shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were resolved by the Court. 1. That all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Diâ— quod est duo electio id est
to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevyn in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law For at the Common Law no Replevyn ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff And the Statute of Marlbridg cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. hath authorized the Sheriff upon Plaint made to him to make a Replevyn and all that appeareth by the said Statutes and by the Books of 29 E. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King neither by his Instructions had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant to them power to make a Replevyn against the Law nor against the said Acts of Parliament but the same ought to be made by the Sheriff And all that was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor for very good Law And I say that it might well be that we have granted other Prohibitions in other Cases of English Replevyns Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who had made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and divers others in the nature of an Action upon the Case upon a Trover and Conversion in the life of the Testator of goods and Chattels to the value of 1000 l. and because the other Executor would not joyn with him although he was named in the Bill he had not any remedy at the Common Law he prayed remedy there in Equity and I say that the President and Councel have not any authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold plea between party and party c. unless both parties or one of them tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at the Common Law and in that case the Plaintiff was a Knight and Sheriff and a man of great ability 2. By that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine for he ought to have had 200 l. Fine because that the damages amounted to 4000 l. and that was one of the causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at the Common Law another cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Error or any other remedy And yet the President is a Noble-man but not learned in the Law and those which are of the Councel there although that they have the countenance of Law yet they are not learned in the Law and nevertheless they take upon them final and uncontroulable Decrees in matters of great importance For if they may deny Relief to any at their pleasure without controulment so they may do it by their final Decrees without Error Appeal or other remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Iudges for they can deny Iustice to none who hath Right nor give any Iudgment but the same is controulable by a Writ of Error c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without authority then the subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Iustice And their ignorance in the Law appeared by their allowance of that Suit scil That the one Executor had no remedy by the Common Law because the other would not joyn in suit with him at the Common Law whereas every one learned in the Law knoweth that summons and severance lieth in any Suit brought as Executors and this also in that particular Case was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor and he much inveighed against Actions brought there upon Trover and Conversion and said that they could not be found in our ancient Books Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill sued before the Counsel Banks Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in the nature of an Action of Trespass at the Common Law to his damages of 200 l. and for the causes next before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at the Common Law we granted a Prohibition and that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor And as to the case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous I having forgotten to speak to that the King himself asked what the Case was to whom I answered that the case was That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and that he owed him nothing and yet because the Defendant did not deny the Debt the Councel decreed the same against him and upon that Decree the Pursuivant was sent to arrest the said Watson who arrested him upon which the Rescous was made and because that the Suit was in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus at the Common Law and the Defendant at the Common Law might have waged his Law of which the Defendant ought not to be barred by that English Bill quia beneficium juris nemini est auferendum the Prohibition was granted and that was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor whereupon I concluded that if the principal cause doth not belong unto them all their proceedings was coram non Judice and then no Rescous could be done but the Lord Chancellor said that though the same cannot be a Rescous yet it was a Riot which might be punished there which I denyed unless it were by course of Law by force of a Commission of Oyer and Terminer and not by an English Bill but to give the King full satisfaction in that point the truth is the said Case was debated in Court and the Court inclined to grant a Prohibition in the said case but the same was stayed to be better advised upon so as no Prohibition was ever under Seal in the said Case Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Proces c. as for the count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such cases cannot hold Plea which was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor And I said that it was resolved in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Parots Case and now lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales That no Court of Equity can be erected at this day without Act of Parliament for the reasons and causes in the Report of the said Case of Parrot And the King was well satisfied with these reasons and causes of our proceedings who of his Grace gave me his Royall hand and I departed from thence in his favour And the surmise of the Number and that the Prohibition in the said Case
Tenements were holden of the King in capite for this cause the suing of the Writ shall conclude the Heir onely which sueth the Livery and after his death the Iurors in a new Writ of Diem clausit extremum are at large as before is said And if that Iury finde falsly in a Tenure of the King also the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King c. in Socage the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved onely and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office and when the Father sueth Livery and dyeth the conclusion is executed and past as before is said And note that there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the Grace of the King and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda c. or to the Heir within age as it appeareth in 21 E. 3. 40. And that is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the general Livery doth and therefore it is not any estoppel without question And at the Common Law a special Livery might have been granted before any Office found but now by the Statute of 33 H 8. cap. 22. it is provided That no person or persons having Lands or Tenements above the yearly value of 20 l. shall have or sue any Livery before inquisition or Office found before the Escheator or other Commission But by an express clause in the same Act Livery may be made of the Lands and Tenements comprized or not comprized in such Office so that if Office be found of any parcel it is sufficient And if the Land in the Office doth exceed 20 l. then the Heir may sue a general Livery after Office thereof found as is aforesaid but if the Land doth not exceed 5 l. by the year then a general Livery may be sued without Office by Warrant of the Master of the Wards c. See 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. That the Queen ex debito Justitiae is not bound at this day after the said Act of 33 H 8 to grant a special Livery but it is at her election to grant a special Livery or to drive the Heir to a general Livery It was also resolved in this Case That the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King cometh to the possession by a false Office or other means upon a pretence of right where in truth he hath no right if it appeareth that the King hath any other right or interest to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because that the Iudgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Regis a possessione amoveantur c. which ought not to be when it appeareth to the Court that the King hath right or interest to have the Land and to hold the same accordingly See 4 H. 4. fo 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. XXIX Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis NOte The Priviledg Order or Custom of Parliament either Parliament of the Vpper House or of the House of Commons belongs to the determination or decision onely of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 year of King Henry the sixth There was a Controversie moved in the Vpper House between the Earls of Arundel and of Devonshire for their seats places and preheminences of the same to be had in the Kings presence as well in the High Court of Parliament as in his Councels and elsewhere The King by the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who for that they had not leisure to examine the same it pleased the King by the advice of the