should take revenge themselves for which reasons he held the Action will lye Atkyns Iustice contra This is not a common Action upon the Case but an Action founded upon the Statute of the 2 of R. 2. upon the Construction whereof the Resolution of this Case will depend whether the Action will lie or not And as to that he considered 1. The Occasion 2. The Scope 3. The parts of the Statute 1. The occasion of it is mentioned in Cotton's Abridgment of the Records of the Tower f. 173. nu 9 and 10. At the summoning of this Parliament the Bishop of St. Davids declared the Causes of their meeting and told both the Houses of the Mischiefs that had hapned by divers slanderous Persons and sowers of Discord which he said were Dogs that eat raw Flesh the meaning of which was that they devoured and eat one another to prevent which the Bishop desired a Remedy and his Request seemed to be the Occasion of making this Law for ex malis moribus bonae nascuntur Leges 2. The Scope of the Act was to restrain unruly Tongues from raising false Reports and telling Stories and Lyes of the Peers and Great Officers of the Kingdom so that the design of the Act was to prevent those imminent dangers which might arise and be occasioned by such false Slanders 3. Then the parts of the Act are three viz. reciting the Offence and the Mischief then mentioning the ill Effects and appointing of a Penalty From whence he Observed 1. That here was no new Offence made or declared for nothing was prohibited by this Statute but what was so at the Common Law before The Offences to be punished by this Act are mala in se and those are Offences against the Moral Law they must be such in their nature as bearing of false Witness and these are Offences against a common Person which he admitted to be aggravated by the eminency of the person against whom they were spoke but every uncivil Word or rude Expression spoken even of a Great Man will not bear an Action and therefore an Action will not lie upon this Statute for every false Lye but it must be horrible as well as false and such as were punishable in the High Commission Court which were enormous Crimes 12 Co. 43. By this description of the Offences and the consequences and effects thereof he said he could better judge whether the Words were actionable or not and he was of Opinion that the Statute did not extend to Words of a small and trivial nature nor to all Words which were actionable but only to such which were of a greater magnitude such by which Discord might arise between the Lords and Commons to the great peril of the Realm and such which were great Slanders and horrible Lies which are words purposely put into this Statute for the aggravation and distinction of the Crime and therefore such Words which are actionable at the Common Law may not be so within this Statute because not horrible great Scandals He did not deny but that these were undecent and uncivil words and very ill applied to that honourable person of whom they were spoken but no body could think that they were horrible great slanders or that any debate might arise between the Lords and Commons by reason such words were spoken of this Peer or that it should tend to the great peril of the Kingdom and the quick destruction thereof such as these were not likely to be the effects and consequences of these Words and therefore could not be within the meaning of the Act because they do not agree with the discription given in it 2. Here is no new punishment inflicted on the Offender for at the Common Law any person for such Offences as herein are described might have been Fined and Imprisoned either upon Indictment or Information brought against him and no other punishment is given here but Imprisonment Even at the Common Law scandal of a Peer might be punished by Pillory and loss of Ears 5 Co. 125. De Libellis Famosis 12 Co. 37. 9 Co. 59. Lamb's Case So that it appears this was an Offence at the Common Law but aggravated now because against an Act of Parliament which is a positive Law much like a Proclamation which is set forth to enforce the execution of a Law by which the Offence is afterwards greater He did agree that an Action would lie upon this Statute though there were no express Words to give it to a Peer because where there is a Prohibition and a Wrong and Damage arises to the Party by doing the thing prohibited in such Case the Common Law doth intitle the Party to an Action 10 Co. 75. 12 Co. 100 103. And such was the Resolution in the Earl of Northampton's Case upon construction of the Law as incident to the Statute and as the Offence is greater because of the Act and as the Action will lie upon the Statute so the Party injured may sue in a qui tam which he could not have done before the making this Law 3. But that such words as these were not actionable at the Common Law much less by the Statute for the Defendant spoke only his Iudgment and Opinion and doth not directly charge the Plaintiff with any thing and might well be resembled to such Cases as are in Rolls Abridgm 1 part 57. pl 30. which is a little more solemn because adjudged upon a special Verdict the Words were spoken of a Iustice of Peace Thou art a Blood-Sucker and not fit to live in a Commonwealth These were not held actionable because they neither relate to his Office or fix any Crime upon him Fol. 43. in the same Book Thou deservest to be hanged not actionable because it was only his Opinion So where the Words are general without any particular Circumstances they make no impression and gain no credit and therefore in Cro. Car. 111. 1 Roll. Abridgm 107. pl. 43. You are no true Subject to the King the Action would not lie In this Case 't is said the Plaintiff acts against Law which doth not imply a Habit in him so to do and when Words may as well be taken in a mild as in a severe Sense the Rule is quod in mitiori sensu accipienda sunt Now these Words are capable of such a favourable construction for no more was said of the Plaintiff than what in some sense may be said of every person whatsoever for who can boast of his Innocency who keeps close in all his actions to Law and Reason and to say A Man acts against both may imply that he departed from those Rules in some particular Cases where it was the Error of his Iudgment only In the Duke of Buckingham's Case Sheppard's Abridgment 1 part f. 28. Viz. You are used to do things against Law and mentions a particular fact there indeed because of Usage of the ill practice it was held that an Action lies but if he had been
Defendant by the Steward of the Burrough of Southwark for that he refused to take the Oath and serve as a Scavenger in the said Burrough though duly Elected according to Custom there and upon nil debt pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict the substance of which was Viz. They find the Act of 14 Car. 2. cap. 2. And the Proviso therein which governed this Case viz. That all Streets and Lanes in London Westminster and the Liberties thereof shall be Paved as they have alwayes used to be Then follows another Clause by which it is Enacted That Scavengers shall be Chosen in the City of London and the Liberties thereof according to the Ancient Usage and Custom so likewise in the City of Westminster but nothing is therein mentioned of Southwark And in all other places a new form of choosing is prescribed Viz. In the other Parishes the Constables Church-Wardens c. shall meet in the Easter-Week and choose two Scavengers in every respective Parish so that the intent of the Act must be though Southwark is not named that still Scavengers shall be chosen there as formerly because London and the Liberties thereof are to follow their Ancient Custom in the choice of this Officer and Southwark is within the City Liberties But whether the Custom of choosing of him was not taken away by this Statute and so the Fine not well Assessed was the Question Ex partte Quer. Baldwyn for the Plaintiffs argued That admitting in Southwark a Scavenger may be chosen according to the new form prescribed in the Act yet this Statute was only in the * Hob. 173. Dyer 341. b. Affirmative and did not thereby take away the custom of choosing him at the Leet Like the Case in Dyer 50. An Act that the Youngest Son shall have an Appeal of the death of his Father Hob. 17. yet that doth not exclude the Eldest because 't is the Common Law and there are no words to restrain him In the 11 Co. 63. Doctor Foster's Case By the Statute of 35 Eliz. against Recusants which gives the Penalty of 20 l. ê“ Month against the Offender the 12 d. for the neglect of every Sunday given by a former * 1 Eliz. Statute is not taken away But where there is a Negative Clause in an Act of Parliament the Law is otherwise as an Act that the Sessions of the Peace shall be kept at Beaumarris tantum non alibi infra ComÌ„ c. and the Iustices kept it at another place and several were Indicted before them at that time but the Iustices were fined and all their proceedings held Coram non Judice by reason of the Negative Prohibition Dyer 135. 1 Inst Sect. 500. 2 Inst 68. By the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 34. a Woman shall bring no Appeal but for the death of her Husband which she might at Common Law before the making of this Statute if therefore she is Heir to her Father the Appeal which she might have brought for his death by these Negative words is taken away Ex parte Def. Barrell for the Defendant though this Law be in the Affirmative yet since it doth not prejudice any person neither can it be injurious if Scavengers are chosen as directed by the Act it shall be taken as a Negative Clause and for this many Instances may be given as the Statute for devising part of the Testators Land doth not take away the custom to devise the whole for that would be an apparent prejudice to the Parties but not so in this Case where 't is not found that the Lord of the Mannor sustains any loss for he is to have nothing when a Scavenger is chosen in the Leet nor are the Inhabitants prejudiced for by this New choosing their Streets shall be kept as clean as before The Form here established doth not consist with the Custom and so hath the Effect of a Negative Clause Hob. 298. It appears by the Scope of the Act That the intent of the Parliament was to take away those old Customs of choosing because the Customs are expressly saved in London and Westminster but in all other places a new way is appointed The pavement of the Streets in Southwark shall be as before but that Clause goes no farther and therefore concerns not the Case of a Scavenger whose duty is not to pave but cleanse the Streets And the words viz. Liberties of the City of London will not help because Southwark is not comprehended under them in that Clause no more than are the Lands which they have in Yorkshire for the word Liberties * Postea 48. there is taken for Limits and can admit of no other Construction Lastly that the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgment because he hath no alledged the Custom to be That the Steward may Fine in case of the refusal to take the Oath c. and Customs are to be taken stictly The Chief Iustice and Iustice Atkins said That 't is true Scavengers are under the power of the Court Leet by Custom and in case of refusal may be fined as well as an Ale-Taster But this Act of Parliament having taken notice that there were Scavengers before that time and Southwark being therein named as distinct from the Liberties of London for 't is provided That Westminster London and the Liberties thereof and Southwark are to have the Streets paved as before which doth not belong to the Office of a Scavenger and so that Clause in the Act concerns not this Case But where it Enacts That in London and Westminster Scavengers shall be chosen as before but in all other places appoints a new way this is as much as if it had said That Scavengers shall be chosen in every place as by the Act prescribed and no other way except in London and Westminster and so great is the inconsistency between the Custom and the Act that they cannot stand both together therefore though the Act is but temporary the Custom is suspended and though it may be some damage to the Lord to make such Construction yet that will not alter the Case for Law-Makers are presumed to have respect to the publick Good more than to any private Mans profit and the Lord may be said in this case to have dispensed with his Interest being a Party to the Act and consenting thereunto But Wyndham and Ellis Iustices inclined That the Custom did continue because the Act was in the Affirmative and therefore they would not construe it to take away a Mans Right and Interest or a Custom where he hath a benefit as the Lord of the Mannor had in this Case who is prejudiced by the loss of his Fees and the intent of the Statute seemed to them to be That Scavengers should be chosen where none were before but not to take away Customs for chusing of them But another Argument was desired by Serjeant Howel the Recorder of London Rozal versus Lampen Variance in the Actions no
Construction can be made of them but that an Estate in possession was thereby intended to pass 4. Object That this Fine and Grant must be construed to enure according to the intent of the Parties ut res magis valeat and they never intended to make a Forfeiture Answ Certainly no Man ever intended to make a Forfeiture of his own Estate those are generally the effects of Ignorance and not of the Will as the Case of Gimlet and Sands Cro. Car. * 1 Roll. Abr. 856. 391. where Tenant in Fee makes a Feoffment to two to the use of himself for Life then to the use of his Wife for Life Remainder in Tail to his Son and Heir Remainder to his own right Heirs and afterwards he made another Feoffment to Smith with Warranty the Mother and Son join in another Feoffment adjudged that this was a Forfeiture of her Estate for life though she had no notice of the Warranty made by her Husband for the Feoffment made by him was a publick Act upon the Land and she ought to have taken notice of it and though by her joining in the Feoffment with her Son she did not intend to forfeit her Estate yet the Law adjudges according to what is done But in the Case at Barr the intention of the Parties may be collected by the Act done and there is great reason to presume that the Parties thereby intended to displace the Reversion for the Husband joyning in the Fine and in the Warranty if it was no divesting the Warranty is of no use Another Objection has been only mentioned which is that admitting this should amount to a displacing if the Estate had been in possession yet in this Case it would not because it was prevented by the Lease for years in being But that cannot hinder the execution of this Fine 't is a Fine sur concessit which is executory in its nature and doth not pass any Estate or take any effect 'till executed and so is the Book 41 5. 3. 