Consideration of Blood Covenants with B. his brother to stand seised to the use of himself for life and after the use of B. in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of B. Provided that if A. by himself or by any other during his Natural life tender to B. a Gold ring to the intent to make void the said use that then the said uses should be void Afterwards A. 26 Eliz. is attainted of Treason and Outlawed for it and the King makes a Lease of the Lands to C. and D. for 40 years The attainder is confirmed by Act of Parliament and Enacted That the said Act shall not extend to make any Lease void made by the K. after the said Treason Also Enacted that all persons which claim an estate or interest in Land not enrolled since 18 Eliz. shall within 2. years after the Session of that Parliament shew and bring into the Court of Exchequer his or their Grant or assurance to be void The King reciting the Proviso and benefit thereof given him by Act of Parliament authorizeth E. to deliver the Gold ring to B. to the Intent to make void the uses he reads the Patent to B. and makes a tender to him which he refuseth to accept of E. certifies the same into the Exchequer This Case was very largely and Learnedly Argued by all the Serjeants and others at the â—arre which vide in the Book at Large afterwards it was argued by all the Barons in the Exchequer and there amongst other things it was Resolved by them That the Condition in the principal Case viz. the tender of the Gold ring was not annexed to â—he person of A. but that any one might make the tender and thaâ— it was given to the King by the Act of Parliament and when a Statute gives a Condition to the King the performance of it which is the substance and which is not inseparably annexed to the person is given to the King 2. That the Tender and Certificate of it was good without Office found 3. That presently by the tender the uses were determined and the Land vested in the King by force of the Act of Parliament The Earl of Northumberlands Case 434. A. 15 June 22 Eliz. bargained and sold the Mannor of D. to the Earl of Northumberland and his Heirs who because the Land was holden in Capite 3. Sept. the same year purchased a License of Alienation in Octob. the same year a Fine was Levyed for further assurance and in Novemb. the same year the Deed was enrolled The Queen seised the Lands for a Fine for Alienation without License It was adjudged the Queens hands should be removed from the Land because the bargainee was now in by the Fine and not by the bargaines and sale and also because the Licence did precede the Fine the Alienation was not made without License Yardley and Prestwood and others Case 435. In a Quare Impedit It was holden by the Justices in this Case That a double usurpation upon the Queen did put her out of possession of Advowson and put her to her Writ of Right of Advowson But the Law hath been taken since that time and so adjudged that a double usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession of her Advowson Vide 33 Eliz. Hassies Case Tr. 4. Jac. The King and Champians Case accordingly Isabell Mordants Case 436. An Enfant Levyed a Fine to the Queen The Queen granted the Lands to Bowes Treasurer of Barwick Error brought to reverse the Fine Bowes pleaded in Barre the Statute of 18 Eliz. It was Resolved that notwithstanding that Statute the Writ of Error did lye for that Statute did not extend to make grants good of such persons who could not make grants by the Common Law as Enfants persons of Non sane Memorie c. Sir Mayle Finch and Hen. Finches Case 437. The Mother of Sir Moyle Finch and the Defendant in her Widdowhood levyed a Fine to the use of her self for life and after her death to the use of her Executors for 5. years and after to Sir Moyle in Tail with divers remainders over and afterwards she maried I. S. and she with I. S. granted the Terme of 5. years to Sir Moyle and after that she and her Husband levyed a Fine to Sir Moyle and I. D. and after that the Wife with her Husbands assent made her Will and made the Defendant her sole Excecutor and dyed the Defendant entred It was agreed by the Justices 1. That the use limited to the Excecutors was good 2. That the Wife could not grant it in her life time 3. That it was extinguishable in the Wife by a Fine come ceo c. but not by a Release 4. That the Fine sur Conusans de droit c. had extinguished the Terme and the said Fine had made such a disturbance of the possession that the use being future at the instant of her death in the Excecutors could never rise 5. That a Feme Covert with the assent of her