Lords at his Parliament in anno 27 of his Reign That the Iudges of the Land should hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Iudges made report as followeth That this matter viz. of Honor and precedency between the two Earls Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the Kings Highness and the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament by them to be decided and determined yet being there so commanded they shewed what they found upon examination and their Opinions thereupon Another Parliament in 31 H. 6. which Parliament begun the sixth of March and after it had continued sometime it was prorogued until the fourteenth of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term anno 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorp the Speaker of the Commons House at the Suit of the Duke of Buckingham was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. damages for a Trespass done to him The 14 of February the Commons moved in the Vpper House That their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his place The Lords refer this Case to the Iudges and Fortescue and Prisoit the two chief Iustices in the name of all the Iudges after sad consideration and mature deliberation had amongst them answered and said That they ought not to answer to this question for it hath not been used aforetime That the Iustices should in any wise determine the Priviledg of this High Court of Parliament for it is so high and mighty in its nature that it may make Laws and that that is Law it may make no Law and the determination and knowledg of that Priviledg belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Iustices But as for proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases they delivered their Opinions And in 12 E. 4. 2. in Sir John Pastons case it is holden that every Court shall determine and decide the Priviledges and Customs of the same Court c. XXX Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Star-Chamber Heyward and Sir Iohn Whitbrokes Case IN the Case between Heyward and Sir John Whitbroke in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanors and Fine and Imprisonment imposed upon him and damages to the Plaintiff and it was moved that a special Proces might be made out of that Court to levy the said damages upon the Goods and Lands of the Defendant and it was referred to the two chief Iustices whether any such Proces might be made who this Term moved the Case to the chief Baron and to the other Iudges and Barons and it was unanimously resolved by them That no such Proces could or ought to be made neither for the damages nor for the costs given to the Plaintiff for the Court hath not any power or Iurisdiction to do it but onely to keep the Defendant in prison until he pay them For for the Fine due to the King the Court of Star-Chamber cannot make forth any Proces for the levying of the
were meer Spirituall such a Defamation is not examinable before the high Commissioners As to the last Article It appeareth now by the Iudgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said words Also the high Commissioners shall not have Conusance of any Scandall to themselves for Judex non potest injuriam sibi datam punire Vi. the Stat. of 23 H. 8. c. 9. that they are parties and such Scandall is punishable by the Common Law as it was resolved in Hales Case which see in the Book of the Lord Dyers Reports and see in my Book of Presidents the Copy of the Indictment of Hales for scandaling of the Ecclesiasticall Commissioners Note the Bishop of Winchester being Visiter of the School of Winchester of the Foundation of Wickam Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop and Cant. and other his Colleagues An. 5 Car. cited the Vsher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them and proceed there against him for which they incurred the danger of a Premunire And so did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Colleagues by force of a high Commission to them directed cite one Humphrey Frank Master of Arts and Schoolmaster of the School of Sevenock of the Foundation of Sir William Sevenock in the time of King Henry the sixth to appear before the high Commissioners at Lambeth the sixth day of December last past which citation was subscribed by Sir John Bennet Doctor of Law Doctor James and Doctor Hickman three of the high Commissioners and Sir Christopher Perkins procured the said Citation to be made and when the said Frank appeared the Archbishop being associated with Sir Christopher Perkins and Doctor Abbot Dean of Winchester made an Order concerning the said School scil That the said Frank shall continue in the said School untill the Annunciation and that he should have twenty pounds paid to him by Sir Ralph Bosoile Knight IV. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Taylor and Shoiles Case TAylor informed upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Domino Reg. quam pro seipso in the Exchequer That the Defendant had exercised the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averreâ— that Shoile the Defendant did not use or exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of the making of the Act nor had been Apprentice by seven years at least according to the said Act c. The Defendant did demur in Law upon the Information and Iudgment was given against him by the Barons of the Exchequer And now in this Terme upon a Writ of Error the matter was argued at Serjeants-Inne before the two chief Iustices and two matters were moved The One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act For the words are That it shall not be lawfull to any person or persons other then such as now lawfully use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation to set up use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an Apprentice And it was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation within the said Branch because the same is easily and presently learned and he needs not to have seven years Apprentiship to be instructed in the same for every Huswife in the Country can do the same and the Act of Henry the eighth is That a Brewer is not a Handycraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for the Averment ought to be as generall as the exception in the Statute is scil That the Defendant did not use any Art Mystery or Occucupation at the time of the making of the same Act for by this pretence if any Art c. then as a Taylor Carpenter c. he may now exercise any other Art whatsoever As unto the first It was resolved That the Trade of a Brewer scil to hold a common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of the Act It is enacted That no person shall be retained for lesse time then a whole year in any of the Services Crafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. So as by the judgment of the same Parliament The Trade of a Brewer is an Art and Mystery which words are in the said Branch upon which the said Information is grounded Also because that every Huswife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth Meat And yet none can hold a common Bakehouse or a Cooks Shop to sell to others unlesse that he hath been an Apprentice c. for they are expresly named also in the Act as Arts and Mysteries And the Act of 22 H. 8. cap. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener Alien are not handycrafts mentioned within certain penall Lawes But the same doth not prove but that they are Arts or Mysterys for Art or Mystery is more generall then Handycrafts for the same is restrained to Manufactures As to the second Point It was resolved That the intention of the Act was That none should take upon him any Art but he who hath skill or knowledge in the same And therefore the Statute intendeth That he who useth any Art or Mystery at the time of the Act might use the same Art or Mystery for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And the words of the Act are As now do lawfully use c. And it was said That it was very necessary that Brewers should have knowledge and skill in brewing good and wholsome Beer and Ale for that the same doth greatly conduce to mens healths And so the first Iudgment was affirmed V. Mich. 6 Jacobi In the Common Pleas. The Case of Modus Decimandi SHerley Serjeant moved to have a Prohibition because that a person Tithes sued to have Tithes of Silva Cedua under twenty years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custome of it which is a great part of the County Tithes of any Wood was never paid And if such a Custome in non Decimando for all Lay people within the said Weild were lawfull or not was the question And to have a Prohibition it was said That although one particular man shall not prescribe in non decimando yet such a generall Custome within a great Country might well be as in 43 E. 3. 32. and 45 E. 3. Custome 15. It was presented in the Kings Bench That an Abbot had purchased Tenements after the Statute c. And the Abbot came and said That he was Lord of the Town c. And the custome of the Town was That when the Tenant cesseth for two years that the Lord might enter untill agreement be made for the Arrerages And that he who held these Tenements was his Tenant and cessed for two years and he entred and