14. b. But in this Case the Fine was executed which may be by matter in pais as well as by Scire facias and as to this purpose may be executed by the entry of the Conusor 1 Rep. 106. Dyer 376. b. without suing out any Execution 38 Ed. 3. Brook tit Scire facias 199. If there had been a Fine executed there would have beén little doubt left in this Case and by the Attornment of the Lessee for years it must be admitted that this Fine was executed as 8 Ed. 3. f. 44. For a Fine of a Reversion may be executed to all purposes by the Attornment of the Lessee for years and if so when a Fine executory is once executed 't is as good as a Fine sur Conusance de droit come ceo to make a forfeiture of the particular Estate Where a Feoffment is made and a Lease for years is in being the Feoffment is not good because in such case there must be a present transposition of the Estate Postea Moor and Pitt which is hindred by the Lease But in case of a Fine which is a Feoffment upon Record a Lease for years is no impediment or displacing of the Reversion for if Tenant in Tayl expectant upon a Lease for years levy a Fine 't is a discontinuance of the Tayl and notwithstanding this Lease the Fine has such an operation upon the Free-hold that it displaces the Reversion in Fee Co. Lit. 332. And therefore if a Lease for years prevents not a Discontinuance it will much less hinder a displacing in this case But no Iudgment was given now in this Case another matter being debated whether the Plaintiff could have Iudgment because he was barred by the Statute of Limitations for it did not appear that he had been in possession for twenty years past and the Verdict hath not found any Claim or that the Plaintiff was within the Proviso of the Act. Waterfield versus the Bishop of Chichester Oath Ex Officio not to be administred A Prohibition was granted last Easter-Term to the Bishop of Chichester upon a Suggestion made by Waterfield that he being chosen Churchwarden of the Parish Church of Arundel in the County of Sussex the Bishop tendered him an Oath ex officio which was that he should Present every Parishioner who had done any Offence or neglected any Duty mentioned in certain Articles contained in a printed Book delivered to him some of which Articles concern the Church-warden himself and so in effect he was to swear against himself in case of any default which is expressly against the Statute of 13 Car. 2. Sid. 232 cap. 12. which prohibits any person having Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction to administer the Oath ex officio or any other Oath whereby the person to whom 't is administred may be charged to accuse himself of any criminal matter whereby he may be lyable to any Censure or punishment and because the Bishop had Excommunicated him for refusing such Oath he prayed a Prohibition which was granted quoad the compelling him to make any answer to the said Articles concerning himself and the Excommunication was discharged But now upon the motion of Serjeant Brampston a Consultation was awarded because it appeared by the Affidavit of the Commissary who tendred this Oath and likewise by the act of the Court that he was Excommunicated for refusing to take the Oath of a Church warden according to Law which was the only Oath tendred and therefore the ground of the Prohibition being false a Consultation was awarded In this Prohibition it was recited That the Bishop cannot give an Oath but in two cases viz. in matters Testamentary and Matrimonial whereas they have authority in many cases more 't is true also that until his Iurisdiction was increased by Act of Parliament he could hold Plea in none but those two causes 2 Inst 487 537. but by the Statute De circumspecte agatis and of Articuli Cleri he may now hold Plea in many other cases The Bishop informed the Lord Chief Iustice that the Plaintiff Waterfeild had caused 2000 of the Prohibitions to be printed in English and had dispersed them all over the Kingdom intituling them a true translated Copy of a Writ of Prohibition granted by the Lord Chief Iustice and other the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas in Easter-Term 1676. against the Bishop of Chichester who had proceeded against and Excommunicated one Thomas Waterfield a Churchwarden for refusing to take the Oath usually tendred to persons in such Office by which Writ the Illegality of all such Oaths is declared and the said Bishop commanded to take off his Excommunication And this was declared by the Court to be a most seditious Libel and gave order to enquire after the Printer that he might be prosecuted Eleanor Plummer versus Sir Jeremy Whitchot Intr. Trin. 27 or 28 Car. 2. Rot. 301. in B. R. IN an Action of Debt for an Escape Vpon Nil debet
of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments 't was adjudged entailed Lands did not pass do not concern this Case but now since they are made forfeitable by that Statute such general words are sufficient to serve the turn By the Statute of 16 R. 2. cap. 5. entailed Lands are not forfeited in a Praemunire but during the Life of Tenant in Tail because they were not then to be forfeited for Treason 2 Inst 334. 1 Inst 3. Co. Lit. 130. If then it appears that the Crime of which Sir John Danvers was guilty was Treason and if entailed Lands are forfeited for Treason then when the Act saith That he shall forfeit all his Lands by those general Words his entailed Lands shall be forfeited And though by the Common Law there can be no Attainder in this Case the Party being dead yet by Act of Parliament that may be done and the words in this Act amount to an Attainder The intent of it was to forfeit Estates Tail which may be collected from the general Words for if a Fee-simple is forfeited though not named why not an Estate Tail especially since the word Hereditaments is very comprehensive and may take in both those Estates Spelman's Glossary 227. 2 Roll. Rep. 503. In the very Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. Estates Tail are not named for the Words are Every Offender convict of Treason c. shall forfeit all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which he shall have of any Estate of Inheritance in use possession or by any Right Title or Means c. and yet a Construction hath been made thereupon in favour of the Crown so a Dignity of an Earldom intailed is forfeitable by this Statute by the Word Hereditament 7 Co. 34. Afterwards in Hillary Term Rainsford Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court Judgment That upon Construction of the Act of Pains and Penalties this Estate Tail was forfeited to the King He agreed the Series and progress of Estates Tail to have been as argued by the Solicitor and that the Question now was whether by the Act of Pains c. Estates Tail can be forfeited unless there are express Words to take away the force of the Statute de donis conditionalibus Preface to 3 Co. for by that Statute there was a settled perpetuity Tenant in Tail could neither forfeit or alien his Estate no not in Case of Treason and Forfeiture is a kind of Alienation but afterwards by the Resolution in Ed. 4. an Alienation by a Common Recovery was construed to be out of the said Statute and by the Statute of Fines 4 H. 7. which is expounded by a subsequent Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 36. Tenant in Tail notwithstanding his former restraint had power to alien the Estate Tail and barr his Issue but all this while his Estate was not to be forfeited for Treason till the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. which gives Uses Rights Entries Conditions as well as Possessions Reversions Remainders and all other things of a person attainted of Treason by the Common or Statute Law of the Realm to the King as if such Attainder had been by Act of Parliament Then by the Statute of 5 6 Ed. cap. 11. 't is Enacted That an Offender being guilty of High Treason and lawfully convict shall forfeit to the King all such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which he shall have of any Estate of Inheritance in his own Right in Use or Possession by which Statutes that de donis conditionalibus was taken off in Cases of Treason as it had been before by the resolution in 12 E. 4. and by the Statute of Fines as to the Alienation of an Estate Tail by Fine and Recovery If therefore this Act of Pains c. will admit of such a construction as to make Estates Tail forfeit here is a Crime great enough to deserve such a great punishment a Crime for which the Parliament hath ordered an Anniversary to be kept for ever with Fasting and Humiliation to implore that the Guilt of that innocent Blood then shed may not be required of our Posterity this they esteemed as another kind of Original Sin which unless thus expiated might extend not only ad Natos sed qui nascantur ab illis And that this Act will admit of such a Construction these Reasons were given 1. From the general comprehensive Words mentioning those things which are to be forfeited viz. Messuages Lands Tenements Reversions and Interests which last Word signifies the Estate in the Land as well as the Land it self or otherwise the Word must be construed to have no effect 2. Estates Tail are not now protected by the Clause in the Statute de donis * Inst 334. Non habet potestatem alienandi but are subject to the forfeiture by the Act of H. 8. which though it extends to Attainders only yet 't is a good Rule for the Iudges to make a Construction of an Act of Parliament by especially in such a Case as this wherein 't is plain that the Law did look upon these Offenders if not attainted yet in pari gradu with such persons and therefore may be a good Warrant to make the like Construction as in Cases of Attainder 3. Because the Offenders are dead for had they béen living there might have been better reason to have construed this Act not to extend to Estates Tail because then something might be forfeited viz. an Estate for Life and therefore the Act would signifie very little if such Construction could not be made of it to reach Estates Tail of such persons who were dead at the time of the making the Law especially since 't is well known that when Men engage in such Crimes they give what Protection they can to their Estates and place them as far as they can out of danger 4. It appears by the Act that the Law-makers did not intend that the Children of such Offenders should have any benefit of their Estates because in the Proviso there is a saving of all Estates of Purchasers for Mony bona fide paid and therein also a particular Exception of the Wife and Children and Heirs of the Offenders and if the Act would not protect the Estate of the Children though they should be Purchasers for a valuable consideration it will never protect their Estate under a voluntary Conveyance made by the Ancestor especially in this Case because the Entail carries a suspicion with it that it was designed with a prospect to commit this Crime for Sir John Danvers was Tenant in Tail before and in the year 1647. levies a Fine to barr that Entail and then limits a new Estate Tail to himself in which there is a Provision to make Leases for any number of years upon what Lives soever in Possession or Reversion with Rent or without it and this was but the year before the Crime committed 5. The Proviso in the Act for saving the Estates of Purchasers doth protect all Conveyances and
but it was denied for the Court agréed the Writ well issued Some have made a difference between the King's Bench and the Common Pleas as if an Execution might go into Wales upon a Iudgment obtained in the King's Bench but aliter if in the Common-Pleas But the Law is the same in both Courts Mich. 1653. betwéen Wyn and Griffith this very Case came in question and there it was held that Execution goes into Wales as well as into any part of England upon a Iudgment in the Courts of Westminster In 2 Bulstr 54. Hall versus Rotheram it was held that a Ca. sa shall go into Wales against the Bail upon a Iudgment recovered in the Kings-Bench here against the Principal Of the same Opinion was Iustice Atkins and that the Defendant cannot averr against the Sheriffs Return nor a Bishops Certificate and the true reason is given by my Lord Coke in 2 Inst 452. for the Sheriff is but an Officer and hath no day in Court to justifie his Return In special Cases Exception may be made to the Sheriffs Return but this is by reason of the special provision that is made for the doing of it by the Statute of W. 2. cap. 39. as in case too small Issues be returned or that the Sheriff return a Rescous the Party in his Averment must alledge of what value the Issues are 2dly That notwithstanding the common saying Breve Domini Regis non currit in Walliam yet a Fi. Fa. Ca. Sa. or any Execution whatsoever may issue into Wales upon a Iudgment obtained here And to prove this he considered 1. How Wales formerly stood in relation to England 2. How it stood before it was united by the Statute of H. 8. 3. How it now stands since the Vnion 1. And as to the first of these England and Wales were once but one Nation they used the same Language Laws and Religion and so continued till the time of the Roman Conquest before which they were both comprehended under one name viz. The Isle of Great Britain But when the Romans came those Britains who would not submit to their yoak betook themselves to such places where they thought themselves most secure which were the Mountains in Wales and from whence they came again soon after the Romans were drove away by their dissentions here and then these Britains enjoyed their ancient Rights as before After this came the Saxons and gave them another disturbance and then the Kingdom was divided into an Heptarchy and then also and not till then began the Welsh to be distinguished from the English but yet at that time they had great Possessions in England viz. Gloucester part of Worcester Hereford Shrewsbury which they kept till King Offa drove them out of the plaine Countries and made them fly for shelter into those Mountainous parts in Wales where they now continue Cambden 15. And 't is observable that though Wales had Kings and Princes yet the King of England had Superiority over them for to him they were Homagers Cambden 67. The Word Princeps implying a Subordinate Dignity Selden's Titles of Honor 593. 2dly During the time of the Separation Wales had distinct Laws and Customs from those in England whence that saying took its effect viz. Breve Domini Regis non currit in Walliam yet the Parliament of England before that time made Laws to bind Wales As the Act of 25 Edw. 1. for confirmation of the old great Charter of the Liberties of England and of the Forests which enacts That certain Duties shall be paid for every Sack of Wool c. exported out of Wales 2 Inst 531. So the Statute 3 Edw. 1. cap. 17. which gives remedy if a Distress be taken and detained in a Castle and upon deliverance demanded by the Sheriff if the Lord of the Castle should refuse he might raise the Posse Comitatus and beat down the Castle and if such detainer or refusal be in the Marches of Wales the King as the Statute saith is Soveraign Lord of all and shall do right upon complaint and the Conquest was not made till 9 E. 1. so that at that time likewise though Wales had Princes of its own Vaugh. 400. yet the Kings of England were Sovereigns to those Princes and though they had Laws of their own yet were they bound by those that were made here and though their Princes had ordinary remedial Writs yet in Cases extraordinary the Kings Writs here run into Wales and it was not for want of power but because there was no need for that it went so seldom and when the Kings Writ did issue it was necessary to direct it to the Sheriff of an English County for Wales was not then divided into Shires but afterwards by the Act called Statutum Walliae 12 Edw. 1. * 2 Inst 195. 4 Inst 239. it was divided into six Counties and then again by the Act of 27 H. 8. cap. 26. it was divided into the other six Counties But during this time there were frequent Hostilities between England and Wales until by the Conquest in Edw. 1. time they were united 'T is pretended that H. 3. Father to Edw. 1. was the Conqueror and 't is probable something considerable might be done in his time yet the absolute Conquest of the whole Dominion was made by Edw. 1. in whose time the aforesaid Statutum Walliae was made Vaugh. 414 415. and after that the Statute of 27 H. 8. to compleat the Vnion the end of which is declared to bring the Subjects of both to an entire Vnity and that it may be done with effect 't is enacted That the Laws of England be executed there ◠Bulst 54. for which reason it is held in 5 Co. Rep. Vaughan's Case fol. 49. that the Statutes of Jeofails do extend to Wales and in 2 Bulstr 156. * This was a Resolution upon no Debate the Sheriff of Radnor upon a Scire Fac̄ directed to him returned Breve Domini Regis non currit c. and was amerced 10 l. for his false Return Vide 19 H 6. 20. Fitzherb Trial pl. 40. tit Jurisdiction 13 E. 3. 23 24 34. idem Brief 621. Assize 382. It was objected That by express provision in 1 E. 6. cap. 10. Exigent and Proclamations shall be awarded out of the Courts of Westminster into Wales which if they might before this Law was then needless 'T is true the Opinion of the Parliament seems to be that had it not beén for this particular provision such Proclamations might not have issued for by 6 H. 8. cap. 4. Vaugh. 414. such Proclamations went but to the next County but they do not declare so and perhaps they might ground themselves upon that vulgar Error Breve Domini Regis non currit in Walliam which is not true unless the Clause be limited to original Writs only Objection That the Statute of 5 El. cap. 23. which enacts that the Excommunicato Capiendo shall be returned in the Kings-Bench
