of Legacies The Legatee in such case is taken to have a present Interest tho' the time of payment be future My Lord Keeper mentioned the Reason to be because it Charges the Personal Estate which is in being at the time of the Testator's death and if the Legacy should by such an accident be discharged it would turn to the benefit of the Executors whereas the Testator did not probably so intend it And further it has been Ruled That altho' a Sum of Mony be devised out of Lands to be so paid at a future day the Death of the Legatee doth not lose it Tho' my Lord Keeper did not seem satisfied with the Reason of that Case but it having been so Decreed it was not good to vary to avoid Arbitrariness and Incertainties But here this Sum of Mony is appointed to be paid by the Deed and is a Trust charged upon Lands and Trusts are governed by the Intention of the party and that the Personal Estate is not Charged and this Sum of Mony doth not lye in demand by a Suit as where a Legacy is devised but only a Bill may be preferred to have the Trusts performed And tho' it was much insisted on for the Plaintiff that here the Will bequeaths this Mony yet that refers to the Deed and orders it to be paid in such manner as was thereby appointed And it was said to be the same with the Case of Bond and Richardson which was lately by my Lord Keeper thus Decreed being a Sum of Mony charged to be paid out of Land at such an Age. If a Settlement were made and Lands charged with such Sums of Mony as a Will should declare there the Will would be but Declarative and not Operative Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 1 2 Jac. II. In Cancellaria Frances Whitmore Vid ' Plaintiff versus Weld al' Defendants THe Case as it was drawn up upon Reference thereof by my Lord Keeper to the Judges of the Common Pleas for their Opinion was thus Viz. On the 18th of January 1675. William Whitmore the Elder taking notice that he had setled the major part of his Lands by Deed and being possessed of a very great Personal Estate in Mortgages Jewels Plate Bonds and other Goods and Chattels amounting in the whole to a very great Sum by Will in Writing devised several Legacies and after Wills in this manner Viz. The surplusage of my Personal Estate my Debts Legacies and Funeral Charges being paid and satisfied I give unto the Right Honourable William Earl of Craven for
the use of my only Son William Whitmore and his Heirs lawfully desscended from his Body and for the use of the Issue Male and Issue Female discended from the Body of my Sister Elizabeth Weld deceased Margaret Kemes and Anne Robinson in case that my only Son William Whitmore should decease in his Minority without Issue lawfully descended from his Body I nominate and appoint my only Son William Whitmore Executor of my last Will and Testament I nominate and appoint the Right Honourable William Earl of Craven during the Minority of my only Son William Whitmore Executor of my last Will and Testament I commit the Education and Tuition of my only Son William Whitmore unto the Care of the Right Honourable the Earl of Craven On the 5th of August 1678 the Testator died his Son being then about the Age of 13 years The Earl of Craven proved the Will William Whitmore the Son made his Will in Writing and thereby Devised to Frances his Wife all his Estate real and personal and makes her sole Executrix and about the 2d of August died without Issue being above the Age of 18 years and under the Age of 21 years not having proved his Father's Will The Will of William Whitmore the elder is duly proved by Frances The Question was Whether Frances Whitmore the Executrix of William Whitmore the Son be well Entituled to the surplusage of the Personal Estate of William Whitmore the Father or the Discendants of the Sisters Vpon hearing of this Cause a Case was made ut ante and referred by the late Lord Keeper North to the Judges of the Common Pleas who were divided in Opinion but made no Certificate thereof the Reference being determined by his Death And afterwards by Order it came to be heard before the Lord Chancellor Jefferies who upon Hearing of the Counsel of both sides Decreed it for Frances Whitmore the Complainant for that the Executorship of my Lord Craven determined at the Age of 17 years of William Whitmore the Son and then the Surplusage became an Interest vested in him and could not be devised over And his Lordship seemed to be of Opinion That Minority in the Clause wherein the