Husband might make a Will but not thereby to dispose of Legacies 6. It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Wife who had the estate for her life had levyed a fine sur Conusans de Droit c. 438. Action upon Indebitatus Assumpsit solvere It was Resolved the Plaintiff could not give in evidence matter of specialty to prove his debt but he might give in Evidence matter of Contract Fitzherberts Case 439. He was Arrested in Execution by the Sheriff of Derby the 3. day of Feb. at 7. of the Clock in the Morning and the same day at 10. of the Clock he was elected a Burgesse of Parliament for the Borrough of New Castle It was agreed in Parliament because he was arrested before he was chosen Burgesse he could not have the Priviledge of the House Hunger and Freys Case 440. A man had recovered in Debt and had Judgment and an Elegit and had an extent delivered him and Nihil as to goods Afterwards he suggested the Defendant had more Lands goods and chattells in the same County and had a New Elegit and upon that he had a Lease for years in Execution and no other Land was found It was adjudged that the sale of the Lease for years by the Sheriff and delivery in Execution was good Townsend and Walleys Case 441. A man had 6 l. Land in possession and Lands in Peversion upon an estate for life and by his Will he deviseth all his Lands to his Excecutors for 10. years to pay his Debts and perform his Will and after the 10. years ended that his Executors or one of them or the Executors of his Excecutors or any of them should sell his Lands and he made diverse Excecutors and gave 40 l. Legacies by his Will and dyed After the 10. years 2. of the Executors sold the Land 1. Resolved that the Land in reversion might be sold as well as the Land in possession 2. That the sale by the 2. Executors was
l. of the râ—nt to 3. persons divisim viz. to each of them a full 3. part which was 9 l. 6 s. 8 d. One of the devisees brought debt for his part against the Lessee It was the opinion of the Justices that the Rent was apportionable and that the Tenant is chargeable without attornment by the devise to each of the devisees for the 3. part of the Rent Winters Case 705. It was said by Popham Chief Justice that Clergy is allowable upon the standing Mute for such a Felony for which Clergy is allowable if the party be found guilty and therefore he allowed Clergy to Winter who stood Mute upon an Indictment of Felonious taking of goods 706. The Case was a man robs one in the high way in one County and is apprehended with the goods in another County and indicted for the goods and found guilty to the value of 10 d. The question was if by the Statute of 25 H. 8. he shall have Judgment of death or be whipt It was the opinion of the Justices the Case being put to them at Serjants Inn that he shall be but whipt and that the Statute of 25 H. 8. doth not extend but to those who demand Clergy which they shall be denyed if it be found by examination to be done with Robbery Lever and Heyes Case 707. The Father of the daughter promiseth to the Father of the Son that if he will give his consent to the Marriage and assure 40 l. Land to his Son that the Father of the Daughter will pay 200 l. to the Son in Mariage It was Resolved in this case that if the Father of the daughter do not pay the 200 l. that the Son shall have the Action upon the promise and not the Father Egertons Case 708. Egorton the Queens Sollicitor was commanded by Writ to attend upon the Lords in the upper House of Parliament After he attended there 3. dayes he was chosen Burgesse for the Borough of Reading and Returned The Commons came to the upper House and demanded that he might be dismissed from his attendance there and be sent them into the Lower House but upon Consultation he was retained there still because he being neither Inhabitant not Free of the said Town might choose if he would serve at their Election or not which he expresly refused to do 2. Because he was first attendant in the upper House 3. Because the Queen had power to prefer him to the upper House aswell as she had power to command him The Bishop of Norwiches Case 709. The Bishop pleaded a private Act of Parliament and mistook the day of the Commencement of the Parliament It was adjudged against the Bishop for although the Judges are not to take notice of the private act yet of the beginning of the Parliament they are to take notice of Helgor and Whiteacres Case 710. Replevin The Defendant avowed that a Parsonage was parcell of the Prebendary the Prebend before the Statute of 13 Eliz. was Leased for 50. years in Reversion to I. who