Case could not be supposed to prevent the Forfeiture because if that had been the Iury would have found it the meaning of the Parties must make a Construction here and that seems very strong that 't is a good Lease but they gave no Iudgment Wilkinson versus Sir Richard Lloyd Where the Parties shall join in an Action where not THE Defendant covenanted that he would not agreé for the taking the Farm of the Excise of Beer and Ale for the County of York without the Consent of the Plaintiff and another and the Plaintiff alone brought this Action of Covenant and assigns for breach the Defendants agréeing for the said Excise without his Consent upon which the Plaintiff had a Verdict and 1000 l. damages given And Serjeant Pemberton moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that an Action of Covenant would not lie in this Case by the Plaintiff alone because he ought to have joined with the other both of them having a joint Interest and so is Slingsby's Case 5 Co. If a Bond is made to two joyntly and severally they must both join in an Action of Debt so here 't is a joint contract and both must be Plaintiffs So also if one covenants with two to pay each of them 20 l. they must both join 'T is true in Slingsbies Case 't was held if an Assurance is made to A. of White Acre and to B. of Black Acre and to C. of Green Acre and a Covenant with them and every of them these last Words make the Covenant several But here is nothing of a several interest no more than that one covenants with two that he will not join in a Lease without their Consent so that their Interest not being divided the Covenant shall be entire and taken according to the first Words to be a joint Covenant and the rather because if the Plaintiff may maintain this Action alone the other may bring a second Action and the Defendant will be subject to entire damages which may be given in both Judgment But the Court was of another Opinion that here was no joint Interest but that each of the Covenantees might maintain an Action for his particular damages or otherwise one of them might be remediless for suppose one of them had given his Consent that the Defendant should farm this Excise and had secretly received some satisfaction or recompence for so doing is it reasonable that the other should lose his remedy who never did consent For which reason the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Page versus Tulse Mil ' alios Vic' Midd ' THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case against the Sheriff for a false Return Case lies not against the Sheriff for returning a Cepi Corpus paratum habeo though the Party doth not appear Mod. Rep. 239. Ellis and Yarborough post setting forth that he sued a Capias out of this Court directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex by vertue whereof he arrested the Party and took Bail for his appearance and at the day of the Return of the Writ the Sheriff returned Cepi corpus paratum habeo but he had not the Body there at the Return of the Writ but suffered him to escape The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 6. cap. 10. and saith that he took Bail viz. two sufficient Sureties and so let him go at large c. The Plaintiff demurrs and whether this Action lies against the Defendant was the Question who refused to proceed against him by way of Amerciament or to take an Assignment of the Bail-Bond This Case depended in Court several Terms It was argued by Serjeant Pemberton and Serjeant Coniers for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant George Strode for the Defendant and Iudgment was given in Easter Term in the 29th year of this King In the Argument for the Defendant that this Action would not lie it was considered Ex parte Def. 1. What the Common Law was before the making of this Statute 2. What alteration thereof the Statute had made At the Common Law Men were to appear personally to ansswer the Writ the Form of which required it and no Attorney could be made in any Action till Edw. 1. de gratia speciali gave leave to his Subjects to appoint them and commanded his Iudges to admit them 2 Inst 377. After the Arrest the Sheriff mighttie the Party to what Conditions he pleased and he might keep him till he had complied with such Conditions which often ended in taking extravagant Bonds and sometimes in other Oppressions for remedy whereof this Statute was made in which the Clause that concerns this Case is viz. If the Sheriff return upon any person Cepi Corpus or Reddidit se that he shall be chargeable to have the Body at the day of the Return of the Writ in such form as before the making the Act so that as to the Return of the Writ this Statute hath made no alteration the Sheriff being bound to have the Party at a day as before All the alteration made of the Common Law by this Statute is that the Sheriff now is bound to let the Party out of Prison upon reasonable Sureties of sufficient persons which before he was not obliged to do and it would be a Case of great hardship upon all the Sheriffs of England if they being compellable to let out the Party to Bail should also be subject to an Action for so doing because they have him not at the day so that the intent of the Law must be when it charges the Sheriff to have the Body at the Return that he should be liable to a Penalty if the Party did not then appear not to be recovered by Action but by Amerciament Cro. Jac. 286. The Security directed by this Act is to be taken in the Sheriffs own Name 't is properly his business and for his own Indempnity and therefore it is left wholly in his power for which reason no Action will lie against him for taking insufficient Bail that being to his own prejudice in which the Plaintiff is no wise concerned for if that had beén intended by the Act some Provision would have beén made as to his being satisfied in the sufficiency of the Persons When the Security is thus taken if the Defendant doth not appear at the Return of the Writ the Plaintiff by Amerciaments shall compel him to bring in the Body or to assign the Bond either of which is a full satisfaction and as much as is required If the Sheriff refuse to take 2 Sand. 59 154 1 Roll. Abr. 807 808. Cro. Eliz. 460 852. Noy 39. Moor 428. Sid. 23. sufficient Sureties when offered he is liable to an Action on the Case at the Suit of the Defendant for his refusal and it would be very unreasonable to enforce him to have the Party in Court at the Return when he is obliged under a Penalty to let him at large This Action is grounded upon a false Return when in
Trusteés therein named are appointed to sell it for payment of Debts and raising this Portion by which Act all Conveyances made by old Sir Robert Carr since the year 1639. are made void except such as were made upon valuable considerations but all those made by him before the said year with power of revocation if not actually revoked are saved and in the year 1636. he had executed a Conveyance by which he had made a Settlement of his Estate in Tayl with a power of revocation but it did not appear that he did ever revoke the same The greatest part of the Lands appointed by this Act of Parliament to be sold by the Trustees are the Lands comprised in that Settlement and now after the death of Sir Robert Carr the Plaintiff exhibits his Bill against the Son not knowing that such a Settlement was made in the year 1636. till the Defendant had set it forth in his Answer and by this Bill he desires that the Trustees may execute their Trust c. and that he may have relief On the Defendants side it was urged Ex parte Def. that after the Marriage there was a Bond given for an additional Ioynture and it was upon that account that the Defendant was drawn in to execute these Articles And if the very reason and foundation of his entring into them failed then they shall not bind him in Equity and in this Case it did fail because the Plaintiff had disabled himself to make any other Ioynture by a Pre-conveyance made and executed by him of his whole Estate and if this agreement will not bind him then this Court cannot enlarge the Plaintiffs remedy or appoint more than what by the Articles is agreed to be done neither can the Defendants sealing incumber the Estate Tayl in Equity because the Lands were not then in him his Father being Tenant in Tayl and then living and the subsequent descent by which the Lands are cast upon him alters not the Case for the very right which descends is saved by the Act from being charged But on the other side it was argued that though the Marriage did proceed upon the Defendants sealing yet the Assurance which was to be made was a principal Motive thereunto and it being agreed before Marriage though not executed it was very just that he should Seal afterwards and though the additional Ioynture was not made yet there was no colour that the Defendant should break his Articles for that reason because if the Bond be not performed 't is forfeited and may be sued and nothing appeared in the case of any Conveyance made by Sir Francis whereby he had disabled himself to make an additional Ioynture and he hath expresly denied it upon his Oath And though it was was objected that the Money was raised by the old Lady Carr and by the direction of the Trustees lodged in the hands of one Cook who is become insolvent It was answered that there was no proof of the consent of the Trustees and therefore this payment cannot alter the case After the matter thus stated the Lord Chancellor delivered his Opinion That the 6000 l. is doe to the Plaintiff unpaid and unsatisfied for though the Marriage had not taken effect yet the Covenant binds the Defendant because a Deed is good for a Duty without any consideration 2. The Plaintiff has remedy against the person of the Defendant at Law for this 6000 l. 3. He has remedy against such of the Defendants Lands which are not comprised in the Settlement made 1636. for as to them the Trustees may be enjoyned to execute the Trust And he desired the Opinions of the two Iustices if any thing more could be done in this case Iustice Windham was of Opinion that nothing more could be done but to make a Decree to enforce the execution of the Trust And Iustice Wild said that the Plaintiff has his remedy at Law against the Defendant and upon the Act of Parliament against the Trustees but upon these Articles no Decree could be made to bind the Lands for that would be to give a much better security than the Parties had agreed on But if there had been a Covenant in the Articles that a Fine should be levied it might have been otherwise 't is only that a Fine is intended to be levied But as to that the Lord Chancellor was of Opinion that it was a good Covenant to levy a Fine for the words Articles of Agreement c. go quite through and make that Clause a Covenant but because Iustice Wild was of another Opinion he desired the Attorny General to argue these three Points 1. Whether this was a Covenant to levy a Fine or not 2. If it was a Covenant whether this Court can decree him to do it for though the Party has a good remedy at Law yet whether this Court might not give remedy upon the Land 3. If it was a Covenant to levie a Fine and the Court may decree the Defendant to do it yet whether such a Decree can be made upon the prayer of this Bill it not being particularly prayed for the Plaintiff concluded his Bill with praying relief in the execution of the Trust c. In Trinity-Term following these Points were argued by Serjeant Maynard Sir John Churchil and Sir John King for the Plaintiff Mr. Attorny and Mr. Solicitor and Mr. Keck for the Defendant all in one day and in the same order as named The Councel for the Defendant urged Ex parte Def. that this was no Covenant in Law to enforce the Defendant to levy a Fine 'T is agreéd that there is no need of the word Covenant to make a Covenant but any thing under the Hand and Seal of the Parties which imports an Agreement will amount to a Covenant so in 1 Roll. Abr. 518. these words in a Lease for years viz. That the Lessee shall repair make a Covenant so in the Case of Indentures of Apprentiship there are not the formal words of a Covenant but only an Agreement that the Master shall do this and the Apprentice shall do that and these are Covenants but in all these Cases there is something of an undertaking as in 1 Roll 519. Walker versus Walker If a Deed be made to another in these words viz. I have a Writing in my custody in which W. standeth bound to B. in 100 l. and I will be ready to produce it This is a Covenant for there is a present engaging to do it but there are no such words here 't is only a recital That whereas a Fine is intended to be levied to such Uses c. 'T is only Introductive to another Clause without positive or affirmative words and therefore can never be intended to make a Covenant but are recited to another purpose viz. To declare the Use of a Fine in case such should be levied If Articles of Agreement are executed in consideration of an intended Marriage and one side Covenants to do one