Curia nostra non alibi tractari sicut praedict est cedere poterit attentetis sive attentim faciatis quovismodo By which also it appeareth That Tithes may be discharged and that the matter of discharge ought to be determined by the Common Law and not in the Spirituall Court And it is to be observed That in the said Iudgment nor in the Register any averment is taken of the value of the thing given in satisfaction of the Tithes Also by the Act of Circumspecte agatis made 13 E. 1. It is said S. Rector petat versus parochianos oblationes decimas debitas seu consuetas c. which proves that there are Tithes due in kind and other Tithes due by Custome as a Modus Decimandi c. And yet it is resolved in 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. That the Ordinance of Circumspecte agatis is not a Statute and that the Prelates made the same and yet then the Prelates acknowledged That there were Tithes due by Custome which is a Modus Decimandi By which it appeareth also That Tithes by Custome may be altered into another thing So where a man grants a parcel of his Mannor to a Parson in Fee to be quit of Tithes and makes an Indenture and the Parson with the assent of the Ordinary without the Patron grants to him that he shall be quit of Tithes of his Mannor for that parcell of Land Afterwards if he or his Assignee be sued in the Spirituall Court for Tithes of his Mannor he or his Assignee shall have a Prohibition upon that Deed. And if that Deed was made before time of memory and he hath so continued to be quit of Tithes he shall have a Prohibition upon that Deed if he be sued for the Tithes of that Mannor or of any parcell of the same upon that matter shewed See 8 E. 4. 14. F. N. B. 41. g. vi 3. E. 3. 17. 16 E. 3. t. Annuity 24. 40 E. 3. 3. b. and F. N. B. 152. And therefore if the Lord of a Mannor hath alwaies holden his Mannor discharged of tithes and the Parson had before time of memory or in ancient times divers Lands in the same Parish of the Gift of the Lord of which the Parson is seised at this day in Fee in respect of which the Parson nor any of his Predecessors ever had received any tithes of the said Mannor If the Parson now sueth for tithes of the Mannor the Owner of the Mannor may shew that speciall matter and that the Parson and his Successors time out of mind have holden those Lands c. of the Gift of one who was Lord of the said Mannor in full satisfaction of the tithes of the said Mannor And the proof that the Lord of the Mannor gave the Lands that tithes should never be paid at this day is good evidence to prove the surmise of the Prohibition And so of the like and 19 E. 3. t. Jurisdiction 28. it is adjudged That Title of Prescription shall be determined in the Kings Court And therefore a Modus Decimandi which accrueth by Custome and Prescription in the Kings Court And it appeareth by the Statute of 6 H. 4. cap. 6. That the Pope by his Bulls discharged divers from payment of tithes against which the Act of Parliament was made and by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. That the Possessions of Religious persons given to the King were discharged of payment of tithes in certain Cases and by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. it is provided That all and singular persons shall divide set out yeild and pay all and singular tithes and Offerings aforesaid according to the lawfull customes and usages of the Parishes and places where such tithes or Duties shall come or immediatly arise or be due Provided alwaies and be it enacted That no person or persons shall be sued or otherwise compelled to pay any manner of tithes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws or Statutes of this Realm are discharged or not chargable with the payment of any such tithes And the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. Enacts That every of the Kings Subjects shall from henceforth justifie and truly without fraud or guile divide set out c. all manner of their prediall tithes in their proper kind as they will rise and happen in such manner and form as hath been of right yeilded and paid within forty years next before the making of this Act or of Right or Custome ought to be paid So as it appeareth by this that tithe is due of Right and by Custom And also in the same Act there is a Proviso in these words Provided alwaies and be it enacted That no person shall be sued or otherwise compelled to yeild give or pay any manner of tithes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or by any Priviledge or Prescription are not chargable with the payment of any such tithes or that he discharged by any composition reall so as it appeareth by that Act that one may be discharged from the payment of tithes five manner of waies 1. By the Law of the Realm that is the Common Law As Tithes shall not be paid of Coals Quarries Brick Tiles c. F. N. B 53. and Register 54 Nor of the after Pasture of a Meadow c. nor of Rakings nor of Wood to make Pales or Mounds or Hedges c. 2. By the Statutes of the Realm As by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. the Statute of 45 E. 3. c. 3. By Priviledge as those of S. Johns of Jerusalem in England The Cistertians Temptors c. as it appeareth by 10 H. 7. 277. Dyer 4. By Prescription As by Modus Decimandi or an annuall Recompence in satisfaction of them as appeareth before by the Authorities aforesaid 5. By reall Composition as appeareth by the said Writ cited out of the Register And so you have one or two examples for many others which may be added of these five manners of discharges of Tithes And by them all it appeareth That a man may be discharged of the payment of Tithes as before is said So as now it apparently appeareth by the Laws of England both Ancient and Modern That a Lay-man ought prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando and that in effect agrees with the Opinion of Thomas Aquinas in his Secunda secundae Quaest 86. ar ultimo For there he saith Quod in veteri lege praeceptum de solutione Decimarum partim erat morali inditum ratione naturali quae dictat Quod iis Qui Divino Cultui ministrant ad salutem totius populi necessaria victui debent ministr juxta illud 1 Cor. 9. Quis militat c. Who goeth to War at his own charges c. Partim autem erat judiciale ex Divina institutione robur habens scil Quantum ad determinationem certae partis And all that
agrees with our Law And he goeth further In tempore vero Novae Legis etiam est determinatio partis solvendae authoritate Ecclesiae That is by their Canons Instituta secundum quandam humanitatem ut scilicet non minus populus Novae Legis Ministros novi Testamenti exuberat quam populus veteris Legis ministris veteris Testamenti exhibebat praesertim cum Ministri Novae Legis sunt Majores Dignitate ut probat Apostolus 2 Cor. 3. Sic ergo patet Quod ad solutionem Decimarum tenentur homines partim quidem ex jure naturali quantum ad hoc quod aliqua portio data est ministris Ecclesiae partim vero ex institutione Ecclesiae quantum ad determinationem Decimae Partis See Doctor and Student Lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 164. That the tenth part is not due by the Law of God nor by the Law of Nature which he calleth the Law of Reason And he citeth John Gerson who was a Doctor of Divinity in a Treatise which he calleth Regulae morales scil Solutio Decimaram sacerdotibus est de jure Divino quatenus inde sustententur sed quo ad tam hanc vel illam assignare aut in alios redditus Commutare positivi juris est And afterwards Non vocatur Portio Curatis debita propterea Decimae eo quod est Decima pars imo est interdum vicesima aut tricesima And he holdeth That a Portion is due by the Law of Nature which is the Law of God but it appertaineth to the Law of Man to assign Hanc vel illam portionem as necessity requireth for their Sustenance And further he saith That Tithes may be exchanged into Lands Annuity or Rent which shall be sufficient for the Minister c. And there he saith That in Italy and in other the East Countries they pay no Tithes but a certain Portion according to the Custome c. And all this is true if not that Tithes be discharged or changed by one of the said five waies And forasmuch as it appeareth by themselves that the part or value was part of the Iudiciall Law certainly the same doth not bind any Christian Common-wealth but that the same may be altered by reason of time place or other consideration as it appeareth in all punishments inflicted by the Iudiciall Law they do not bind none for Felony is now punished by death c. which was not so by the Iudiciall Law c. Also forasmuch as now it is confessed that the tenth part is now due Ex institutione Ecclesiae that is to say By their Canons and it appeareth by the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. That all Canons c. made against the Prerogative of the King in his Laws Statutes or Customes of the Realm are void and that was but a Declaratory Law For no Statute or Custome of the Realm can be taken away or abrogated by any Canon c. made out or within the Realm but only by Act of Parliament and that well appeareth by 10 H. 7. f. 17. c. 18. That there is a Canon or Constitution That no Priest ought to be impleaded at the Common Law And there Brian saith That a grave Doctor of the Law once said unto him That Priests and Clarks might be sued at the Common Law well enough For he said that Rex est persona mixta and is Persona unita cum Sacerdotibus Statutis Ecclesiae In which case the King might maintain his Iurisdiction by prescription By which it appeareth that prescription doth prevail against expresse Canons or Constitutions and is not taken away by them which proves that the Statute of 25 H. 8. was but a Declaration of the ancient Law before And there is an expresse Prohibition in Numb 18. Nihil aliud possedebunt Decimarum oblatione contenti quas in usus eoram necessaria separavi Which was not part of the Morall Law or Law of Nature but part of the Iudiciall And therefore men of the holy Church at this day do possesse Houses Lands and Tenements and not Tithes only The second point which agrees with the Law at this day which was adjudged in the said Record of 25 H. 3. is That the limits and bounds of Towns and Parishes shall be tried by the Common Law and not in the Spirituall Court and in this the Law hath great reason for thereupon depends the Title of Inheritance of the Lay Fee whereof the Tithes were demanded for Fines and Recoveries are the common assurances of Lay Inheritances and if the Spirituall Court should try the bounds of Towns if they determine that my Land lyeth in another Town then is contained in my Fine Recovery or other assurance I shall be in danger to lose my Inheritance and therewith agreeth 39 E. 3. 