Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	bridge_n	indictment_n	ruinous_a	30	3	16.4370	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42889	Reports of certain cases arising in the severall courts of record at Westminster in the raignes of Q. Elizabeth, K. James, and the late King Charles with the resolutions of the judges of the said courts upon debate and solemn arguments / collected by very good hands, and lately re-viewed, examined, and approved by Justice Godbolt ; and now published by W. Hughes.	Godbolt, John, d. 1648.; Hughes, William, of Gray's Inn.	1652 (1652)	Wing G911; Wing H3330_CANCELLED; ESTC R24389	404,377	461

by prescription have used to have and dig clay there The first point is found for the Defendant and the last issue is found against the Defendant and damages are given generally All the question is upon the Declaration Coepit asportavit the clay which implies a propertie and interest in the clay to be to the Plaintiffe It is not said that the clay was carried over the land I conceive that the property of the clay is in issue and the Commoner hath nothing to do with that So damages being given to him for that which doth not belong unto him I hold the Judgment to be Erroneous and that it ought to be reversed Dodderidge The Declaration is well enough and of necessity it cannot be otherwise Here the Plaintiffe challengeth nothing but Common In an Action upon the Case there ought to be injurie and damage which is the consequent upon injurie For an Action upon the Case will not lie for an injurie without damage Here Bullen doth not complain for any thing but the loss of his Common which is the first wrong The second wrong is the digging of the pit in the which his cattel may fall and perish The third wrong is for carrying away of six loads of clay over the Common which is a great detriment to the Common to carrie it either by Carts or otherwise and for these three wrongs he concludes his damages ratione cujus he could not have his Common in as ample manner as before he was used to have it and he doth not conclude any damage for the clay Every one of these injuries doth increase the damages and so it would have been if he had left the clay to lie upon the land by the pit for thereby so much Common would have been lost Here he makes himself title only to the Common and these Acts do increase the damages only 2. E. 4. 7 E. 4. Where one was unlawfully and falsly imprisoned and being imprisoned compelled to levie a Fine or make a Feoffment or other Deed. In an Action of false Imprisonment the Jurie gave damages by reason of his restraint of his Liberty and increased them by reason of the levying of the Fine or making the Feoffment or other Deed which he then made The Jurie found that he is not to have any clay and coepit asportavit doth not alter the Case for that is a special Action of trespass And by three of the Justices against Haughton the Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 438. CAlthrope Councellor cited this Case to have been adjudged 25 Eliz. The husband seised in the right of his wife of Copyhold Land made a Lease for years and it was holden by the Court then That by the death of the husband the forfeiture of the Copyhold was purged and that the wife should have the land again notwithstanding this forfeiture by the husband by making a Lease for years without Licence And the Court seemed to allow of the said Case to be Law And afterwards this very Term the like Case came in question in this Court betwixt Severn and Smith where in an Ejectione firme a special Verdict found That a Copyholder seised in the right of his wife made a Lease for years and it was a question whether it were a forfeiture of the inheritance of the wife Hitcham Serjeant said it was no forfeiture Dodderidg Justice took this difference Where a Feme Sole is a Copyholder and she takes a husband who makes a lease for years without licence the same is a forfeiture because it is her folly to take such a husband as will forfeit her Land But where a Copyhold is granted to a Feme Covert and the husband maketh a Lease without Licence in such case it is no forfeiture and so in the Case of a Feme Lessee for life at the Common Law against Whitinghams Case C. 8. part 44. It was adjourned Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 439. NOte It was the opinion of all the Justices and so declared That if the Plaintiffe in an Ejectione firme doth mistake his Declaration That the Defendant in such Case shall have his Costs of the Plaintiffe by reason of his unjust vexation Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 440. FOur several men were joyntly Indicted for erecting and keeping of four several Inns in Bathe It was moved that the Indictment was insufficient because the offence of the one is not the offence of the other like unto the Case in Dyer 19. Where two joyn in an Action upon the Case for words 't is not good but they ought for to sever in their Actions because the wrong to the one is no wrong to the other Dodderidge Iustice One Indictment may comprehend several offences if they be particularly laid and then it is in Law several Indictments It may be intended that the Inns were lawfull Inns for it is not laid to be ad nocumentum and therefore not punishable but if they be an anoyance and inconvenient for the Inhabitants then the same ought particularly to appear otherwise it is a thing lawfull to erect an Inn. An Action upon the Case lyeth against an Inn-keeper who denies lodging to a Travailer for his money if he hath spare lodging because he hath subjected himself to keep a common Inn. And in an Action upon the Case against an Inn-keeper he needeth not to shew that he hath a Licence to keep the Inn. If an Inn-keeper taketh down his Signe and yet keepeth an Hosterie an Action upon the Case will lie against him if he do deny lodging unto a Travailer for his money but if he taketh down his Signe and giveth over the keeping of an Inn then he is discharged from giving lodging The Indictment in the principal case is not good for want of the words ad Nocumentum Haughton and Ley Iustices argreed Ley If an Indictment be for an Offence which the Court ex Officio ought to take notice to be ad Nocumentum there the Indictment being general ad Nocumentum contra Coronam dignitatem is sufficient without shewing in what it is ad Nocumentum But for Inns it is lawfull for to erect them if it be not ad Nocumentum c. and therefore in such Indictments it ought to be expressed that the erecting of them is ad Nocumentum c. and because in this Case there wants the words ad Nocumentum the Indictment was quashed Vi. The Lord North and Prat's Case before to this purpose Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 441. BRIDGES and NICHOLS's Case THey were Indicted for the not repairing of such a Bridg and the Indictment was debent solent reparare pontem c. It was moved that the Indictment was insufficient because it is not alledged in the Indictment that the the Bridg was over a Water and no needfull that it be amended Secondly It did not appear in the Indictment that