pleaded Debt for Escape lies against the Warden of the Fleet as superior the Grantee for life being insufficient Jones 60. 1 Vent 314. the Iury found a special Verdict upon which the Case was this Viz. That Sir Jeremy Whitchot was seised in Fee of the Office of Warden of the Fleet and of several Mesuages thereunto belonging and being so seised did make a Grant thereof to one Duckenfield for life and for the lives of three more Duckenfield by Rule of Court was admitted into the said Office being approved by the Court and esteemed a Man of an Estate He suffers a Prisoner afterwards to Escape and being not able to make the Plaintiff satisfaction this Action was brought against Sir Jeremy Whitchot the now Defendant and whether he was chargeable or not with this Action was the Question Wallop who argued for the Plaintiff said Ex parte Quer. That he would not take up any of their time to make a Narrative of Imprisonment for Debt or what remedy there was for Escapes at Common Law and what remedy by the Statute but supposing an Action of Debt will lye whether it be by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. for at the Common Law before the making of that Act Sid. 306 397. an Action of Debt would not lye against the Goaler for an Escape but a special Action on the Case grounded on a Trespass or whether this Action lay against the Defendant by the Statute of 1 R. 2. 2 Inst 382. cap. 12. which gives it against the Warden of the Fleet who in this case had not the actual Free-hold in possession but the inheritance and not the immediate Estate but the Reversion is in Question The Office of the Warden of the Fleet may be taken in two capacities either as an Estate or common Hereditament wherein a Man may have an Inheritance and which may be transferred from one to another or as a publick Office wherein the King and the People may have a special Interest As 't is an Inheritance transferrable 't is subject to the Rules of Law in point of Descent and is demisable for Life in Fee Tayl Possession or Reversion and in many things is common and runs parallel with other Estates of Inheritance 'T is true he cannot grant this Office for years not for any disability in the Grantor but in respect of the matter and nature of the thing granted it being an Office of Trust and Personal for otherwise it would go to the Executor which is inconvenient 9 Co. 96. Sir George Reynell's Case To enquire what superiority the reversioner hath over the particular Estate is not to the point in Question but there is such an intimacy and privity between them that in Iudgment of Law they are accounted as one Estate And therefore Littleton Sect. 452 453 saith that a Release made to a Reversioner shall aid and benefit him who hath the particular Estate and likewise a Release made to the Tenant of the Freehold shall enure to him in Reversion because they are privies in Estate so that these two Estates in the Case at Bar make but one Office This is a publick Office of great Trust and concerns the Administration of Iustice and therefore 't is but reasonable to admit the Rule of Respondeat Superior lest the Party should be without remedy and the rather because Execution is the life of the Law 39 H. 6. 33. He who is in the Office as Superiour whether it be by droit or tort is accountable to the King and his People and this brings him within the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 11. or 1 R. 2. If the Defendant had granted the Office in Fee to Duckenfeild before any Escape had been and the Grantee had been admitted the Defendant then had been discharged or if he dye before or after the Action brought and before Iudgment moritur actio cum persona for if he had not reserved something he could not be charged and if he had parted with the Inheritance the privity had been gon but by reserving that he hath made himself liable for now he is Superiour he may exact Homage and Fealty and the particular Tenant is said to be attendant upon the Reversion and these are marks of Superiority And this Rule of respondeat superior holds not only between the principal Officer and his Deputy and between the Master and his Servant but in many other Cases one is to be answerable for another as 1. Where a Man has power to elect an Officer he is chargeable so the County hath power to elect Coroners and if they fail in their Duty the County shall be charged for by reason of the power they had to elect they are esteemed Superiours 4 Inst 314. 2 Inst 175. 2. Where one Man recommends another to an Office concerning the Kings Revenue the person who recommends is liable if the other prove insufficient and for this there is a notable Case 30 E. 3. 6. 'T is Porter's Case cited in the Case of the Earl of Devonshire 11 Co. 92. b. Where Porter being Master of the Mint covenanted with the King to deliver him Mony within 8 days for all the Bullion delivered ad Cambium Regis to Coyn which he did not perform Et quia Walwyn Picard duxerunt praesentaverunt the said Porter ideo consideratum est quod onerentur versus Dominum Regem 4 Inst 466. And why not the Defendant in this Case who praesentavit the said Duckenfeild to the Court tanquam sufficientem the reason being the same and the King is as much concerned in the ordering this Court of Iustice as in the ordering of his Coffers for as the Treasure is Nervus Belli so the execution of the Law is Nervus Pacis 3. In the Case of a dependant Officer though he is a proper Officer and no Deputy the person who hath the Reversion shall answer as in 32 H. 6. 34. 2 Inst 382. 9 Rep. 98. Dyer 278. b. The Duke of Norfolk who had the Inheritance of the Marshalsea was charged for an Escape suffered by one Brandon who was Tenant for Life in possession of the said Office and there is great reason it should be so for when a principal Officer may make an inferiour Officer who afterwards commits a Forfeiture the superiour shall take advantage of this Forfeiture and 't is as reasonable he should he answerable for his Miscarriage Cro. Eliz. 384. Poph. 119 The Earl of Pembrook against Sir Henry Berkley And therefore admitting the Defendant is out of the Statute yet he is within the Maxim of Respondeat Superior which is not grounded upon any Act of Parliament as appears in the Case of the Coroner and the Statute of Westm 2. And all other Acts which inculcate this Rule are but in affirmance of the Common Law and this is not only a Rule of the Common but also of the Civil Law which is served with the Equity of this Maxim in
Assurances c. of Land not being the Lands of the late King Queen Prince c. and not being Land sold for any pretended Delinquency since the first of June 1641. and all Statutes and Judgments suffered by the Offenders from being impeached from which it appears that the Parliament lookt upon entailed Lands as forfeited for if Estates made to others upon a valuable consideration had need of a Proviso to save them from Forfeiture à fortiori the Estates out of which those are derived have need of such a saving and therefore must be forfeit by the Act for which Reasons these Lands are forfeited As to the great Objection which hath been made and insisted on the other side and which is Trudgeons Case 22 Eliz. 1 Inst 130. Where Tenant in Tail was attainted in a Praemunire and it was adjudged that he should forfeit his Land but during his Life for though the Statue of 16 R. 2. cap. cap. 5. Enacts That in such Case their Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels shall be forfeited to the King yet that must be understood of such an Estate as he may lawfully forfeit and that is during his own life and therefore being general Words they do not take away the force of the Statute de donis so that his Lands in Fee-simple for life c. shall be forfeited but the Land entailed shall not during his life But the Answer is plain For in the Reign of R. 2. when the Statute of Praemunire was made Estates Tail were under a Perpetuity by the said Statute de donis which Statute is now much weakened in the Point of Alienation and the Law is quite altered since that time and 't is apparent by multitude of Presidents that such strict Constructions have not been made since that time to preserve Estates Tail from Forfeitures without special and particular Words 4 Co. 164. and therefore in the Case of Adams and Lambert which is a Case in Point the Iudges there construed Estates Tail to be forfeit for want of special Words in the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. to save it and that was only a Law made for suppressing of superstitious Vses upon a politick consideration but this is a much greater Offence intended to be punished by this Act in which there are demonstrations both from the Words and intent of the Law-makers to make this Estate forfeited to the Crown than in that Case so much relied on And Iudgment was given accordingly Wyld died before Iudgment was given but Iustice Twisden said he was of that Opinion and Jones Iustice concurred Basset versus Salter After an Escape the Plaintiff may have a Ca. Sa. or Sci. Fa. against the Sheriff IN an Action for an Escape the Question was whether the Plaintiff may take out a Ca. Sa. or have a Fi. Fa. against the Defendant after the Sheriff or Gaoler voluntarily suffer him to escape but the Court would not suffer it to be argued because it had been lately settled that it was at the Election of the Plaintiff to do either and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer-Chamber the Iudges there were of the same Opinion But in the Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan's time the Court of Common Pleas were divided but 't is since settled 1 Roll. Abridg. 901 902. If there be an Escape by the Plaintiffs consent though he did not intend it the Law is hard that the Debt should be thereby discharged as where one was in execution in the Kings Bench and some Proposals were made to the Plaintiff in behalf of the Prisoner who seeing there was some likelyhood of an Accomodation consented to a Meeting in London and desired the Prisoner might be there who came accordingly and this was held to be an Escape with the * If it had been by the consent of the Sheriff he could never take him again but the Plaintiff might Sid. 330. consent of the Plaintiff and he could never after be in Execution at his Suit for the same Matter Peck versus Hill In Communi Banco Bond good given in discharge of another Mod. Rep. 221. DEBT upon a Bond brought against the Defendant as Administrator who pleads that he gave another Bond in his own Name in discharge of the first Bond and upon Issue joined it was found for the Defendant and it was moved that Iudgment might not be entred hereupon because it was a bad Plea But North Chief Iustice and Wyndham and Scroggs Iustices were of Opinion that it was a good Plea because there was other Security given than what the Plaintiff had before for upon the first Bond he was only lyable de bonis Intestatoris but now he might be charged in his own Right Co. Lit. 122. b. which may be well said to be in full satisfaction of the first Obligation for where the Condition is for payment of Mony to the Party himself there if he accept any collateral thing in satisfaction 't is good If a Security be given by a Stranger it may discharge a former Bond and this in effect is given by such And 't is not like the Case in Hobert where a Bond was given by the same Party upon that very day a former Bond was payable and adjudged not a good discharge for the Obligee was in no better condition than he was before Iustice Atkins doubted but inclined that one Bond cannot be discharged by giving another though the Discharge be applied to the Condition of the Bond and for this he cited Cro. Car. 85. Cro. Eliz. 716 727. which was a Case adjudged so in Point and therefore this Plea upon Demurrer should have been over-ruled yet since Issue was taken upon it and a Verdict for the Defendant the Plea is helped by the Statute of Jeofails 32 H. 8. here being a direct Affirmative and Negative But as to that the Chief Iustice and Scroggs Iustice replied that an immaterial Issue no ways arising from the Matter is not helped as an Action of Debt upon a Bond laid to be made in London and the Defendant saith that it was made in Middlesex and this is tried 't is not aided by the Statute but there must be a Repleader But because it was sworn that the Obligor who was the intestate was alive four years after the time that the second Bond was given and for that reason it could not be given upon the accompt of the Defendants being liable as Administrator but must be intended a Bond to secure a Debt of his own therefore a new Trial was granted Cook and others versus Herle Covenant will lie in the personalty tho' the Grant be executed by the Statute of Uses which makes a Distress the proper remedy Mod. Rep. 223. IN Covenant the Case was this Charles Cook made a Iointure to Mary his Wife for life and died without Issue the Land descended to Thomas Cook his Brother and Heir who grants an Annuity or Rent Charge of 200 l. per
likewise addressed to my Lord as before making several Protestations of his Innocency But having once in a Passion said that he scorned to submit My Lord for that Reason would not remit the Damages it was therefore moved for a new Tryal upon these Reasons 1. Because the Witnesses who proved the Words were not Persons of Credit and that at the time when they were alledged to be spoken many Clergy-men were in Company with the Defendant and heard no such Words spoken 2. It was sworn that one of the Iury confessed that they gave such great damages to the Plaintiff not that he was damnified so much but that he might have the greater opportunity to shew himself noble in the remitting of them 3. And which was the principal Reason because the Damages were excessive Curia The Court delivered their Opinions seriatim and first The Chief Iustice North said In Cases of Fines for criminal Matters a Man is to be fined by Magna Charta with a salvo contenemento suo and no Fine is to be imposed greater than he is able to pay but in Civil Actions the Plaintiff is to recover by way of compensation for the damages he hath sustained and the Iury are the proper Iudges thereof This is a Civil Action brought by the Plaintiff for Words spoken of him which if they are in their own nature actionable the Iury ought to consider the damage which the Party may sustain but if a particular Averment of special damages makes them actionable then the Iury are only to consider such damages as are already sustained and not such as may happen in futuro because for such the Plaintiff may have a new Action He said that as a Iudge he could not tell what value to set upon the Honour of the Plaintiff the Iury have given 4000 l. and therefore he could neither lessen the Sum or grant a new Trial especially since by the Law the Iury are Iudges of the damages and it would be very inconvenient to examine upon what account they gave their Verdict they having found the Defendant guilty did believe the Witnesses and he could not now make a doubt of their Credibility Wyndham Iustice accorded in omnibus Atkins Iustice contra That a new Trial should be granted for 't is every days practice and he remembred the Case of Gouldston and Wood in the Kings Bench where the Plaintiff in an Action on the Case for Words for calling of him Bankrupt recovered 1500 l. and that Court granted a new Tryal because the damages were excessive The Iury in this Case ought to have respect only to the damage which the Plaintiff sustained and not to do an unaccountable thing that he might have an opportunity to shew himself generous and as the Court ought with one Eye to look upon the Verdict so with the other they ought to take notice what is contained in the Declaration and then to consider whether the Words and Damages bear any proportion if not then the Court ought to lay their hands upon the Verdict 'T is true they cannot lessen the damages but if they are too great the Court may grant a new Tryal Scroggs Iustice accorded with North and Wyndham that no new Tryal can be granted in this