assigned it to B. who assigned it to C. who assigned it to H. the Lease in possession ended H. enâ—red and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff confessed the Lease to I. and the Assignments but said that I. so possessed took to Husband T. who before the assignment to B. assigned the Terme to I. S. who dyed possessed absque hoc that the said I. assigned her estate and Interest to B. It was adjudged for the Avowant because when the Plaintiff confessed and avoided he ought not to have traversed but might have prayed Judgment without Travers and so by reason of the Travers it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Vavisoâ—s Case 711. Resolved That if the Sheriff makes his Warrant to a Corporation who have return of Writs to arrest I. S. they may make a Bailiff to arrest by perol only Robes Bent and Cocks Case 612. A a villain purchased the Inheritence of a Copyhold in the name of B. and another in Trust B. surrendred his moyety to the use of his own Son the other dyed seised The Son of B. and the Heir of the other for mony sold the Copyhold to C. for 50 l. being of the value of 80 l. A sued the Son of B. and the Heir of the otherand C. in Chancery for the 80 l. It was Decreed the A. should recover the 50 l. only from B. and the Heir of the other and C should be discharged of it The Lord Hunsdons Case 713. In a Monstrance de droit for certain Lands in ward to the Queen for the Nonage of B. upon Jury returned the Array was challenged by the Queens Attorney because it was Returned by the Sheriff of Kent who was also Tenant to the Plaintiff A Counterplea was thereunto that he was Tenant to the Queen It was the opinion of the Justices that the Counterplea was little material for although he was Tenant to both yet he who takes the Challenge shall have advantage thereof Afterwards the array was Quashed and a venire de novo awarded Lady Russell and Gulwells Case 714. The Lady demised Lands to the Defendant by Indenture Defendant entred bonds to performe the Agreements in the Indenture Debt brought by the Lady for breach of Covenants and assignes the breach in disturbance of her in the occupation of certain Lands excepted in the Indenture out of the demyse and adjudged against the Lady for that it was breach neither of Covenant nor agreement 715. Nore by Egerton Lord Keeper if there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee and the Tenant for life committeth Wast so as he is dispunishable by the Common Law yet upon Complaint he in the remainder in Fee may have an Injunction against him not to do Wast Penner and Cromptons Case 716. In a Prohibition It was holden that none shall be chargeable for contribution to Church Reckonings if he do not Inhabite there or to consent to them Powle and Veeres Case 717. A. made a Lease to B. of the Mannor of S. for life which was executed by Livery with these words that if it fortune B. to marry any Woman during his life who shall happen to overlive him then the Land to remain to such Woman for her life Proviso If B. do not declare by writing sealed â—or his last Will that he Wills she shall have it then it shall not remain to her B. before any marriage makes a Feoffment to I. S. to whom a Fine is levyed and a Recovery suffered Afterwards B. takes a Wife and declares she shall have the Remainder and after D. and his Wife Levy a Fine to the Heirs of I. S. and afterwards B. makes another declaration that the Land shall remain to the Wife and then B. dyes and the Wife enters It was adjudged her entry was not Lawfull because the Remainder if it was ever good was destroyed by the Feoffment and the Freehold supplanted before the Remainder took
which they have otherwise not 245. Tenant in Tail disseiseth the Discontinuee and Levyeth a Fine and the proclamation passes but the Discontinuee during the proclamation makes claime and after the Tenant in Tail dyes and the Discontinuee enters It was the opinion of the Justices that the Issue in Tail was barred by the Fine and in this Case it was said That if the Lord entreth upon his Tenant and enfeoffs a stranger and the Tenant Reenters he avoids the Disseisin and estate but the seignoury is not revived but extinct Pasch 20. Eliz. Jackson and Darceys Case 246. Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levyeth a Fine with Proclamation It was holden it shall binde the Issue notwithstanding the saving in the Statute of 32. H. 8. for that here is not any Reversion in the King but a Remainder of which the Statute speaks nothing but yet this Fine doth not devest the Remainder out of the Kâ—ng but the Conusee shall have a Fee determinable upon the Tail 247. The Master takes an Obligation of his Apprentice that he shall not use his Trade within 4. years in the Town of N. where his Master dwells and he is an Apprentice It was holden the Obligation was not good not should binde the Apprentice 248. A man hath a Warren which extends into 3. Townes and by deed makes a Lease of it for years Rendering rent and after grants the Reversion in one of the Townes to another and the Lessee Attornes It was the opinion of the Justices That the grantee should have no part of the Rent nor the Granter because no Covenant can be apportioned Duland and Cleypooles Case 248. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. of Tillage That the Defendant had Converted 300. Acres of arable Lands to Pastures and that the Conversion hath continued from 15. Eliz. to 20. Eliz. The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general pardon of 23. Eliz. upon which it was demurred It was argued that the Condition did not extend to the Continuance of the said conversion It was said That if A be seised of arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted Leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by the Statute And Note the words of the Statute are Conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted and the Statute doth not punish only the Conversion but the continuance of it One the other side It was said That the Conversion and the continuance thereof are 2. several things by it self and so the Conversion being only excepted the Continuare thereof is within the Pardon Quaere the Case was adjorned Term. Pasc 24. Eliz. Leeke and Grevells Case 249. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. for converting and using of 2000. Acres of arable into pasture The Defendant said and justified as to 800. Acres That the Queen by Deed under her Great Seal Licensed him to enclose the Mannor of Weston and Welford in the County of Gloucester and to make a Park so as it was not within any Forrest and to Convert and use the Land inclosed of tillage into pasture pro sustentatione ferarum Damarum averiorum suorum by which he enclosed them and converted the Tillage into pasture for the Sustentation of his beasts Upon which it was demurred It was argued that the License was not good because the Statute of 5. Eliz. was to continue but till the beginning of the next Session of Parliament at which time the Statute ended and was not revived till Anno 13. Eliz. so as in Anno 9. when the License was there was not any Statute to prohibit the Conversion of tillage into Pasture and therefore the License in 9. Eliz. could not dispense with the Statute of 13. Eliz. and the Statute of 13 Eliz. did not make such reviver of the Statute of 5. Eliz. as made mean Acts good by any Relation Quaere the Case was not adjudged but adjorned Dolman and the Bishop of Salisburies Case 250. Quare Imp. brought the Defendent pleaded the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benifice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8. that Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take 2. Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second benefice and dyed The question was whether the Pope before the Statute of 25 H. 8. might grant dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the Kings of England had been Soveraigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held that the dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. and that this dispensation to retain a second benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. Lacyes Case 251. In a scire facias upon a Recognizance for not appearing before the Justices of Assise at York the Defendant pleaded that after the Recognizance taken a Commission issued to the Admiral and others to hear and determine Treasons Felonies c. done within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and that the Commissioners sent to Arrest him before the day of his Appearance because he had mortally wounded a Man upon Scarborow sands if within the flux and reflux of the Sea of which wound he dyed at Scarborow and that thereupon he was Arrested and detained in prison till after the day of Appearance and afterwards was Indicted and arraigned of the said Felony before the Commissioners The Court inclined to be of opinion that the Arrest was a sufficient excuse of his appearance because the Recognizance is a duty to the Queen and the Commission is the Act of the Queen and all that the Commissioners do is by authority from the Queen and in her person and shall be accounted her Act and then