29. 5 H. 5. 10. 32 E. 4. t. Consultation 3 E. 4. 12 19 H. 6. 20. 50 E. 3. 20. many other Presidents untill this day And note there is a Rule in Law that when the Right of tithes shall be tried in the Spiritual Court the Spirit Court hath jurisdiction therof that our Courts shall be ousted of the Iurisdiction 35 H. 6. 47. 38 H. 6. 21. 2 E 4. 15. 22 E. 4. 23. 38 E. 3. 36. 14 H 7. 17. 13 H. 2. Jurisd 19. but that is when debate is between Parson and Vicar or when all is in one Parish but when they are in severall Parishes then this Court shall not be ousted of the Iurisdiction See 12 H. 2. to Jurisdiction 17. 13 R. 2. ibid. 19. 7 H. 4. 34. 14 H. 4. 17. 38 E 3. 56. 42 E. 3. 12. And yet there is a Canon expresly against this which see in Linwood titulo de penis 55. And so fol. 227 228. amongst the Canons or Constitutions of Bonaface An. Dom. 1277. And the causes wherefore the Iudges of the Common Law would not permit the Ecclesiasticall Iudges to try Modum Decimandi being pleaded in their Court is because that if the Recompence which is to be given to the Parson in satisfaction of his tythes both not amount to the value of the Tythes in kinde they would overthrow Note this difference Although that the parties do admit the Jurisdiction of the Court yet upon the pleading if the right of the Tythes shall come in debate there this Court shall be ousted of the Jurisdiction the Spiritual Court shall have Jurisdiction But when the right of tythes cometh in debate and the Spiritual Court cannot have Jurisdiction or Conusance of it as where a Lay-man is Plaintiff as Farmor or Defendant as Servant of the Parson as a Lay man Farmor cannot sue there nor he who justifies as Servant cannot be sued in Trespass But if the Suit be between Parson and Vicar or Parson and Parson and other Spiritual persons if the Kings Court be ousted of the Jurisdiction after severance of the ninth part yet the Libel ought to be for substraction of Tythes for of that they have jurisdiction and
all the mean profits from the time of the erroneous Iudgment given until the Iudgment in the Writ of Error so as the Reversal hath a Retrospect to the first Iudgment as if no Iudgment had been given And therefore the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. the case is A. seised of Land in Fee was attainted of High Treason and the King granted the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land and afterwards by Parliament A. was restored and the Attainder made voyd as if no Act had been and shall be as available and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been and afterwards B. bringeth Trespass for the Trespass Mesue and it was adjudged in 10 H. 7. fo 22. b. That the Action of Trespass was not maintainable because that the Attainder was disaffirmed and annulled ab initio And in 4 H. 7. 10. it is holden That after a Iudgment reversed in a Writ of Error he who recovered the Land by Erroneous Iudgment shall not have an Action of Trespass for a Trespass Mean which was said was all one with the principal case in 4 H. 7. 10. and divers other Cases were put upon the same ground It was secondly objected That the Wife could not have a Petition because there was not any Office by which her title of Dower was found scil her marriage the seisin of her Husband and death for it was said that although she was marryed yet if her Husband was not seised after the age that she is Dowable she shall not have Dower as if a man seised of Land in Fee taketh to Wife a woman of eight years and afterwards before her age of nine years the Husband alieneth the Lands in Fee and afterwards the woman attaineth to the age of nine years and the Husband dyeth it was said that the woman shall not be endowed And that the title of him who sueth by Petition ought to be found by Office appeareth by the Books in 11 H. 4. 52. 29 Ass 31. 30 Ass 28. 46 E. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. As to the first Objection it was resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with proclamations was not a bar unto her and yet it was resolved that the Act of 4 H. 7. cap. 24. shall bar a woman of her Dower by a Fine levyed by her Husband with proclamations if the woman doth not bring her Writ of Dower within five years after the death of her Husband as it was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common Pleas and 5 Eliz. Dyer 224. For by the Act the right and title of a Feme Covert is saved so that she take her action within 5. years after she become uncovert c. but it was resolved That the wife was not to be ayded by that saving for in respect of the said Attainder of her Husband of Treason she had not any right of Dower at the time of the death of her Husband nor can she after the death of her Husband bring an Action or prosecute an Action to recover her Dower according to the direction and saving of the said Act But it was resolved That the Wife was to be ayded by another former Saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons scil who were not parties to the Fine such action right title claym and interest in or to the said Lands c. as shall first grow remain descend or come to them after the said Fine ingrossed and proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or by any other cause or matter had and made before the said Fine levied so that they take their Actions and pursue their right and Title according to the Law within five years next after such Action Right Claim Title or Interest to them accrued descended fallen or come c. And in this case the Action and right of Dower accrued to the wife after the reversall of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the seisin in Fee had and the Marriage made before the Fine levied according to the â—â—â—ention and meaning of the said Act. And as to the said poâ—â—t of Relation It was resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some intent not For Relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same parties to advance a Right or Ut res magis valeat quam pereat But the Law will never make such a construction to advance a wrong which the Law abhorreth Or to defeat Collaterall Acts which are lawfull and principally if they do concern Strangers And this appeareth in this Case scil when an erroneous Iudgment is reversed by a Writ of Error For true it is as it hath been said That as unto the mean Profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law untill the time of the first Iudgment given and that is to favour Iustice and to advance the right of him who hath wrong by the erroneous Iudgment But if any stranger hath done a Trespasse upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversall shall have an Action of Trespasse against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleadeth that there is no such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the speciall matter and shall maintain his Action so as unto the Trespassors who are wrong Doers the Law shall not make any construction by way of relation ab initio to excuse them for then the Law by a fiction and construction should do wrong to him who recovereth by the first Iudgment And for the better apprehending of the Law on this point it is to know That when any man recovers any possession or seisin of Land in any Action by erroneous Iudgment and afterwards the Iudgment is reversed as is said before and upon that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ recites the first recovery and the reversall of it in the Writ of Error is that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall be restored to his possession and seisin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Iudgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod eadem A. ad plenariam seisinam tenementorum praedict cum pertinentiis sine dilatione restitui facias per sacramentum proborum legalium hominum de Com. suo diligenter inquires ad quantum exitus proficua tenementorum illorum cum pertinentiis a tempore falsi Judicii praedict reddit usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die judcium illud per praefat Justiciar nostros revocat fuit se attingunt juxta verum valorem eorundem eadem exitus proficua de terris catallis praedict B. in baliva tua fieri facias denarios inde praefato A. pro exitibus et proficuis