Cause He said that he was of Council with the Plaintiff before he was called to the Bench and might therefore be supposed to give Iudgment in favour of his former Client being prepossess'd in the Cause or else to shew himself more signally just might without considering the matter give Iudgment against him but that now he had forgot all former relation thereunto and therefore delivered his Opinion that if he had been of the Iury he should not have given such a Verdict and if he had been Plaintiff he would not take advantage of it but would overcome with Forgiveness such Follies and Indiscretions of which the Defendant had been guilty but that he did not sit there to give Advice but to do Iustice to the People He did agrèe that where an unequal Tryal was as such must be where there is any Practice with the Iury in such Case 't is good reason to grant a new Tryal but no such thing appearing to him in this Case a new Tryal could not be granted Suppose the Iury had given a scandalous Verdict for the Plaintiff as a Penny Damages he could not have obtained a new Trial in hopes to increase them neither shall the Defendant in hopes to lessen them and therefore by the Opinion of these three Iustices a new Tryal was not granted Afterwards in this Term Serjeant Maynard moved in Arrest of Iudgment and said that this Action was grounded upon the Statute of R. 2. Which consists of a Preamble reciting the Mischief and of the Enacting part in giving of a Remedy and that the Defendants Case was neither within the Mischief or the Remedy This Statute doth not create any Action by way of particular design and if the matter was now Res integra much might be said that an Action for Damages will not lye upon this Statute for the Statute of Westm 2. appoints that the Offender shall suffer imprisonment until he produces the Author of a false Report Ca. 33. and the Statute of 2 R. 2. which recites that of Westm 2. gives the same punishment and the Action is brought qui tam c. and yet the Plaintiff only recovers for himself It was usual to punish Offenders in this kind in the Star Chamber as in the * Earl of Northampton's Case where one Goodrick said of him That he wrote a Book against Garnet and a Letter to Bellarmine 12 Co. 132. intimating that what he wrote in the Book was not his Opinion but only ad captandum populum which was a great disgrace to him in those days being as much as to say he was a Papist Cro. Eliz. But the Serjeant would not insist upon that now since it hath been ruled that where a Statute prohibits the doing of a thing which if done might be prejudicial to another in such case he may have an Action upon that very Statute for his Damages But the ground on which he argued was that these words as spoken are not within the meaning of the Act for they are not actionable 1. Because they are no scandal and words which are actionable must import a great Scandal which no circumstance or occasion of speaking can excuse and if they are scandalous and capable of any mitigation by the precedent discourse the pleading of that matter will make them not actionable and for this the Lord * 4 Co. Cromwel's Case is a plain Authority the Words spoken of him were You like those that maintain Sedition against the King's Person the occasion of speaking of which was to give an account of his favouring the Puritan Preachers which was all that was intended by the former discourse for that Lord had approved a Sermon which was preached by a Parson
against the Common Prayer Book and the Defendant having forbid such Preaching the Lord told him that he did not like him upon which he spoke those Words so that the subject matter explained the sense for which reason it was adjudged that the Action would not lie 2. The scandal for which an Action may be brought within this Statute must be false for that word goes quite through the whole Act viz. false News false Lyes c. and the words here are so general that it cannot appear whether they are true or false for there can be no Iustification here as in case where a Man is charged with a particular Crime my Lord Townsend is not charged with any particular Act of Injustice as a Subject nor with any Misdemeanour as a Peer nor with any Offence in an Office If therefore in all Actions brought upon this Statute the Defendant may justifie and put the matter in Issue to try whether it be true or false and in this Case the Defendant can neither justifie nor traverse for this reason the Action will not lie That the Words are general and of a doubtful signification it cannot be denied for to say He is an unworthy Man imports no particular Crime Unworthy is a term of Relation as he is unworthy of my Friendship Acquaintance or Kindred and so may be applicable to any thing and a Lord may in many things be unworthy of a particular Mans Friendship as if he promises to pay a Sum of Mony at a day certain and faileth in the payment as 't is often seén such is an unworthy Man but that will not bear an Action He is an unworthy Man who invites another to Dinner to affront him but it will not bear an Action to say That a Lord invited me to a Dinner to abuse me neither will it be actionable to say He is an unworthy Man because such instances may be given of his Vnworthiness which will not bear an Action If my Lord had beén compared to any base and unworthy thing these Words might have béen actionable and that was the Case of the Lord Marquess of Dorchester it being said of him That there was no more value in him than in a Dog Then to say A Man acts against Law this is no Scandal because every Man who breaks a Penal Law and suffers the Penalty is not guilty of any Crime The Statute commands the burying in Woollen the Party buries one of his Family in Linnen in this he acts against the Law but if the Penalty is satisfied the Law is so likewise A Man who acts against Law acts against Reason because Lex est summa ratio but no instance is here given wherein he did thus act 'T is not said that he did act against Law wilfully or that he used to do any thing against Law and so cannot be like the Case of the Duke of Buckingham who brought an Action for these Words viz. You are used to do things against Law and put Cattle into a Castle where they cannot be replevied for there was not only an Vsage charged upon him but a particular instance of Oppression This Action lies for Words spoken of a Iudge of either Bench and of a Bishop as well as of a Peer Now if a Man should say A Judge acted against Law will an Action lie Because a Iudge may do a thing against Law and yet very justly and honestly unless all the Iudges were infallible and could not be subject to any mistakes which none will deny So if a Bishop return the Cause of his Refusal to admit a Clerk quia criminosus this is a Return against Law because 't is too general but if J. S. should say A Bishop acted against Law and shew that for Cause an Action would not lye If the the Lord Townsend had commanded his Bayliff to make a Distress without Cause that had been acting against Law and Reason He agreed the Words to be uncivil but not actionable for if such Construction should be made a Man must talk in Print or otherwise not speak any thing of a Peer for fear of an Action There are many Authorities where a Péer shall not have an Action for every trivial and slight Expression spoken of him As to say of a Péer He keeps none but Rogues and Rascals about him like himself by the Opinion of two Iustices Yelverton and Flemming the Action would not lie because they are Words of Scolding and this was the Case of the Earl of Lincoln Cro. Jac. 196. But the Court was divided the Defendant died and so the Writ abated Actions for Words have béen of late too much extended formerly there were not above two or three brought in many years and if this Statute should be much inlarged the Lords themselves will be prejudiced thereby by maintaining Actions one against another Vpon this Statute of 2 R. 2 c. 5 there was no Action brought till 13 H. 7. which was above an hundred years after the making of that Law and the occasion of making the Law was because the Duke of Lancaster who was then the first Prince of the Blood took notice that divers were so hardy as to speak of him several lying Words 1 R. 2. num 56. and therefore this Statute was made to punish those who devised false News and horrible and false Lies of any Peer c. whereby Discords might arise between the Lords and Commons and great Peril and Mischief to the Realm and quick Subversion thereof Now from the natural intent and construction of these Words in the Act can it be supposed that if one should say Such a Peer is an unworthy Man that the Kingdom would be presently in a flame and turned into a state of confusion and Civil War and to say That he acts against Law that the Government would thereby be in danger to be lost and quick Subversion would follow This cannot be the common and ordinary understanding of these Words If therefore the Plaintiff by speaking these Words was in no hazard nor any wise damnified if he was not touched in his Loyalty as a Péer nor in danger of his Life as a Subject if he was not thereby subjected to any Corporal or Pecuniary Punishment nor charged with any Breach of Oath nor with a particular Miscarriage in any Office if the Words are so general that they import no Scandal and are neither capable of any Iustification and lastly if they are not such horrible Lies as are intended to be punished by the Statute for these Reasons he concluded the Action would not lie and therefore prayed that the Iudgment might be arrested Serjeant Baldwin and Serjeant Barrel argued on the same side for the Defendant but nothing was mentioned by them which is not fully insisted on in the Argument of Serjeant Maynard for which Reason I have not reported their Arguments But Pemberton Serjeant who argued for the Plaintiff said Ex parte Quer. that it would conduce much to
the understanding of the Statute of 2 R. 2. cap. 5. upon which this Action of Scandalum Magnatum was grounded to consider the occasion of the making of it In those days the English were quite of another Nature and Genius from what they are at this time the Constitution of this Kingdom was then Martial and given to Arms the very Tenures were Military and so were the Services as Knights Service Castleguard and Escuage There were many Castles of defence in those days in the hands of private Men their Sports and Pastimes were such as Tilts and Turnaments and all their Imployments were tending to bréed them up in Chivalry Those who had any dependency upon Noble Men were enured to Bows and Arrows and to signalize themselves in Valour it was the only way to Riches and Honour Arts and Sciences had not got such ground in the Kingdom as now but the Commons had almost their dependance upon the Lords whose Power then was exceéding great and their Practices were conformable to their Power and this is the true Reason why so few Actions were formerly brought for Scandals because when a Man was injured by Words he carved out his own Remedy by his Sword There are many Statutes made against riding privately armed which Men used in those days to repair themselves of any Injury done unto them for they had immediately recourse to their Arms for that purpose and seldom or never used to bring any Actions for damages This was their Revenge and having thus made themselves Iudges in their own Cases it was reasonable that they should do themselves Iustice with their own Weapons but this Revenge did not usually end in private Quarrels they took Parties ingaged their Friends their Tenants and Servants on their sides and by such means made great Factions in the Commonwealth by reason whereof the whole Kingdom was often in a flame and the Government as often in danger of being subverted so that Laws were then made against wearing Liverys or Badges and against riding armed This was the mischief of those times to prevent which this Statute of R. 2. was made and therefore all provoking and vilifying Words which were used before to exasperate the Peers and to make them betake themselves to Arms by the intent of this Act are clearly forbidden which was made chiefly to prevent such consequences for it was to no purpose to make a Law and thereby to give a Péer an Action for such Words as a common person might have before the making of the Statute and for which the Peer himself had a Remedy also at the Common Law and therefore needed not the help of this Act. If then the design of this Statute was to hinder such practices as aforesaid the next thing to be considered is what was usual in those days to raise the Passions of Peers to that degreé and that will appear to be not only such things as imported a great Scandal in themselves or such for which an Action lay at the Common Law but even such things as savoured of any Contempt of their persons and such as brought them into disgrace with the Commons for hereby they took occasion of Provocation and Revenge 'T is true that very few Actions were brought upon this Statute in some considerable time after it was made for though such practices were thereby prohibited the Lords did not presently apply themselves to the Remedy therein given but continued the Military way of Revenge to which they had béen accustomed As to the first Objection that hath been made he gave no answer to it because it was not much insisted upon on the other side whether an Action would lye upon this Statute for the very words of it are sufficient ground for an Action and 't is very well known that whereever an Act prohibits an evil thing Maxim the person against whom such thing is done may maintain an Action This Statute consists of two parts the first is prohibitory Vide Ante. Viz. That no Man shall do so c. Then comes the additional Clause and saith That if he do he shall incur such Penalty 'T is on the first part that this Action is grounded and so it was in the Earl of Northampton's Case in that Report which goes under the name of the Lord Coke's 12th Report where by the Resolution of all the Iudges in England except Flemming who was absent it was adjudged that it was not necessary that any particular Crime should be fixed on the Plaintiff or any Offence for which he might be indicted So are the Authorities in all the Cases relating to this Action In the Lord * 4 Co. 13. b. 2 Cro. 196. Cromwel's Case for these Words You like those who maintain Sedition In the Lord of Lincoln's Case My Lord is a base Earl and a paultry Lord and keepeth none but Rogues and Rascals like himself In the Duke of Buckingham's Case He has no more Conscience than a Dog In the Lord * Hill 16 Car. 2 Rot. 1269. Affirmed in a Writ of Error in B R. Marquess of Dorchester's Case He is no more to be valued than the Black Dog which lies there All which Words were held actionable and yet they touch not the persons in any thing concerning the Government or charge them with any Crime but in point of Dignity or Honour And they were all villifying Words and might give occasion of Revenge And so are the Words for which this Action is brought they are rude uncivil and ill natured Unworthy is as much as to say base and ignoble a contemptible Person and a Man of neither Honour or Merit And thus to speak of a Nobleman is a Reflection upon the King who is the Fountain of Honour that gives it to such persons who are in his Iudgment deserving by which they are made capable of advising him in Parliament and it would be very dishonourable to call unworthy Men thither 'T is likewise a dishonour to the Nobility to have such a person to fit among them as a Companion and to the Commons to have their proceedings in Parliament transmitted to such Peérs so that it tends to the dishonour of all Dignities both of King Lords and Commons and thereby discords may arise between the two Houses which is the Mischief intended to be remedied by this Act. Then the following Words are as scandalous for to say A Man acts against Law and Reason imports several such acts done a Man is not denominated to be unworthy by doing of one single Act for in these Words more is implied than to say he hath done an unworthy thing for the Words seem to relate to the Office which the Plaintiff had in the Country as Lord Lieutenant which is an Office of great Honour and can any thing tend to cause more discord and disturbance in the Kingdom than to say of a great Officer That he acts according to the dictates of his Will and Pleasure the consequence