when she her self is a cause that the Defendant could not appear that she should not have benefit of the Recognizance 252. The Condition of an Obligation was That if the Obligor pay at or before the 25th day of March he tenders the money the 24th day It was the opinion of Anderson that if he tender the money the last instant of the 24th day he saveth his Bond But the other Justices held the contrary because the word before is not to have any Construction but the Obligor shall be admitted to pay it before by agreement only of the Obligee Quaere 253. A man seised of 3. Mannors in Fee of the value of 300 l. Covenanted in Consideration of the Mariage of his daughter that he would suffer 20 l. yearly to discend come and remain to his daughter and her Husband and the Heirs of their bodies It was the opinion
several Writs issued to Certifie one to the Custos Brevium the other to the Chief Justices They both Certified there was not any Warrant of Attorney The Plaintiff alledged Diminution upon a new Writ of Error brought Resolved That he could not alledge Diminution not have a new Writ of Error after the two former Certificats in the first Writ Ive and Tracies Case 281. A man seised of Socage Land and of Lands holden in Capite by Act executed in his life Conveyed the Capite Lands for the Advancement of his Wife Issues and payment of his debts Adjudged he could not after devise the Socage Land Bonncys Case 282. King E 6. seised of the Mannors of R. and B. in the right of his Dutchy of Lanc. made a Lease thereof to B. for years rendering several Rents upon Condition that if the Rent be behind 40. dayes after the Rents payable to reenter It was found by Office that the Rent was behinde after the 40. dayes and by another Office that the Rent was tendered the Last instant of the 40. dayes and that the Queens Officers of the Dutchy accept of the Arrerages and of the Rent at other dayes and Feasts and made accquittances thereof to the Lessee and had accompted for the same in the Dutchy and after that the Queen to defeat the Lease brought the Intrusion The poynts of the Case were 1. If the Queen was bound to demand the Rent 2. If the Tender was sufficient and sufficiently found by the Office 3. If the acceptance of the Rent accrued after the Office should conclude the Queen of the Condition The 4. If the Acquittances of the Officers should conclude the Queen 1. It was Resolved that the Queen ought to have made a Demand of the Rent before Reentry 2. That the Tender found shall be intended a tender made upon the Land which was a sufficient destruction of the Reentry 3. That the acceptance of the Rent at a new day after the Rent found behinde should conclude the Queen and that the Act of her Officer should be the Act of the Queen her self so as she could not enter for the Condition broken and so it was adjudged against the Queen Hunt and Gateleys Case 283. In a Replevin the Case was this Tenant in Tail the remainder over in Tail the remainder over in Fee Tenant in Tail in remainder granted a Rent charge and afterwards Tenant in Tail in possession suffered a Common-Recovery and dyed without Issue The Question was If the Recoverers should hold the Land charged with the Rent It was Resolved that the Recoverers nor any which came in under their estate should be subject to the charge of him in the Remainder because the Recoverers are not of an Estate which they gained under the estate of Tenant in Tail in possession whose estate is not subject to any Charge of him in the Remainder 2. Resolved That no Lease nor Rent nor estate made by him in the Remainder should charge the possession of the Recoverers Brand and Glasses Case 284. Action upon the Case against an Inkeeper of London for goods of the Plaintiff stolen out of his Inn The Defendant pleaded an agreement betwixt them that the Inkeeper should not be charged with any goods brought by the guest but with such only as he should deliver to the Inkeeper himself or to his Wife and that the Plaintiff did not deliver the goods stolen neither to him nor his Wife It was Resolved by the Court it was a good bar of the Action and this Case was put and vouched to be adjudged 7 Eliz. A Clothier came to an Inn with a Wayne of Wool to Lodge at his entry the Inkeeper said to him That if he would that he should take the Charge of his Wayne that he should draw the same into an Inner Court otherwise he would not answer for it The Clothier did not do it and the Wool was stolen The Clothier brought his Action upon the Case against the Inkeeper and upon shewing the special matter the Inkeeper was discharged 185. The Case was Lessee for life Covenanted for himself his Executors and Administrators to build a new Wall during the Terme and after he assigned over his estate It was Resolved that in this Case upon the Statute of 21. H. 8. that the Grantee of the Reversion or the Grantor might have an Action of Covenant against the Assignees for by the acceptance of the possession he had made himself subject to all Covenants concerning the Land and the building of a Wall was a Covenant inherent to the Land with which the Assignee should be Charged though there wanted the word Assignees in the Deed. Mich. 26. 