and Seale put to the Transcript ingrossed and not to the Testament it self and so out of the Statute and the Statute extends only when the Probat and Seale is put to the Testament it self and for the ingrossing of it after the Probate no certain Fee is provided by the Statute But for the Registring of it after it is proved there is an expresse Fee in the Statute But I conceived that the said taking of the fourteen shillings ten pence in the Case at Bar was directly against the Statute For the Act is in the Negative and if the Executor requireth the Testament to be ingrossed in Parchment he ought to agree with him who he requireth to do it as he may But the Ordinary Officiall c. ought not to exact any Fee for the same of the party as a thing due to him for divers Causes 1. Because the words of the Act are expressed for the Probation c. and for the registring sealing writing praysing making of Inventories Fines giving of Acquittances c. which word writing extends expresly to this Case 2. The words are Or any thing concerning the same Probate and when the Seal and Probate is put to the Transcript the same without question concerns the Probate for the Probat is not put to any writing but only to that therefore the same concerns the Probate 3. Such a Construction should make the Act idle and vain for if the Ordinary Officiall c. might take as much as he pleaseth for the ingrossing done by his Ministers as a Fee due to him all the purview of the Statute which is penned so precisely concerning persons scil Bishops Ordinaries and all persons who have power to prove Wills and Testaments Registers Scribes Summoners Apparations or any other the Ministers as for the thing it self scil the probation insinuation approbation registring sealing writing praysing making of Inventories Fines giving of Acquittances or any other thing concerning the same should be all in vain by that evasion of Transcribing of it as well against the expresse Letter of the Act as the intention and moving of it Also the Statute saith five shillings and not above so as the manner of precise penning of it excludes all nice evasions And the Act ought to be expounded to suppresse Extortion which is a great affliction and impoverishing of the poor Subjects 4. As this Case is he annexeth the Probate and Seale to the Transcript ingrossed which the Plaintiff brought with him and offered to the Defendant so as the Case at Bar was without question And generally the Ordinary Officiall c. cannot exact or take any Fee for any thing which concerns the Probate of a Will or Testament but that which the Statute limits And afterwards the Iury found for the Plaintiff and of such opinion was Walmesley Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices the next Term in all things But upon exception in Arrest of Iudgment for not pursuing of the Act in the Information Iudgment is not yet given c. X. Hillar Anno 6 Jacobi Regis In the Common Pleas. NOta that in this Terme a Question was moved to the Court Aide to make the Kings eldest Son Knight which was this If Tenant in Burgage should pay Ayde unto the King to make his eldest Son Knight And the Point rests upon this If the Tenure in Burgage be a Tenure in Socage For by the ancient Commmon Law every Tenant in Knights Service and every Tenant in Socage was to give to his Lord a reasonable Ayde to make his eldest Son a Knight and to marry his eldest Daughter and that was incertain at the Common Law and also incertain when the same Vide F. N. B. 82. 20. should be paid And this appeareth by Glanvil Lib. 9. cap. 8. fol. 70. who wrote in the time of Henry the second Nihil autem certum Statutum de hujusmodi auxiliis dandis vel exigendis c. sunt alii praeterea See the statute of 27 H. 8 cap 10 of uses in the Preamble concerning Aides to make the eldest Son Knight and to marry the Daughter Casus in quibus licet Dominis auxilia solvenda sunt certa forma praescripta ab hominibus suiis ut silius suus haeres fiat miles vel si primogenitam suam filiam maritaverit c. And in the beginning of the Chapter it is called Rationabile Auxilium because that then it was not certain but to be moderated by reason in respect of Circumstances And by the Preamble of the Statute of West 1. An. 3 E. 1. cap. 35. Where it is said Forasmuch as before that time reasonable Ayde to make ones Son Knight or to marry his Daughter was never put in certain nor when the same ought to be payd nor how much be taken the said Act put the said two incertainties to a certainty 1. That for a whole Knights Fee there be taken but 20 s. and of 20 l. Lands holden in Socage 20 s. and of more more and of less less according to the rate by which the Ayd it self was set certain 2. That none might levy such Ayd to make his son a Knight until his son be of the age of fifteen years nor to marry his daughter until she be of the age of seven years And Fleta who wrote after the said Act calls them rationabilia auxilia ad filium militem faciendum vel ad filiam primogenitam maritandum And by the Statute of 25 E. 1. where it is provided That no Taxes shall be taken but by common consent of the Realm there is an exception of the ancient Ayds c. which is to be intended of these Ayds due unto the King by the ancient Common Law But notwithstanding the said Act of VVestm 1. it was doubted whether the King because he is not expresly named were bound by it and therefore in the twentieth year of E. 3. the King took an Ayd of 40 s. of every Knights Fee for to make the Black Prince Knight and nothing then of Lands holden in Socage and to take away all question concerning the same the same was confirmed to him in Parliament and afterwards anno 25 E. 3. cap. 11. it is enacted That reasonable Ayd to make the Kings eldest Son Knight and to marry his eldest Daughter shall be demanded and levyed after the form of the Statute made thereof and not in other manner that is to say Of every Fee holden of the King without Mean 20 s. and no more and of every 20 l. Land holden of the King without Mean in Socage 20 s. and no more Now Littleton lib. 2. cap. 10. fol. 36. b. Burgage Tenure is where an ancient Borough is of which the King is Lord and those who have Tenements within the Borough hold of the King their Tenements that every Tenant for his Tenement ought to pay to the King a certain Rent and such Tenure is but Tenure in Socage and all Socage Land is contributary to
Borough c. and that the City of London is taxed to 618 l. 3 s. 5 d. the City of Norwich to 8 l. 6 s. 11 d. the City of Canterbury to 53 l. 13 s. 3 d. ob Norfolk 285 l. 6 s. 10 d. Suffolk 1214 l. 5 s. 4 d. ob c. The sum of all the sums then expressed is 31648 l. whereof allowable for Fees and Wages of Commissioners and Collectors 651 l. 16 s. 2 d. and so remaineth 31006 l. 4 s. and 10 d. Note that the Vniversities of Cambridg and Oxford and the Colledg of Eaton be excepted See Rot. 30. H. 3. ex parte reman Dom. Thesaur in Scemino in auxilio nobis concess ad primogenitam siliam nostram maritand And note that King Henry the third had Ayd granted to him in Parliament ad Isabellam sororem suam Imperatori maritand but that was of Benevolence Rot. 42. H. 3. ibid. 6 Monstrat R. Johannes le Francois Baro de Scaccario quod cum Dominus Rex non caperet nisi 20 s. de integro feodo militis de auxilio ad primogenitam filiam suam maritand Radol fil Rad. fil Mich. injuste exegit de eodem 30 s. ad primogenitam filiam suam maritand pro duabus partibus unius feodi militis averia sua cepit eadetinet Et ideo mandatum est Vic. Com. Bedd Buck. quod venire faciant c. praedict R. ad respondendum eidem Johanni de praedict transgressione praedict averio c. So as it appeareth by this that some held that the Statute of Westm 1. aforesaid was but a confirmation of the Common Law and that the King also ought not to take more but that was doubted Ibid. in Regno 2 E. 1. Rot. 3. de auxilio ad militiam which is meant of Knight of the Kings Son in the time of Henry the third Isabella Comitissa Albermarte perdonata 116 l. 8 s. 7 d. pro eodem auxilio quia Boldwinus de Insula fratre ejus cujus haeres ipsa est fuit infra aetatem in custodia ejus quia tenentes dictae Isabellae onerentur per servitium militare de praedict pecuniis Note that that was before the Statute of West 1. and by that it appeareth That if one within age be in Ward of the King he shall not be contributary to Ayd but his Tenants which hold of him and then held of the King by reason of Ward shall pay Ayd unto the King as it appeareth by that Record Ibid. 30 E. 1. Rex dilectis fidelibus Vic. Kauc Rico. de R. salutem Sciatis quod in primo die Junii anno Regni nostri 18. Praelati Comites Barones caeteri Magnates de regno nostro conceditur pro fe tota communitate ejusdem Regni in pleno Parliamento nostro nobis concesserunt 40 s. de singulis feodis militum in dicto Regno ad auxilium Note that this double charge was in respect that they were discharged of any contribution for Socage which I conceive was for the difficulty to finde the Socage Tenure ad primogenitam filiam nostram maritand levandos sicut hujusmodi auxilium alias in casu consil levari consuevit cui quidem levationi faciend pro dicta communitatis easiamento hucusque supersedimus faciend gratiose assignavimus vos ad praedictum auxilium c. Note that his eldest Daughter was marryed to the Earl of Bar. Ibid. T. R. 34 E. 1. De auxilio concesso ad militiam filii Regis Ibid. Hill 4 H. 4. Rot. 19. de rationabili auxilio de Will. Domino Roos for the marriage of Blanch the Kings eldest Daughter out of the Mannor of Wragby in the County of Lincoln The like M. Rot. 5. H. 4. Rot. 33. Lincoln and Rot. 34. Lincoln and Rot. 35. Lincoln and Tr. R. 5. H. 4. Rot. 2. Kauc and Rot. 3. Kauc and Rot. 5. Kauc See ibid. P. R. 21 E. 3. Rot. Cantab. de auxilio ad filium Regis primogenitum faciend per Episcopum Eliensem by which it appeareth that a Bishop for his Lands which he holdeth by Knights service or Socage shall pay Ayd but those who hold by Frankalmoign or by Divine service shall not pay Ayd as before is said See ibid. 20 E. 