at the time of the Indictment the said Bridg was ruinous and decayed Thirdly The Indictment is that Bridges and Nichols debent solent reparare po●tem and it is not shewed that their charge of repairing of the same is ratione tenare 21 E. 4. 38. Where it is said That a prescription cannot be that a common person ought to repair a Bridg unless it be said to be by reason of his Tenure but it is otherwise in case of a Corporation For these Errors the Indictment was quashed by Iudgment of the Court. Trin 21 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. Intratur Trin. 20. Rot. 1609. 442. Sir THOMAS LEE and GRISSEL's Case GRissel brought an Action upon the Case against Lee in the Common Pleas and shewed that diu fuit adhuc seisitus existens of a house c. and he did prescribe that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said house c. had used to have Common in the waste of L. and that Lee in Jacobi made Coniburies in the waste quorum quidem premissorum he lost his Common The Action was brought 18 Jacobi and Iudgment given in the Common Pleas for the Plaintiffe there and thereupon a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and it was assigned for Error First That diu seisitus is not good because it hath not any limitation of time for it may contain as well forty years as one year He laid the wrong to be 15 Jacobi and doth not shew that at that time he was seised for diu doth not express any certain time and then it is like unto the case of Waste where the Grantee of a Reversion brings an Action of waste and doth not shew that he committed waste to his dis●heresin but doth not shew when the waste was done for it might be that it was done betwixt the Grant and the Attornment and then he had no cause to have waste or otherwise it might be that the waste was done in the time of the Grantor and then the Grantee had no cause of Action But in such case he ought to have shewed that he was seised of the Reversion at the time of the waste done 4 E. 4. 18. There Trespass was brought upon the Statute of R. 2. and the Writ was That he did enter in diversa terras tenementa There it was holden that the Writ being insufficient the Court should not make it good because it is too general In our Case it ought to have been that he was diu adhuc est seisitus Et seisitus that the Defendant did do the wrong Another Error was assigned because he doth not conclude quorum quidem premissorum praetextu he lost his Common But he saies quorum quidem premissorum he lost his Common and leaves out the word pr●textu which word ought to have been in the Declaration The Action is brought three years after the wrong done and he ought to have shewed that he 15 Jacobi which was the time of the wrong done fuit seisitus diu ante fuit seisitus in dominico ut de feodo All before the clause quorum quidem c. is but collection and he ought to have concluded with a cause of grievance viz. quorum quidem premissorum praetextu he lost his Common 7 H. 7. 3. There it is said that this word praetextu is a conclusion that the particular wrong doth contain and doth affirm that which went before but in this case the word praetextu is wanting and a Seisin first ought to be laid and then praetextu quorum is good Vi. Bullen and Sheenes case before where the Plaintiffe first made him title to the Common viz. that he was such a time seised in Fee adhuc seisitus existens that the Defendant did dig clay Vi. Brown and Greens Case in the Common Pleas. 40 Eliz. Where a man pleaded a Feoffment and Livery Virtute cujus he was seised in fee and did not shew that he entred and yet the same was good because the Virtute cujus was a good conclusion Ley Chief Justice diu doth not denote any time certain If in a Case it had been postea or sic inde seisitus the Defendant did the wrong then the Declaration had been good but here is nothing to which diu may have reference If he had said that he being diu seisitus that the Defendant had such a day done the wrong it had been good Secondly Here ought to have been either quorum quidem premissorum ratione or praetextu he lost his Common here the Latine is good viz. quorum quidem premissorum Commoniam perdidit but it is not good in Law Dodderidge Justice You ought to have coupled the damage and the wrong and in this case there wants the coupling for want of the word praetextu for the word praetextu is the application of the precedent matter The matter of wrong is the making of the conyburies by reason of which he lost his Common and the quorum quidem here hath not any sense The Declaration wants matter of form also diu fuit seisitus adhuc seisitus existens Might you not have purchased this Common after the wrong done by the making of the conyburies for it doth not appear otherwise by the Declaration for as well as diu may comprehend forty years so it may but one moneth If it had been diu seisitus sic seisitus that he made the conyburies then the Declaration had been well but as this case is it is not good Haughton Justice Your Action ought to have contained your matter of time as well as your matter of wrong Diu includes no certainty of time and quorum quidem premissorum c. is a speech without sense If a man maketh title to have Common pro omnibus averiis and the word suis is omitted it is not good Ley Chief Justice here the wrong and damage are not knit together by these words and it might be that in this case he had lost his Common by some other means For he doth alleadge that he lost his Common but how he lost it that doth not appear to us If he had said Virtute cujus or per quod or ratione cujus he had lost his Common then the Declaration had been certain and had been well enough But here it being incertain both in the seisitus and also in the alleadging the damage The Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas for these Errors was reversed Trin. 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 443. PYE and BONNER's Case AN Information was in the Common-Pleas by Pye against Bonner for buying of Cattel selling of them again in the same Market against the Satute Which was found against the Defendant and the Judgment was entred Quod sit in misericordia whereas it ought to have been Capiatur being upon an Information For it is a Contempt and punishable by Imprisonment And in this Case upon a Writ of Error brought in