27. Eliz. The Case of Saffron Walden 286. King Henry 8. seised of the Mannor of Saffron Walden parcell of his Dutchy of Lanc. Anno 6. of his Raign granted to the Guild of Walden 2. Mills a Market and the Clarkship of the Market in Fee Farme rendering 10 l. per Ann. and after 31. of his Raign granted the Mannor Rent and Fee Farme to the Lord Audley in Fee 1 E. 6. by the Statute of Chauntries the Guild was dissolved by which the Mills and Markets came again to the King with a alvo of the Rent to the Lord Audley Afterwards the said King E. 6. Anno 3. of his Raign granted the two Mills Market and Clarkship of the Market and also a Fair yearly to be holden there to the Town of Walden in Fee Farme reddendo inde annuatim to the King and his Successors vel tali Capitali Domino vel Dominis feodi illius ad qâ—em vel quos de nostro pertinet vel pertinebit the sum of 10 l. per Ann. upon which Reservation they were charged with 10 l. per Ann. in the Exchequer and upon a scire facias they pleaded in discharge of the said Rent that they had payed 10 l. per Ann. to the Heirs of the Lord Audley The points debated were two 1. That when the King had granted the 2. Mills and Market to the Guild reserving Rent if the said Rent were parcel of the Mannor of Walden as the Mills were or was a Rent in grosse for if it was parcel of the Mannor then it was parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy if it was not parcel then it was a thing given to the King in Capite 2. If by the Reddend in the Patent of E. 6. the Town of Walden was charged to pay 10 l. to the Lord Audley and other 10 l. to the King This Case is very long and Learnedly argued by Walmesby for the Town of Walden and by Popham for the King And it was Resolved by the Justices That the Corporation of Walden should pay both the Rents Vide the Book at Large for the Reasons Sir William Herberts Case 287. Sir Matthew Herbert acknowledged a Recognizance to the King of 3000 l. and afterwards he made several Feoffments and Allienations of divers of his Lands the residue discended to
especial matter upon the division of the day ought to come on the other side otherwise it shall not be intended Bullock and Bibleys Case 771. A Woman Copyholder in Fee took Husband who without his Wife surrendred to the use of a Stranger who was admitted and surrendred to the use of D. the Defendant who was admitted the Husband died the wife survived and died the Heir before admittance made a Lease to trie the Title It was adjudged that the Surrender of the Husband alone made no discontinuance of the Copy-hold of the wife 2. Resolved that the Lease was good before Admittance otherwise it was of a Surrender before Admittance Gooles and Granes Case 772. An Infant surrendred Land which was Copyhold to the use of a Stranger who was admitted It was adjudged that the Infant at his full age might enter because it was no bar nor discontinuance Ford and Holborns Case 773. A. let the Mannor of D. to H. for 17. years rendring yearly to D. G. 10 l. and he was bound in an Obligee to A. to pay the said Rent to D. G. if she so long lived and the said H. or his Assignes should or might so long enjoy the Premises In Debt by the Executors of A. against H. he pleaded that after the Lease to him he himself surrendred the Lease to A. which he accepted and that till the Surrender no Rent was unpaid It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the acceptance of the Surrender was no conclusion against the collateral payment to a Stranger and H. but for his own Act might have enjoyed the Land still Savage and Bechams Case 774. In Action upon the case for an Escape against the Prisoner brought by the Plaintiff Sheriff It was Resolved that upon a voluntary escape the Sheriff should not maintain an Action against the Prisoner but otherwise upon a negligent escape West and Blackwells Case 775. A. Outlawed after Judgment was taken upon the Capias utlagatum and afterwards escaped Resolved that he was not in Execution for the party without prayer