Devise over was should be understood to determine at the same time as in the Clause of Executorship A TABLE OF THE Principal Points Argued and Resolved in the SECOND PART OF THESE REPORTS A Acceptance See Surrender Action TORTS in their Nature are several so one Defendant of many may be found Guilty and the other Not guilty but 't is not so in Actions grounded upon Contracts p. 151 Action upon the Case See Assumpsit Outlawry Action lies against the Mayor of London for not granting a Poll upon a double Election 25 The Law gives an Action for but a possibility of Damage as for calling an Heir apparent Bastard c. 26 27 Where an Officer does any thing against or refuses to do the Duty of his place whereby Damage accrues to the party Action lies 26 But it lies not against a Lord of a Mannor for refusing to admit a Copyholder 27 Against a Common Carryer for losing Goods delivered and Carriage paid for 78 Against Bayliffs for levying Money by pretence of a Fieri facias 93 For not Folding his Sheep upon the Plaintiffs Land whereby the Plaintiff lost the benefit of Foldage 138 For the Profit of an Office not necessary to shew every particular Sum received by the Defendant But it is a good Evidence for Damage to shew the Profit of the Office Communibus Annis 171 In an Action for not Grinding at his Mill what shall be a sufficient Setting forth of the Custom 292 Action upon the Case for Slander Writ in a Letter of a Lawyer He will give Vexations and ill Counsel and stir up a Suit and milk your Purse and fill his own large Pockets Actionable 28 Anciently no Action for Words unless the Slander concerned Life ibid. Of one who had been a Member of Parliament Your Master is a Papist when he is at home he goes to Church but when he is at London he goos to Mass Sir J.C. and he were both Pensioners at the time of the Long Parliament Actionable 265 To say of a Man that had been in an Office that he had behaved himself corruptly in it Actionable 266 Administration In an Action against an Administrator it is necessary to set forth that Administration was committed to him tho' not to say by whom 84 Administrator shall be charged for Rent after the Assignment of the Testator's Term 209 Admiralty Marriners as well Officers as Common Seamen may sue for Wages in the Court of Admiralty and some only may sue there as well as when all joyn 181 If the Suit be there against some of the Part-owners the Course is not to charge them with the whole but according to their proportionable parts ibid. Advowson Presentation by Turns among Parceners whether an Usurpation in a Turn puts all out of Possession or only one 39 Age. See Devise Executor Amendment See Distress Scire facias Writs Habere facias instead of Liberari facias and inquirat instead of inquirant amendable upon Motion because in a Judicial Writ 171 Arbitrament Award See Vmpire No place mention'd where the Award was made naught 72 Whether Arbitrators having Power to name an Umpire may name a second if the first refuses 114 Submissions to Awards favourably construed because they tend to the end of Controversies 115 Where an Award that seems all on one side may be good 222 Award may be by Word of Mouth and he which sets forth such Parol Award is not tyed to strictness of Words but 't is sufficient to shew the effect and substance of what was Awarded 242 Award to pay the Charges of a Suit good tho' the Sum is uncertain for it may be easily reduced to certainty 243 Where Money is awarded to be paid to J. S. and no mention made of his Executors yet in case that he dies before the Money shall be paid to his Executors for an Award creates a Duty and the Executor shall release where the Testator was awarded so to do 249 Assent See Executor Assent of a Purchaser vest the Estate in him tho' he cannot have an Action of Trespass before Entry 205 Assigns Where a man covenants for himself and his Assigns to permit if a Breach be laid in the Assigns this Covenant shall relate only to the Assigns after the Deed was made and not before 278 Assumpsit J. S. being indebted to the Plaintiff and the Defendant to J. S. the Defendant promises that if he would procure an Order from J. S. he would pay him Action good after the Order procured 71 74 If Four be sued in an Assumpsit and they plead Non assumpsit infra sex annos and the Jury find that one did assume infra sex annos but not the rest the Plaintiff cannot have Judgment 151 Indebitatus Assumpsit brought for Money won at a Play called