of which is that he will be rather scorned than obeyed It hath been objected that the Words are general and charge him not with any act Answ The Scandal is the greater for 't is not so bad to say A Man did such a particular thing against Law and Reason as to say He acts against Law which is as much as to say his constant course and practice is such And to say that the Words might be meant of breaking a Penal Law that is a foreign Construction for the plain sense is he acts against the known Laws of the Kingdom and his practice and designs are so to do for he will be guided neither by Law or Reason Object It has been objected that the Scandal must be false But whether true or not there can be no justification here because they are so general that they cannot be put in Issue Answ He agreed that no Action would lye upon this Statute if the words were true but in some Cases the divulging of a Scandal was an Offence at the Common Law now to argue as on the other side that the Defendant cannot justifie and therefore an Action will not lye is a false Consequence because words may be scandalous and derogatory to the dignity of a Peer and yet the subject matter may not be put in Issue He agreed also that occasional Circumstances may extenuate and excuse the Words though ill in themselves but this cannot be applied to the Case in question because the Words were not mitigated The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty and insisted on his Innocence the Iury have found him Guilty which is an aggravation of his Crime if he would have extenuated them by any occasion upon which they were spoken he should have pleaded it specially or offered it in Evidence neither of which was done This Act is to be taken favourably for him against whom the Words are spoken because 't is to prevent great Mischiefs which may fall out in the Kingdom by rude and uncivil discourses and in such Cases 't is usual for Courts rather to enlarge the remedy than to admit of any extenuation for which reasons he prayed that the Plantiff might have his Iudgment It was argued by Serjeant Calthrop on the same side and to the same effect Afterwards this Term all the Iudges argued this Case Argument at the Bench. seriatim at the Bench. And first Iustice Scroggs said That the greatness of the Damages given should not prevail with him either on the one side or the other at the Common Law no Action would lye for such Words though spoken of a Peer for such Actions were not formerly much countenanced but now since a Remedy is given by the Statute Words should not be construed either in a rigid or mild sense but according to the genuine and natural meaning and agreeable to the common understanding of all Men. At the Barr the strained sense for the Plaintiff is that these Words import He is no Man of Honour and for the Defendant that they import no Scandal and that no more was meant by them but what may be said of every Man 'T is true in respect of God Almighty we are all Vnworthy but the subsequent Clause explains what unworthiness the Defendant intended for he infers him to be Unworthy because he acts against Law and Reason Now whether the Words thus explained fix any Crime on the Plaintiff is next to be considered and he was of Opinion that they did fix a Crime upon him for to say He is an unworthy Man is as much as to say He is a vitious person and is the same as to call him a corrupt Man which in the Case of a Peer is actionable for general words are sufficient to support such an Action though not for a common person To say a Man acts against Law and Reason is no Crime if he do it ignorantly and therefore if he had said My Lord was a weak Man for he acts against Law and Reason such words had not been actionable but these Words as spoken do not relate to his Vnderstanding but to his Morals they relate to him also as a Peer though the contrary has been objected that they relate to him only as a Man which is too nice a distinction for to distinguish between a Man and his Peerage is like the distinction between the person of the King and his Authority which hath been often exploded the words affect him in all qualities and all relations It has been also objected that the Words are too general and like the Case of the Bishops Return that a Man is criminosus which is not good But though they are general in the Case of a Peer they are actionable for to say of a Bishop That he is a wicked Man these are as general words and yet an Action will lye It has been also objected That general Words cannot be justified but he was of another Opinion as if the Plaintiff who was Lord Lieutenant of the County had laid an unequal charge upon a Man who upon complaint made to him ordered such charge to stand and that his will in such case should be a Law If the person should thereupon say That the Lord had done Unworthily and both against Law and Reason those words might have been justified by shewing the special matter either in Pleading or Evidence 'T is too late now to examine whether an Action will lye upon this Statute that must be taken for granted and therefore was not much insisted on by those who argued for the Defendant for the Authorities are very plain that such Actions have been allowed upon this Statute The Words as here laid to be spoken are not so bad as the Defendant might speak but they are so bad that an Action will lye for them and though they are general yet many Cases might be put of general words which import a Crime and were adjudged actionable The Earl of Leicester's Case He is an Oppressor The Lord of Winchester's Case He kept me in Prison 'till I gave him a Release these words were held actionable because the plain inference from them is That they were Oppressors The Lord Abergavenny's Case He sent for me and put me into Little Ease It might be presumed that that Lord was a Iustice of Peace as most Peers are in their Counties and that what he did was by colour of his Authority so are all the Cases cited by those who argued for the Plaintiff in some of which the words were strained to import a Crime and yet adjudged actionable especially in the Case of the Lord Marquess of Dorchester He is to be valued no more than a Dog which are less slanderous Words than those at the Bar because the slander is more direct and positive It appears by all these Cases that the Iudges have always construed in favour of these Actions and this has been done in all probability to prevent those dangers that otherwise might ensue if the Lords
Party to Bail but 't is sub modo it must be upon good Bail and if the Sheriff be Iudge of the Security 't is an Argument that he is lyable for if he was not in danger he need not take Security But afterwards upon the second Argument the Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant North Chief Iustice The Common Law was very rigorous as to the execution of Process the Capias was ita quod habeas the Body at the day of the Return and if the Sheriff had arrested one it had been an Escape to let him go Before the making of this Statute the Sheriff usually took Sureties for the appearance of the Prisoner and by this means used great Extortion and took great Sums of Mony to prevent which Mischiefs this Statute was made and so designed 1. For the ease of the Prisoner the Sheriff being now compellable to take Security which he was not obliged to do before 2. To prevent Extortion and therefore directs that a Bond shall be taken in such manner and with such conditions as is therein mentioned But the Plaintiff since the Statute is much in the same condition as before for he is to make the same Return of Cepi Corpus 'T is true he may now let him go upon Bail but as to the Creditor he is to have him in Court to answer his Suit as before and shall be amerced if he doth not appear at the Return of the Writ so that tho' this Statute be an ease to the Defendant yet 't is a burthen to the Sheriff who runs a greater hazard since the making of this Act than before because then he might keep him in prison till the Debt was satisfied but now he is obliged to let him at large upon Bail from whom he is directed to take a Bond which he may keep in his own hands to indempnifie himself The Court can only amerce him if the Defendant do not appear at the Return of the Process and 't is not material to the party whether the Sheriff take one or more Security that being in his discretion some he must take for otherwise 't is directly in opposition to the Statute neither is it material to the party whether they are such as are sufficient for if they are not and the Defendant is thereupon discharged this will not amount to an Escape because nothing is done but what is pursuant to the Statute and therefore he is no otherwise chargeable than by Amerciaments The Statute was made and intended for the benefit of the Debtor not of the Creditor and there might be some colour for the Action if the Sheriff might Return that he let him to Bail for then it might have been necessary to have alledged the sufficiency of them which might have been traversed but now he must pursue the substance of the Statute so far as to take Bail he is the proper Iudge of the sufficiency and when the Bail is taken he must return a Cepi Corpus so that he is only to be amerced till he bring in the Body but an Escape will not lie against him Long 's Case ONE Long was arrested in the Pallace-Yard Priviledge of an Attorny not far distant from the Hall Gate the Court being then sitting and being an Attorny of this Court he together with the Officer was brought into Court and the Officer was committed to the Fleet that he might learn to know his distance and because the Plaintiff was an Attorny of the Court of Kings-Bench who informed this Court that his cause of Action was for 200 l. therefore the Court ordered that another of the Sheriffs Bayliffs should take charge of the Prisoner and that Mr. Robinson the Chief Prothonotary should go along with him to the Court of Kings-Bench which was done and that Court being informed how the Case was discharged the Defendant upon filing of common Bail The Writ upon which this Long was arrested was an Attachment of Priviledge which the Court supposed to be made on purpose to oust him of his Priviledge for there was another Writ against him at the Sheriffs Office at the Suit of another person The Countess of Northumberland's Case Knights must be of the Jury where a Peer is concerned ADjudged that where a Péer is Party either Plaintiff or Defendant two or more Knights must be returned of the Iury and it was said that in Cumberland there was but one Free-holder who was a Knight besides Sir Richard Stote a Serjeant at Law and the Court were of Opinion that rather than there should be a failure of Iustice a Serjeant of Law ought to be returned a Iury-man for his Priviledge would not extend to a Case of necessity Bell versus Knight In Banco Regis Smiths Forges are chargeable with the Duty of Fire-hearth IN an Action of Trover Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict in which the Point was upon the Construction of the Statute of 14 Car. 2. c. 10. for the establishing of an additional Revenue upon the King his Heirs and Successors for the better support of his and their Crown and Dignity by which it is Enacted That for every Fire-Hearth and Stove in every House the yearly Sum of 2 s. shall be paid to the King other than such as in the said Act are exempted Then comes a Proviso which saith That this Act shall not extend to charge any Blowing House Stamp Furnace or Kilne c. And the Question now was whether a Smiths Forge shall be charged with this Duty Winnington Sollicitor General conceived that all Fire-Hearths are liable within the Body of the Act and there is nothing to exempt them but what is in the Exception and that a Smiths Forge cannot be called a Blowing House within the intent of the Act notwithstanding the Iury have found that Smiths use Bellows to blow their Forges For by Blowing Houses such Houses are meant as are in Staffordshire and Suffolk for the making of Iron these were the Blowing-Houses intended by the Parliament to be excepted and no other for if Smiths Forges had béen meant thereby those would have been inserted in the Proviso as well as the other things therein mentioned Words are to be taken in a common Vnderstanding for if a Traveller should enquire for a Blowing House no Body would send him to a Smiths Forge By the Opinion of the whole Court Curia it was adjudged upon the first Argument that Smiths Forges are liable to this Duty and so the Sollicitor said it had been lately adjudged in this Court by the Opinion of Twisden Wyld and Rainsford and that my Lord Chief Iustice Hale was of the same Opinion but Twisden said that neither the Chief Iustice or himself gave any Iudgment upon the Merits but upon a Point in Pleading Stroud versus the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Sir George Horner In Communi Banco IN a Quare Impedit