Williams and Beathles Case 776. Debt upon an Obligation after Verdict and Judgment it was assigned for Error that the Teste of the Original was before the day of payment in the Condition It was holden Error and the Judgment for that cause reversed Wells and Dennyes Case 777. Upon a Recovery in Debt of 400 l. upon 2 Fieri fac 100 l. was levyed and returned Afterwards a Capias ad satisfaciend issued for the whole 400 l. It was the opinion of the Court it ought to issue forth but 300 l. and the Judgment for Execution was reversed May and Middletons Case 778. After Debt brought the Plaintiff attached in London a debt due by another man to the Defendant and had Judgment to recover Adjudged a good bar to the Action for so much Bufkin and Edmonds Case 779. It was adjudged in this Case That a Rent payable off the Land upon Cesser of an Estate ought to be demanded where no entry may be Hughton and Princes Case 780. Resolved Tythes shall not be paid of Turkies nor their Eggs nor of tame Patridges or Pheasants quia ferae naturae Beswick and Cundens Case 781. It was adjudged in this case That the Feoffee shall have Action upon the case for a Nusance continued though it was erected before his time Sharington and Fleetwoods Case 782. It was Resolved if a Parson Libells for Tythes and a Prohibition is granted and after he libelleth for the Tythes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon Prohibition lieth against him Hall and Vaughans Case 783. If the Jurors eat and drink at their own proper costs before Verdict after their departure from the Bar it is fineable only but it shall not make their Verdict void Adams and Albons Case 784. Resolved that if a Venire facies bears date the day it is retornable it is amendable by the Roll. Gregory and Blasâ—fields Case 785. An Action upon the Statute of 4. and 5. Philip and Mary for using the Trade of a Clothier not having bin bound an Apprentice for seven years was brought by Plaint in the Court of Ludlow and Judgment there The Judgment was reversed because first it ought to be by Original or Information and Secondly because it ought to be brought in the Courts of Record at Westminster and not in Borough Courts Varrel and Wilsons Case 786. Conspiracy The Defendant pleaded his goods were Feloniously Stollen and he found them in the possession of the Plaintiff for which he Indicted him and gave evidence against him and upon the Tryal the Plaintiff was acquitted and traversed the Conspiracy aliter vel alio modo It was adjudged a good Justification because the finding of the goods in his possession was a sufficient cause of Suspition Marrow and Tarpins Case 787. Debt against two Administrators for Rent behind after the death of the Intestate they pleaded that before the Rent behind one of the Administraters assigned all his Interest to I. S. of which the Plaintiff had notice and accepted of the Rent by the hands of the Assignee before the day in which the Rent in arrear was due It was Resolved that the privity of contract as to the Action of debt was determined by the act of the Lessee and therefore the action of Debt after the Assignment did not lie against the Administrator Smith and Johnsons Case 788. Error of a Judgment in Action upon Assumpsit in the Court of Reding The certificate was Plita c. ad Cur. Dominae Reginae Burgisui de Reding tenend per consuctudinem Libertat Major Burgensibus concess I without saying per consuetudinem ex antiquo usitot or alledging by what person the Liberties were granted and for this cause the Judgment was reversed Corbet and Corbets Case 789. A seised of Lands for real affection covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of R. and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to C. and the Heirs Males of his Body Provided if R. or any Heir Male of his Body shall intend or go about any act to cut off the Estate tail then it shall be lawful for him that is next to enter A. died R. suffered a common Recovery Resolved the Proviso was repugnant to the Estate tail and that the Cesser of the Estate tail as if the party had bin dead was impossible and the going about it such a secret thing that an Issue cannot be upon it Grar Marshal and Marshals Case 790. A. levyed a Fine of five yard Land to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to the use of his eldest Son who was the Plaintiffs husband and the Plaintiff and the Heirs of the Body of the Husband Proviso if the Husband died living A. his Father then G. the Plaintiff his wife should have yard Land and a half for her Life in possession without shewing which Land the Husband died