3. Rot. 13 and 14. de auxiliando ad primogenitum filium Regis militem faciend and Collectors thereupon appointed By all which before cited it appeareth that Tenure in Burgage is subject to the payment of Ayd And note that a great part of London was Abby or Chauntry Land and the Lands of persons attainted and all those which are immediately holden of the King by Knights service or in Socage shall be contributary to the payment of Ayd c. XI Hill 6 Jacobi Regis Prohibitions UPon Wednesday being Ashwednesday the _____ day of February 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York unto the King That the Iudges of the Common Law had in contempt of the Command of the King the last Term granted sixty or fifty Prohibitions at the least out of the Common-Pleas to the President and Councel of York after the sixth day of February and named three in particular scil between Bell and Thawptes another between Snell and Huet and another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue preferred by English Bill by the Attorny General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and divers others in rescuing of one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Pursuivants of the same Councel who had arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion awarded by the President and Councel which Prohibition in the said Information was as was affirmed denyed upon a motion made in the Kings Bench the last Term and yet granted by us And the King sent for me to answer to that Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Iustices being absent waited upon the King in the Chamber neer the Gallery Who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor the Earl of Salisbury Lord Treasurer the Lord of Northampton Lord Privy Seal the Earl of Suffolk Lord Chamberlain the Earl of Worcester the Archbishop of Canterbury the Lord Wotton and others of his Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid and I perceived well that upon the said Information he had conceived great displeasure against the Iudges of the Common Pleas and chiefly against me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent to me by the Lord Treasurer the Sabbath day before answered in this manner That I had with as much brevity as the time would permit made search in the Offices of the Preignothories of the Common Pleas and as to the said Cases between Bell and Thawptes and Snell and Huet no such could be found but my intent was not to take advantage of a Misprisal and the truth was that the sixth day of February the Court of Common Pleas had granted a Prohibition
do extend to the nature of all the Offences mentioned in the first and second Branches But if one forge a Writing in 37. of Eliz. and afterwards he forge another in 38. of Eliz. yet it is not Felony although that he forgeth many Writings one after the other for by the expresse words of the Act it is not Felony The Forgery c. which is Felony by the Act ought to be after conviction or condemnation of a former Writing As to the third doubt it was resolved That the allegation of the time by the Plaintiff in the Bill shall not alter the Offence but shall give unto the Court Iurisdiction but if it appeareth to the Court that the Forgery or Publication was after the Sentence then the Court shall surcease As to the last Point it was resolved that the time of the Forgery is not materiall be it before or after the Offence in truth committed if it be committed before the exhibiting of the Bill but if the date of the Writing supposed to be forged had been mistaken there the Defendant could not be condemned of a Deed of another date for that is not the Offence complained of in the Bill of which the Court can give Sentence XIV Pasch 7. Jacobi Regis The Case of Sewers THe Case was That there was a Cawsey or Milstanke of Stone in the River of Dee and City of Chester which Cawsey before the Raign of King Edward the first was erected for the necessary maintenance of certain Mills some of the Kings and others of the Subjects at the end of the said Cawsey and now a certain Decree was made by certain Commissioners of Sewers for a breach to be made by ten Poles in length in the said Cawsey which Cawsey as it was admitted by both parties was errected before the Raign of King Edward the first and so hath continued untill this day without any exaltation or inhancing and if by any Decree of the Commissioners by force of any Statute any breach may be made in that Cawsey was the Question And it was referred by the Letters of the Lord of the Privy Councell to the two cheif Iustices and the chief Baron and upon hearing of Councell learned at divers daies and good consideration had in the time of the last Vacation of all the Statutes concerning Sewers and upon conference had amongst themselves it was resolved as followeth 1. Whereas it is provided by the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 23. Quod omnes Kidelli deponantur de cetero per Thamesiam Medeweiam per totam Angl. nisi per Costeram Maris It was resolved That that Stat. extended only to Kidells sc open Wares for taking of Fish but the first Statute which extended to pulling down or abating of any Mills Mill-stankes and Cawseys was the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 4. which Act appointed such only to be thrown down or abated which were levied or erected in the Raign of King Edward the first or after But by the Statute made An. 1 H. 4. cap. 12. upon complaint in Parliament of the great damages which have risen by the outrageous inhansing of Mills Mill-stanks and other impediments made and erected before the Raign of King Edward the first The said old Mills and Mill-stanks were appointed by Act then made to be surveyed and such as were found to be much inhansed to be corrected and amended saving alwaies reasonable substance of such Mills Mill-stanks Wears c. so in old time made and levied None of which Acts extended to tho Case in question For that Cawsey was erected before the Raign of Edward the first and never exalted or inhansed after the errection of it And the statute of 12 H. 4. cap. 7. doth confirm all the said Acts and by them the generality of the Act of Magna Charta is restrained as by the said Acts appeareth And by the statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 5. None of the said Acts as to the Case in question is repealed for first the same Act appoints the manner form tenor and effect of the Commission of Sewers by which power is given to the Commissioners to survey Walls c. Fences Cawseys c. Mills c. and then to correct repair amend pull down or over throw or reform as cause requireth according to their wisdomes and discretions and therein as well to ordain and do after the form tenor and offect of all and singular the Statutes and Ordinances made before the first of March in the twenty third year of Henry the eighth as also to enquire by the Oathes of honest and lawfull men c. through whose default the said hurts and damages have happened c. By which it appeareth That the discretion of the Commissioners was limited scill to proceed according to the statutes and Ordinances before made c. And also to reform repair and amend the said Walls c. by force of that word said hath relation to the precedent purview of the Act c. And further to reform prostrate and over-throw all such Mills c. and other impediments and annoyances aforesaid as shall be found by Inquisition or by your survey and discretion to be excessive i. e. hurtfull which word aforesaid refers that clause also to the precedent purview scil such immpediments and annoyances as are against the Statutes and Ordinances before made Also it is further provided by the same Act That all and every Statute Act and Ordinance heretofore made concerning the Premisses or any of them not being contrary to this present Act nor heretofore repealed shall from henceforth stand and be good and effectuall for ever But the said Acts of 25 E. 3 and 1 H. 4. are not contrary to any clause of that Act nor were repealed before And alwaies such construction ought to be made that one part of the Act may agree with another and all to stand together and if they had intended a repeal of the said former Acts they would not have repealed them by such generall and doubtfull words when they concerned the Inheritances of many Subjects and according to this resolution we certified the Lords of the Councell that the said Statutes of 25 E. 3. and 1. of H. 4. remained yet in force and that the Authority given by the Commission of Sewers did not extend to Mills Mill-stanks Cawseys c. errected before the Raign of King Ed. 1. unlesse that they have been inhaunsed and exalted above their former height and thereby made more prejudiciall c. In which case they are not to be overthrown or subverted but to be reformed by abating the excesse and inhaunsment only Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis XIV The Case De Modo Decimandi and of Prohibitions debated before the Kings Majesty RIchard Archbishop of Canterbury accompanyed with the Bishop of London the Bishop of Bathe and Wells the Bishop of Rochester and divers Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law as Dr. Dunn Iudg of the Arches Dr. Bennet