Rent why should he pay where he hath none to receive And that this was the meaning of the Parliament may further appear by a Clause in the Act of 16 Car. 2. cap. 3. made for collecting this Duty by Officers appointed by the King which doth not inlarge the former Statutes and by which 't is Enacted That if any Occupier shall leave his House before any of the half yearly Feasts whereon this Duty is appointed to be paid that the next Occupier shall be chargeable with the same for the said half year Which Clause had been altogether vain and of no use if empty Houses had been chargeable with this Duty for to what purpose was it to charge a succeeding Occupier when the House it self though untenanted was chargeable before In this Act also which supplies the defects of the former this Duty is made payable unto the Officer upon demand at the House where the same shall arise and grow due and that in case of refusal by the space of an hour the Officer may distrein which shews a Demand must be where there may be a Refusal and no Refusal can be where there is no Occupier There is also another Clause which mentions both Owner and Occupier in this Act and which saith That no Proprietor Owner or Occupier shall be molested or charged unless within two years after the Duty accrewed so that where-ever a charge is laid or an ease is given to the Subject the Word Occupier and sometimes both Occupier and Owner promiscuoslly are used but where a payment is to be made the Owner is never mentioned and if so nothing shall be intended within either of the Statutes to enlarge this Duty upon the Subject beyond the Words and plain meaning thereof 2. There is another Point in this Case which concerns the King and all the People of England that is whether the Defendant here can be charged with a Distress supposing this Duty is to be paid to the King before any account of these Hearths is transmitted into the Exchequer which first ought to be done or otherwise the consequence will be that the Officer may demand and take as much as he will at his pleasure and the King may be likewise prejudiced in his Revenue for as the Collector may have from the Subject more than he ought and more than he is empowered to take by the Law so he may pay the King less The Act directs That an Account shall be taken by the Officers and examined by the Constables then to be transmitted to the Sessions there to be enrolled and from thence sent into the Exchequer now what occasion was there of all this Solempnity if that the King was entituled to a Distress upon a bare refusal This being a Rent Charge upon a Mans Inheritance the King shall not be entituled to it but by matter of Record for he cannot take or part with any thing neither can he have any Estate or Profit rendered him out of another Mans Estate but by matter of Record so that it seems by the Act that this accompt is necessary to be transmitted into the Exchequer and that the King is not entituled to a Distress for this Duty until that be actually done which is not only matter of Information to the Crown but in some measure intitles him to it because there is a Penalty of five pounds laid upon the Officer who shall neglect to bring in such accompt which shews that the Subject ought not to be charged before for which reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Plaintiff Ex parte Def. But on the other side it was argued by Mr. Holt and the Attorny General that empty Houses should pay this Duty For the Attorny General said that the Words in the Act were so express that he was of Opinion that the very reading of them would clear the Point in question In their Arguments two things were considered upon the Statute of 14 Car. 2. 1. First the general Clause which gives the Duty in the Body of the Act. 2. The discharge in the Proviso And if this be in the Body of the Act and not excepted in the Proviso then the Duty is to be paid and as to that it was said that this Duty was given in general Words by which it appears that there was a design and intent to charge empty Houses for every dwelling House Edifice or House whatsoever is to pay this Duty and that if every House why not an empty House 'T is true a Dwelling House is not a House wherein there hath not been an Inhabitant but wherein some body doth actually live and if a Man furnishes a House very well if 't is not inhabited it is notwithstanding an empty House and such a House as to some purposes in the Law is not a dwelling House for 't is not a Mansion House so as to make it Burglary for the breaking of it open By the second Clause Every Owner or Occupier is to subscribe the Account to be sent into the Exchequer by which it appears that those Words Owner and Occupier are not there used in a different sense for if the Occupier were only lyable the Owner need not look after the signing the accompt of every Hearth The third Clause takes notice That if it should happen there be no Occupier then the Officer may go into the empty House to examine if the account given him be true now if an account is to be taken of such Houses as are charged by this Act and an account is directed to be taken of empty Houses then such empty Houses must be charged and this seemed to them to be the intent and meaning of the Parliament for there being a Return to be made of empty Houses if such had not been intended to be charged they would have directed a Return also to have been made of the non-inhabitancy And therefore they thought that something more than an Occupier was here meant for otherwise the Word Owner had not been put in the meaning of which must be that dwelling Houses come within the charge of Occupiers and empty Houses within the charge of the Owners Then as to the Proviso That the Duty hereby arising shall be charged only upon the Occupiers and Dwellers of such Houses their Executors and Administrators that can in no sort extend to discharge an empty House because 't is not the subject matter of the Proviso for the design and purpose of it was not to discharge the Duty but to transfer the charge upon the Tenant where the House was inhabited for if a contrary construction should be made then no Duty should be paid at all by the Owner himself if he should live in his own House In the Case of a Modus decimandi 't is payable by the Occupier and Possessor of the House and the Landlord is never charged but where there is no Occupier As to the Objection That 't is hard to pay a Duty where a Man has no
Profit it was answered That the Act took care that Men should not stop up their Chimnies when once made and that this Duty was paid for many Chimnies which were never used and what Profit can a Man have of a Chimny he never useth If there had been an Act that so much should be paid for every Window 't is all one whether it had been for profit or pleasure or whether the Window had been used or not and there is as much reason that a Man should pay for Houses never Inhabited as for such as have been Inhabited and are afterwards without Tenants This Act ought therefore to receive a favourable Construction the Preamble whereof mentions that it was for the encreasing of the Kings Revenue which is pro bono publico and which is for the Peace and Prosperity of the Nation and the protection of every single person therein and though a particular Inconvenience may follow the Party ought to submit When a Man builds a House he proposes a Profit and 't is not fit the Kings Duty should be contingent and depend till he has provided himself of a Tenant Object As to the other Objection that was much relied on viz. where the Act speaks of an Accompt to be given it mentions both Owner and Occupier but where it directs the Payment of the Duty the Occupier only is named by which it was inferred that he alone was chargeable Answ In 16 Car. 2. cap. 3. Owner Proprietor and Occupier are used promiscuously wherein it is provided that they shall not be charged unless within two years after the Duty accrued now if the Owner was not chargeable why is he mentioned there As to the second Point they conceived that the Duty being payeable to the King he had a remedy by distress before the Accompt was certified into the Exchequer for the Return was to inform the King what advantage he maketh of his Revenue and no Process issued upon it besides the Act vests the Duty in him from Lady-day 1662. And by reason of that he may distrain The King hath no benefit by returning of the Account that being only intended to prevent his being cheated so that 't is not to entitle but to inform him 't is only to return a just and true account not but that it may be levied and the King entitled before and 't is no inconvenience to the Subject if there be no such Account returned for if the Officer distrain for more Hearths than in truth there are the Subject has a proper remedy against him The King suffers when Returns are not made of such Duties as he ought to have for the support of his Dignity and because he is lyable to be defrauded in the managing of his Duty is it reasonable that he should lose all As to what was said of the Kings taking by matter of Record 't is true if he divest an Inheritance as in case of Attainder it must be by Record but here the very Duty is given to him by the Act it self which makes it a different Case If the King should be seised in Fee of a great Wast which happens to be improved by his Tenants and thereby Tythes become due it may be as well said that he shall have no Tythes without Record as to say he shall have no Hearth-Mony for Houses newly erected whereby his Revenue is increased For which Reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant and upon the second Argument Iudgment was given accordingly for him Curia That empty Houses are subject and lyable to this Duty Astry versus Ballard IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for the taking of Coals upon Not-Guilty pleaded Grants must be taken according to common intendment Jones 71. the Iury found a special Verdict The Case was thus Viz. That one J. R. was seised in Fee of the Manor of Westerly and being so seised did demise all the Mesuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments that he had in the said Manor for a Term of years to N. R. in which demise there was a recital of a Grant of the said Mannor Mesuages Lands Tenements Commons and Mines but in the Lease it self to R. the Word Mines was left out Afterwards the Reversion was sold to the Plaintiff Astry and his Heirs by Deed enrolled and at the time of this demise there were certain Mines of Coals open and others which were not then open and the Coals for which this Action of Trover was brought were digged by the Lessee in those Mines which were not open at the time of the Lease and whether he had power so to do was the Question It was said That when a Man is seised of Lands wherein there are Mines open and others not open and a Lease is made of these Lands in which the Mines are mentioned Antea 'T is no new Doctrine to say that the close Mines shall not pass Mens Grants must be taken according to usual and common intendment and when Words may be satisfied they shall not be strained farther than they are generally used for no violent Construction shall be made to prejudice a Mans Inheritance contrary to the plain meaning of the Words A Mine is not properly so called 'till it is opened 't is but a Vein of Coals before and this was the Opinion of my Lord Coke in point in his first Inst 54. b. Where he tells us 5 Co. 12. Sanders Case Roll. Abr. 2 part 816. that if a Man demises Lands and Mines some being opened and others not the Lessee may use the Mines opened but hath no power to dig the unopened Mines and of this Opinion was the whole Court and Iustice Twisden said That he knew no reason why my Lord Coke's single Opinion should not be as good an Authority as Fitzherbert in his Nat. Br. or the Doctor and Student Ipsley versus Turk IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment in an Inferiour Court What is admitted in pleading shall not be assigned for Error Jones 81. the Error assigned was That the Mayor who was Iudge of the Court did not receive the Sacrament at any Parish Church nor file any Certificate so that he was not Mayor and Iudgment being given against the Defendant before him it was therefore Coram non Judice like the Case of Hatch and Nichols Roll. Abr. 1 part tit Error 761. Where upon a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment in an Inferiour Court the Error assigned was that the Stile of the Court was Curia tent̄ coram J. S. Seneschallo who was not Steward and that was held to be an Error in fact But on the other side it was insisted that this was not Error because the Acts of the Mayor should not be void as to Strangers The Statute of 25 Car. 2. cap. 2. for preventing of dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants disables the Party who is not qualified according to the Act to hold an Office and if he execute the same afterwards
and so North Chief Iustice said that it had been lately ruled in the Common Pleas. Afterwards the Court of Kings-Bench was moved for a Prohibition in this Case and it was denied so that in this Case there was the Opinion of all the three Courts This matter was so much laboured because twenty four Quakers were reported to be concerned in the Rate and they were unwilling to pay towards the Building of a Church Paget versus Vossius In B. R. A Trial at the Bar in Ejectione Firmae Judgment given upon the Construction of words in a Will Jones 73. 1 Ventris 325. in which the Iury found a special Verdict The Case was Viz. That Dr. Vossius the Defendant being an Alien and a Subject of the States of Holland falling into Disgrace there had his Pension taken from him by Publick Authority Afterwards he came into England and contracted a great Friendship with one Dr. Brown a Prebendary of Windsor Then a War broke out between England and Holland and the King issued forth his Proclamation declaring the said War and the Hollanders to be Alien Enemies Dr. Brown being seised of the Lands now in question being of the value of 200 l. per Ann. and upwards made his Will in these words in Writing Inter alia Viz. Item I give all my Mannour of S. with all my Freehold and Copyhold Lands c. to my dear Friend Dr. Isaac Vossius during his Exile from his own Native Country but if it please God to restore him to his Country or take him out of this Life then I give the same immediately after such restoration or death to Mrs. Abigal Hevenigham for ever A Peace was afterwards concluded between England and Holland whereby all Intercourses of Trade between the two Nations became lawful but Dr. Vossius was not sent for over by the States nor was there any offer of kindness to him but his Pension was disposed of and given to another That the Doctor might return into his own Country when he pleased but that he still continued in England And whether he or the Lessor of the Plaintiff Mrs. Heveningham had the better Title was the question Nota Dr. Vossius was enabled to take by Grant from the King Ex parte Quer. Pemberton Serjeant for the Lessor of the Plaintiff argued that the Estate limited to the Defendant is determined which depended upon the construction of this Devise He did agree that the Will was obscure and the intent of the Devisor must be collected from the circumstances of the Case and it is a Rule That according to the * 2 Cro. 62 371 416. intent of the Parties a Will is to be interpreted 'T is plain then that the Devisor never intended the Defendant an Estate for Life absolutely because it was to depend upon a Limitation and the Words are express to that purpose for he devises to him during his Exile c. Now the Question is not so much what is the genuine and proper sence and signification of those Words as what the Testator intended they should signifie 1. Therefore the most proper signification of the Word Exile is a penal Prohibiting a person from his Native Country and that is sometimes by Iudgment or Edict as in the case of an Act of Parliament and sometimes 't is chosen to escape a greater Punishment as in cases of Abjuration and Transportation c. But he did not think that the Testator took the Word Exile in this restrained sense for Dr. Vossius was never formally or solemnly Banished if that should be the sense of the Word then nothing would pass to the Doctor by this Will because the Limitation would be void and like to the Case of a Devise to a Married Woman durante viduitate and she dies in the life-time of her Husband or to a Woman Sole during her Coverture or of a Devise to A. the Remainder to the right Heis of B. and A. dies living B so that this could not be his meaning 2. The Word Exile in common parlance is taken only for absence from ones Native Country but this is a very improper signification of the Word and nothing but a Catachresis can justifie it and therefore the Testator could not intend it in this sense 't is too loose and inconsiderable an Interpretation of the Word for the Iudgment of the Court to depend on unless there were circumstantial Proofs amounting almost to a Demonstration that it was thus meant But it plainly appears by the following Words this was not the meaning of the Testator for 't is said If it please God to restore him to his Country which shews that there was some Providence or other which obstructed his return thither and so could not barely intend a voluntary absence for if so he might have expressed it viz. during his absence from his Country or till his return thither or whilst he should stay in England and not in such doubtful Words 3. By the Word Exile is meant a persons lying under the displeasure of the Government where he was born or of some great persons who have an Influence upon the Government or have an Authority over him which makes him think convenient considering such circumstances to withdraw himself and retire to some other place and this is a sense of the Word between both the former and even in the Common Law we are not strangers to the acceptation of the Word in that sense There is a Case omni exceptione major in the Writ of Waste which is fecit vastum de domibus venditionem de boscis exilium de hominibus 't is in the Register and in the Writ on the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. where by the exilium de hominibus is meant the hard usage of Tenants or the menacing of them whereby they flie from their Habitations 2 H. 6. 