in the case of Modus Decimandi before and see Register fo 38. when Lands are given in satisfaction and discharge of Tythes 4. See the Statute of Circumspecte agatis Decimae debitae seu consuetae which proves that Tythes in kinde and a Modus by custom c. 5. 8 E. 4. 14. and Fitz. N. B. 41. g. A Prohibition lieth for Lands given in discharge of Tythes 28 E. 3. 97. a. There Suit was for Tythes and a Prohibition lieth and so abridged by the Book which of necessity ought to be upon matter De Modo Decimandi or discharge 7. 7 E. 6. 79. If Tythes are sold for mony by the sale the things spiritual are made temporal and so in the case De modo Decimandi 42 E. 3. 12. agrees 8. 22 E. 3. 2. Because an Appropriation is mixt with the Temporalty scil the Kings Letters Patents the same ought to be shewed how c. otherwise of that which is meer Temporal and so it is of real composition in which the Patron ought to joyn Vide 11 H. 4. 85. Composition by writing that the one shall have the Tythes and the other shall have mony the Suit shall be at the Common Law Secondly By Acts of Parliament 1. The said Act of Circumspecte agatis which giveth power to the Ecclesiastical Iudg to sue for Tythes due first in kinde or by custom i. e. Modus Decimandi so as by authority of that Act although that the yearly sum soundeth in the Temporalty which was payd by Custom in discharge of Tythes yet because the same cometh in the place of Tythes and by constitution the Tythes are changed into mony and the Parson hath not any remedy for the same which is the Modus Decimandi at the Common Law for that cause the Act is clear that the same was a doubt at the Common Law And the Statute of Articuli Cleri cap. 1. If corporal pennance be changed in poenam pecuniariam for that pain Suit lieth in the Spiritual Court For see Mich. 8 H. 3. Rot. 6. in Thesaur A Prohibition lieth pro eo quod Rector de Chesterton exigit de Hagone de Logis de certa portione pro Decimis Molendinarium so as it appeareth it was a doubt before the said Statute if Suit lay in the Spiritual Court de Modo Decimandi And by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 20. it is provided and enacted That every of the subjects of this Realm according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church and after the laudable usages and customs of the Parish c. shall yield and pay his Tythes Offerings and other duties and that for substraction of any of the said Tythes offerings or other duties the Parson c. may by due Proces of the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws convent the person offending before a competent Iudg having authority to hear and determine the Right of Tythes and also to compel him to yeild the Duties i. e. as well Modus Decimandi by laudable usage or Custom of the Parish as Tythes in kinde and with that in effect agrees the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. By the Statute of 2 E. 3. cap. 13. it is enacted That every of the Kings Subjects shall from henceforth truly and justly without fraud or guile divide c. and pay all manner of their predial Tythes in their proper kinde as they rise and happen in such manner and form as they have been of Right yielded and payd within forty years next before the making of this Act or of Right or Custom ought to have been payd And after in the same Act there is this clause and Proviso Provided always and be it enacted That no person shall be sued or otherwise compelled to yield give or pay any manner of Tythes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or by any priviledg or prescription are not chargeable with the payment of any such Tythes or that be discharged by any compositions real And afterwards there is another Branch in the said Act And be it further enacted That if any person do substract or withdraw any manner of Tythes Obventions Profits Commodities or other Duties before mentioned which extends to Custom of Tything i. e. Modus Decimandi mentioned before in the Act c. that then the party so substracting c. may be convented and sued in the Kings Ecclesiastical Court c. And upon the said Branch which is in the Negative That no person shall be sued for any Tythes of any Lands which are not chargeable with the payment of such Tythes by any Law Statute Priviledg Prescription or Real Composition And always when an Act of Parliament commands or prohibits any Court be it Temporal or Spiritual to do any thing temporal or spiritual if the Statute be not obeyed a Prohibition lieth as upon the Statute de articulis super Cartas ca. 4. Quod Communia Placita non tenentur in Scaccario a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Exchequer if the Barons hold a Common-Plea there as appeareth in the Register 187. b. So upon the Statute of West 2. Quod inquisitiones quae magnae sunt examinationis non capiantur in patria a Prohibition lieth to the Iustices of Nisi Prius So upon the Statute of Articuli super Cartas cap. 7. Quod Constabularius Castr Dover non teneat Placitum forinsecum quod non tangit Custodiam Castri Register 185. So upon the same Statute cap. 3. Quod See Lib. Entr. 450. a Prohibition was upon the Statute that one shall not maintain and so upon every penal Law See F. N. B 39. b. Prohibition to the Common Pleas upon the Stat. of Magna Charta that they do not proceed in a Writ of Praecipe in Capite where the Land is not holden of the King 1 2 Eliz. Dy. 170 171. Prohibition upon the Statute of barrenes and pettit is onely prohibited by implication Senescallus Mariscallus non teneant Placita de libero tenemento de debito conventione c. a Prohibition lieth 185. And yet by none of these Statutes no Prohibition or Supersedeas is given by express words of the Statute So upon the Statutes 13 R. 2. cap. 3. 15 R. 2. cap. 2. 2 H. 4. cap. 11. by which it is provided That Admirals do not meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Seas c. a Prohibition lieth to the Court of Admiralty So upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 43. against Hospitalers and Templers if they do against the same Statute Regist 39. a. So upon the Statute de Prohibitione regia Ne laici ad citationem Episcopi conveniant ad recognitionem faciend vel Sacrament praestanda nisi in casubus matrimonialibus Testamentariis a Prohibition lieth Regist 36. b. And so upon the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 3. at what time the Libel is grantable by the Law that it be granted and
within the body of the County but they do not restrain the execution of the same Court to be served upon the Land for it may be that the party hath not any thing upon the Sea and then it is reason to have it upon the Land and if such a Defendant have nothing wherewithall to make agreement they of the Court have power to take the body of such a Defendant upon the Land in execution In which case these points were observed 1. Although that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record because they proceed there according to the Civil Law see Brook Error 77. acc yet by custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make execution for the same of the goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he hath not goods then they may arrest the body of the Defendant within the body of the County But the great Question between them was If a man committeth See this point resolved 8 Eli. Dyer per curiam which is omitted out of the printed Book Piracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receiveth and comforteth the Defendant within the body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by force of the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and conviction against the Receiver and Abettor in as much as the offence of the Accessary hath his begining within the body of the County And it was resolved by them that such a Receiver and Abettor by the common Law could not be indicted or convicted because that the common Law cannot take conusance of the original Offence because that is done out of the Iurisdiction of the common Law and by consequence where the common Law cannot punish the principal the same shall not punish any one as accessary to such a principal And therefore Coke chief Iustice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk in anno 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Laystaft in Suffolk robbed divers of the Queens subjects and spoyled them of their goods which goods they brought into Norfolk and there they were apprehended and there brought before me then a Iustice of the Peace within the same County whom I examined and in the end they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy and that those goods which then they had with them were part of the goods which they had robbed from the Queens subjects upon the High Sea and I was of opinion that in that case it could not be Felony punishable by the common Law because that the original act scil the taking of them was not any offence whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and by consequence the bringing of them into a County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law and it is not like where one stealeth goods in one County and brings them into another there he may be indicted of Felony in any of the Counties because that the original act was Felony whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and yet notwithstanding I committed them to the Gaol until the coming of the Iustices of Assises And at the next Assises the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice and Periam Iustices of Assise was That for as much as the common Law doth not take notice of the original Offence the bringing of the goods stoln upon the Sea into a County did not make the same punishable at the common Law and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwell then Vice-Admiral of the said Counties and this in effect agrees with Lacies case which see in my Reports cited in Binghams case in the 2 Reports 93. and in Constables case C. 5. Reports 107. See the Piracy was Felony the Book of 40 Assis 25. by Schard where a Master or Captain of a Ship together with some Englishmen robbed the Kings sujects upon the High Seas where he saith that it was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the Englishmen his companions and the reason of the said case was because the Normans were not then under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England for King John lost Normandy and for that cause Piracy was but Felony in the Norman but in the English who were under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England the same was adjudged Treason which is to be understood of Pettit Treason which was High Treason before and therefore in that case the Pirates being apprehended the Norman Captain was hanged and the English men were hanged and drawn as appeareth by the same Book see Stamford 10. And some objected and were of opinion That Treasons done out of the Realm might have bin determined by the common Law but truly the same could not be punishable but onely by the Civil Law before the Admiral or by Act of Parliament as all Foreign Treasons and Felonies were by the common Law and therefore where it is declared by the Statute of 25 E. 3. That adherence to the Enemies of the King within England or elsewhere is Treason the same shall be tryed by the common Law but where it is done out of the Realm the Offendor shall not be attainted but by Parliament until the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. although that there are Opinions in some Books to the contrary see 5 R. 2. Quare impedit c. XXII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalves Case IN a Fine levyed Trinity Term anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Roger Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre with the appurtenances c. in the County of Norfolk where in the third proclamation upon the Foot of the same Fine the said proclamation is said to have been made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been anno quinto of the King and whereas upon the Foot of the same Fine the fourth proclamation is altogether left out because upon the view of the proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarias remaining with the Chyrographer and the Book of the said Chyrography in which the said proclamations were first entered it appeareth that the said proclamations were rightly and duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errors or defects aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the proclamation upon Record of the said Fine and Entry of the said Book as with the other proclamations in Dorsis super pedes aliorum finium of the same Term and this was done upon the motion of Haughton Serjeant at Law XXIII Mich. 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Sammes Case JOhn Sammes being seised of Grany Mead by Copy of Court Roll of the Mannor of Tollesham the great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights service in capite Sir Thomas by
same but they estreat the same into the Exchequer which hath power by the Law to writ forth Proces to the Sheriff to levy the same But if a man be convicted in the Star-Chamber for Forgery upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. that in that case for the double costs and damages that an English Writ shall be made directed to the Sheriff c. reciting the conviction and the Statute for the levying of the said costs and damages of the goods and chattels and profits of the Lands of the Defendant and to bring in the mony into the Court of Star-Chamber and the Writ shall be sealed with the great Seal and the Test of the King For the Statute of 5 Eliz. hath given Iurisdiction to the Court of Star-Chamber and power to give Iudgment amongst other things of the costs and damages which being given by force of the said Act of Parliament by consequence the Court by the Act hath power to grant Execution Quia quando aliquid conceditur ei omnia concedi videntur per quod devenitur ad illud And it was resolved That the giving of the damages to the Plaintiff was begun but of late times and although that one or two Presidents were shewed against this Resolution they being against the Law the Iudges had not any regard to them The like Resolution was in the Case of Langdale in that Court XXXI Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Morse and Webbs Case IN a Replevin brought by John Morse against Robert Webb of the taking of two Oxen the last day of November in the third year of the Reign of the King that now is in a place called the Downfield in Luddington in the County of Worcester The Defendant as Bayliff to William Sherington Gent. made Conusance because that the place where is an Acre of Land which is the Freehold of the said William Sherington and for damage-feasants c. In Bar of which Avowry the Plaintiff said That the said Acre of Land in parcel of Downfield and that he himself at the time and before the taking c. was and yet is seised of two yard Land with the appurtenances in Luddington aforesaid And that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said two yards of Land time out of minde c. have used to have Common of pasture per totam contentam of the said place called the Downfield whereof c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep at certain times and seasons of the year as to the said two yards Lands with the appurtenances appertaining and that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common c. And the Defendant did maintain his Avowry and traversed the Prescription upon which the parties were at issue and the Iury gave a special Verdict That before the taking one Richard Morse Father of the said John Morse and now Plaintiff whose Heir he is was seised of the said two yards Lands and that the said Richard Morse c. had the Common of Pasture for the said Cattel per totum contentum of the said Downfield in manner and form as before is alledged and so seised The said Richard Morse in the twentieth year of Queen Elizabeth demised to William Thomas and John Fisher divers parcels of the said two yards Lands to which c. viz. the four Buts of arable with the Common and intercommon to the same belonging for the term of four hundred years by force of which the said William Thomas and John Fisher entered and were possessed and the said Richard so seised dyed thereof seised by which the said two yards Lands in possession and Reversion descended to the said John Morse the now Plaintiff And if upon the whole matter the said John Morse now hath and at the time of the taking c. had Common of Pasture c. for four Beasts called Rother Beasts and two Beasts called Horse-beasts and for sixty Sheep c. as to the said two Acres of Land with the appurtenances belonging in Law or not the Iury prayed the advice of the Court. Note that this Plea began Trin. 5 Jacobi Rot. 1405. And upon Argument at the Bar and at the Bench it was resolved by the whole Court that it ought to be found against the Defendant who had traversed the Prescription For although that all the two years Lands had been demised for years yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true for he is seised in his Demesn as of Fee of the Freehold of the two yards of Land to which c. And without question the Inheritance and Freehold of the Common after the years determined is appendant to the said two yard Lands and therefore clearly the issue is to be found against the Defendant But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law he ought confessing the Common to have pleaded the said Lease but when he traverseth the Prescription he cannot give the same in evidence 2. It was resolved That if the said Lease had been pleaded that the Common during the Lease for years is not suspended or discharged for each of them shall have Common Rateable and in such manner that the Land in which c. shall not be surcharged and if so small a parcel be demised which will not keep one Ox nor a Sheep then the whole Common shall remain with the Lessor so always as the Land in which be not surcharged 3. It was resolved That Common appendant unto Land is as much as to say Common for Cattel levant and couchant upon the Land in which c. So that by the severance of part of the Land to which c. so prejudice can come to the Ter-tenant in which c. 4. See the Case of in the fourth part of my Reports fo was affirmed for good Law and there is no difference when the Prescription is for Cattel levant and couchant and for a certain number of Cattel levant and couchant But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land without alledging that it is for Cattel levant and couchant there a certain number of the Cattel ought to be expressed which are intended by the Law to be levant and couchant XXXII Hill 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Hughes and Crowthers Case IN a Replevin between Robert Hughs Plaintiff and Richard Crowther Defendant which began Trin. 6 Jacobi Rot. 2220 The Case was that Charls Fox was seised of six acres of Meadow in Bedston in the County of Salop in Fee and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens for 60 years if the aforesaid Charls Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens should so long live and afterward Charls died and if the Lease determine by his death was the Question and it was adjudged That by his death the Lease was determined for the life of a man is meer collaterall unto the Estate for years otherwise it is if a