11. 'T is found in this Case that the Defendant was under the displeasure of his Governours the War broke out and therefore it might not then be safe for him to return and for that reason he might think it safe for himself to abide here and this Dr. Brown the Testator might know which might also be the reason of making the Will But now all acts of Hostility are past and so the Defendants recess is open and it hath pleased God to restore the Doctor but he is not pleased to restore himself for the Iury find he is not returned now if a Man hath an Estate under such a Limitation to do a thing which may be done when it pleaseth the party in such case if he neglect or refuse to do the thing the Estate is determined 15 H. 7. 1. If I grant a Man an Annuity till he be promoted to a Benefice and I provide a Presentation for him and he will not be Instituted and Inducted the Annuity ceases so shall the Estate in this Case because the Devisor seems to appoint it to the Defendant till he may return
cap. 2. That all and every person or persons who shall have any Office Civil or Military shall take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and receive the Sacrament within the time limited by the said Act or otherwise shall be adjudged ipso facto incapable and disabled by Law or if he execute any Office after his neglect or refusal to qualifie himself within the time therein appointed viz. three Months then he shall be disabled to sue in any Court and shall forfeit the Sum of 500 l. Sir John Read was made High Sheriff of Hartfordshire 12 Novemb 25 Car. 2. and being still under the Sentence of Excommunication he took upon him the Office and executed it for 3 Months viz. to the 12th day of February afterwards and then refused to serve any longer the Iudges came soon after to keep the Assises for that County but there was no Sheriff there to attend them and the reason was because if he had executed the Office without taking the Oaths the time being now expired wherein he ought to have taken the same then he had subjected himself to the forfeiture of 500 l. and he could not receive the Sacrament because he was Excommunicated and therefore supposed that after the 3 Months he was ipso facto discharged by the aforesaid Statute and whether upon all this matter the Defendant be guilty was the Question Ward and Sir William Jones the Attorny General argued that the Defendant was Guilty 1. The Oath and Sacrament are necessary qualifications for all Sheriffs because the Act appoints these things to be done and the Penalty therein extends to those who execute any Office after the three Months without doing the same but not to such who neglect to qualifie themselves And though it may be objected that the Act gives no Penalty for not taking of the Oath it only enjoyns it to be done and subjects the person to the forfeiture of 500 l. for executing an Office after three Months that being not done so that this is not to be punished by Information it being no Offence at the Common Law yet if an Act appoints a thing to be done the transgressing of the Law is an Offence at the Common Law and ought thus to be punished and so it was adjudged in Castle 's Case 2 Cro. 643. 1 Roll. Abr. â—51 455. Suppose the Defendant had given Bond to perform a thing a discharge by the Act of God or by the Obligee had been good but the Obligor should never disable himself and if it be so in private Contracts much more in the Case of the King because our Duty to him is of the highest nature 2. Therefore the Excommunication can be no excuse to the Defendant for though he might have been excused if he had been under a legal disability which he could in no wise prevent yet here he was able and had time enough and it was in his power to have discharged himself from this Excommunication and being bound by his Duty and Allegiance to the King to perform the Office he ought to qualifie himself for the performance and either to remove the disability or shew he had not power to do it 'T is his obstinacy that disables him and 't is absurd to think that this Excommunication which was designed as a punishment should now be an ease to him to excuse him from executing this Office Moor 121. Lacie's Case 3. That the Defendant is punishable for this neglect otherwise the King would lose the effect of his Subjects Service if it should be in their power to discharge themselves at pleasure an Act of Parliament cannot and much less the Defendant himself by his own act take away his Duty and Service which he oweth to the King And therefore though 't is Enacted That a Sheriff shall be only for one year yet it has been adjudged that the King by a Non obstante may dispense with that Statute Antea because otherwise he would be deprived of the Service of his Subjects If a Sheriff when he is first admitted into his Office refuses to take the Oath of his Office he is finable and so he ought here if any alteration be made by the King of that Oath his disobedience afterwards is punishable Cro. Car. 26. though a form of the Oath is prescribed by the Act of Parliament and there is no other way to punish the Defendant in this Case but by Information for after the three Months in case he execute the Office not being qualified the Act gives the Penalty to the Informer and if he should not execute it the inconvenience would be great because 't is and Office which concerneth the Administration of Iustice and necessary for the management and collection of the Kings Revenue The Statute extends to Offices of Trust as well as of Profit and enjoyns the thing to be done the transgression whereof is an Offence as well at the Common Law as against the Statute and so punishable by Information and therefore they prayed Iudgment against the Defendant Sawyer and Levins contra Viz. They agreed if the Subject be qualified he ought to accept the Office Ex parte Def. but the Defendant was not so qualified and therefore to be excused But before they entred upon the debate whether this was an Offence or not they took an Exception to the form of the Information Viz. That it was not good because it did not conclude contra formam Statuti for if the Offence be at the Common Law and a new Penalty is given by the Statute the Proceedings ought to be either at the Common Law by way of Fine or upon the Statute for the Penalty but if the Offence be by the Statute then it must be laid to be contra formam Statuti Now if this was any Offence in the Defendant it was because he did not receive the Sacrament and take the Oath which is an Offence against the Statute and therefore ought to conclude contra formam Statuti which is essential Then as to the Substance 1. The Information is insufficient for there is no Offence at all of which the Common Law doth take notice and though the Consequences of the thing done may be bad yet no Man shall be punished for that because those only aggravate the Offence if any neither is this Information true for it saith he refused absque rationabili causa but here was a reasonable cause And though it may be objected that it was only impotentia voluntatis and that every Subject being disabled is to remove that disability to serve the King this was denied for a Man who is a Prisoner for Debt is not bound or compellable to be Sheriff neither is a Man bound to purchase Lands to qualifie himself to be either a Coroner or Iustice of the Peace By the Statute of 3 Jac. every Recusant is disabled he may conform but he is not bound to it for if he submits to the Pemalty 't is
as much as is required by Law 'T is true a Subject is bound to serve the King in such capacity as he is in at the time of the Service commanded but he is not obliged to qualifie himself to serve in every capacity Neither doth it appear in this Case that the Defendant was able to remove this Incapacity and that should have been shewn on the other side and all Iudges are to judge upon the Record The intent of the Statute is That if persons will not qualifie themselves they shall not execute any Office and it was made to keep Roman Catholicks out of Places but not to force them to accept of Offices of Trust in the Government and it designs no punishment for quitting but for executing of a place contrary to the Law but if this be an Offence this Information will not lie and for that 2. It was argued That if a thing be either commanded or forbidden by a Statute the transgression in either Case is an Offence punishable by Information 25 H 6. pl. 9. b. 7 H. 4. 5. but when an Act doth not generally command a thing but only sub modo the party offending is punishable no otherwise than designed by that Law as where the Statute of 18 H. 6. cap. 11. prohibits any Man from being a Iustice of the Peace unless he have 40 l. ê‘ AnÌ„ and the Statute of 5 6 E. 6. cap. 16. which makes such Bargains as are therein mentioned about buying of Offices void if such Office be forfeitable then an Information will lie but when 't is ipso facto void as in both the former Cases then 't is otherwise because the punishment is executed by the Statute it self and therefore where the avoidance is made by the Act there is no need of an Information And the Objection of impotentia voluntatis is not material to this purpose because Symony buying of Offices not subscribing the 39 Articles according to the Statute of the Queen these are all voluntary Acts yet no Information lies against such Offenders because the Statutes execute the punishment The intent of the Parliament is here declared the disability of the person makes the Office void void to all intents for the Right of Infants or Men in Prison is not saved so that admitting it to be an Offence if the Duty be not performed yet if such a qualification be requisit to make a Man to act in such an Office or perform such a Duty if that qualification be wanting the Party is only punishable by the loss of the Office The Act doth not distinguish between Offices of Trust and Profit And as to the other Objection viz. That 't is in the power of the Defendant to qualifie himself the same might as well be objected against all the Popish Recusants upon the Statute of 3 Jac. and if a Statute doth disable persons or abridge the King of their Services there is no injury done because the King himself is party to the Act but if mischiefs were never so great since they are introduced by a Law they cannot be avoided till that Law is changed 3. But admitting the Information to be good and that this is an Offence for which it will lie yet the Excommunication is a sufficient excuse it appears by the Verdict that the Defendant was absolutely disabled to be Sheriff for if he is to take the Oath and receive the Sacrament in order to it if he cannot be admitted to the Sacrament as being under the Sentence of Excommunication that is an excuse The Defendant is only argued into a Guilt for the Iury have not found any they do not say that it was in his power to yield Obedience or that he might have enabled himself they only find his incapacity and though it was a voluntary Act which was the cause of his disability yet in such Cases the Law doth not look to Causes so remote If a Man be in Prison for Debt it is his own Act for contracting it and not paying but yet an Outlary against him whilst in Prison shall be reversed because the immediate Cause viz. the Imprisonment and the Iudgment was in invitum and the Law looks no farther and so Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant But the Court were all of Opinion that this Information would lye and that the Defendant was punishable for not removing the disability it being in his power to get himself absolved from the Excommunication And so Iudgment was given against him and a Writ of Error brought c. Godfrey versus Godfrey In Communi Banco Intrat ' Hill ult Rot. 321. DEBT upon a Bond for performance of an Award Award of a lesser Sum in satisfaction of a greater and good in which the Arbitrators had taken notice of 72 l. in controversie and had awarded 50 l. in satisfaction The Defendant pleads Nullum fecerunt Arbitrium the Plaintiff replies an Award and sets it forth and assigns a Breach to which the Defendant demurred because it appeared by the Award that 72 l. was in controversie for Rent due and that 50 l. was awarded in full satisfaction of 72 l. and general Releases to be given but it did not appear that any other Matter was in Controversie between the Parties though the Submission was general and Arbitrators may reduce incertain things to a certainty but they cannot make a Debt certain to be less except there were other differences for which likewise this Release was to be given 10 H. 7. 4. But the whole Court were of Opinion that the Award was good Curia for that the Arbitrators might consider other Matters between the Parties neither did it appear by the Award that the 72 l. was due but in demand only and 't is unreasonable for him to find fault with his own case for he alledges that he ought to pay 72 l. and complains because the other Party is contented with 50 l. and demands no more Iudgment for the Plaintiff Wright versus Bull. Condition where 't is disjunctive 't is in the Election of the Party to have either DEBT upon a Bond for payment of 40 l. The Condition whereof was That if the Defendant should work out the said 40 l. at the usual Prices in packing when the Plaintiff should have occasion for himself or his Friends to imploy him therein or otherwise shall pay the 40 l. then the Bond to be void The Defendant pleads that he was always ready to have wrought out the 40 l. but that the Plaintiff did never imploy him and upon Demurrer the Plea was held ill because the Defendant did not averr that the Plaintiff had any occasion to make use of him and for that it was at his Election either to have Work or Mony Basket and Basket Antea and not having imployed him but brought his Action that is a request in Law and so he hath determined his Election to have the Mony and Iudgment was accordingly given for the