Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	day_n	parliament_n	session_n	3,425	5	10.6408	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64839	The reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt., late one of the justices of the Common-pleas in two parts : the first part containing select cases adjudged in the Kings-Bench, in the reign of K. Charles II, with three learned arguments, one in the Kings-Bench, by Sir Francis North, when Attorney General, and two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale, when Lord Chief Baron : with two tables, one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters : the second part containing choice cases adjudged in the Common-pleas, in the reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II and in the three first years of the reign of His now Majesty K. William and the late Q. Mary, while he was a judge in the said court, with the pleadings to the same : also several cases and pleadings thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon writs of error from the Kings-Bench : together with many remarkable and curious cases in the Court of Chancery : whereto are added three exact tables, one of the cases, the other of the principal matters, and the third of the pleadings : with the allowance and approbation of the Lord Keeper an all the judges.	Ventris, Peyton, Sir, 1645-1691.; Guilford, Francis North, Baron, 1637-1685.; Hale, Matthew, Sir, 1609-1676.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1696 (1696)	Wing V235; ESTC R7440	737,128	910

the Plaintiff may declare against him by Bill and after that the proceedings upon the Latitat cease Note By the Custom of London Hob. 86. 2 Cro. 667. the Debtor may be Arrested before the Money is due to make him find Sureties It was also moved That the Defendant might have Costs being put to the charge of motions to be discharged but the Court would grant none it being but for taking out of the Process of the Court. Stones Case THe Case being moved again The Court absente Moreton dubitante Rainsford granted a Writ of Priviledge altho ' he were obliged by his Tenure to be the Lords Reeve for the Priviledge is presumed more Antient than the Creation of the Tenure or at least shall be preferred in as much as it concerns the Administration of Iustice And Keeling said An Attorney could not be amerced for not doing Suit to his Lords Court at such time as his attendance is required at Westminster Ante. Sir Robert Cotton versus Daintry IN Trover and Conversion for Goods and Money assigned by Commissioners of Bankrupt upon Not guilty pleaded the Quemon of Fact before the Jury was Whether Sir A. B. whose the Goods were was a Bankrupt The Plaintiff proved That he had Silk and other Merchandise in his Warehouse to a very great value and that upon the Credit of them he took up divers Sums of Money and afterwards sold them but could not prove that they were brought in after the Debts contracted or that he had Exported any thing at any time after or a good while before To this the Court delivered their Opinions That the selling of such Merchandise if they were but the Effects of his former Trading for he had béen a Turkey Merchant which he could not put off immediately upon his ceasing to Trade could not make him a Trader for the Statute only extends to those that Live by Buying and Selling. It was also proved That he had a 16th part in a Coalship which at present Traded to Newcastle but brought no present profit to the Owners she being much in Debt for Repairs It was said to be resolved in one Crashaws Case That the having a part in a Ship did not make a man a Trader but that was a Merchant Ship which the Owners let out to Fraight but the Owners Fraighted this Ship themselves and were to have an account of profit and loss and that if an Owner refused to Fraight he was Compellable But in regard it could not be proved that Sir A. B. had Fraighted or that he had received any account of profit Keeling and Twisden were of Opinion that it did not make him a Trader Rainsford and Moreton doubted Wherefore it was offered the Plaintiffs Councel to have found it Specially but they declined it and the Jury found a general Verdict for the Plaintiff The day after motion was made for a new Tryal Affidavit being made that the Foreman of the Jury was Brother in Law to one of the Creditors of Sir A. B. The Court was also informed that the Plaintiff after the Verdict had paid the Jury 4 l a man whereas the Rule of Court is that they coming but out of Hartfordshire should have but 20 s a man Moreton and Rainsford held neither of these Reasons sufficient For the first it was their own Laches that they did not challenge upon it For the other they thought the breach of the Rules of Court ought to be punished but did not think fit to set aside the Verdict for it Twisden for the last treason held a new Tryal was to be granted and that it was fit to be made an Example to other Juries For if the Parties may give what they will it is to be presumed the ability of one or other will much incline the Jury to find for him from whom they may expect the greatest reward Keeling held both reasons sufficient for a new Tryal which could not be in regard the Court was divided whereupon Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff and Execution taken out and a Writ of Error was brought which was sealed about an hour before Execution executed Whereupon it was moved That the Sheriff might bring the Money into the Court for that the Writ of Error was a Supersedeas for though the Sheriff shall not be in Contempt if he makes Execution after the Writ if no Supersedeas be Sued out for that he had no notice yet the Writ of Error immediately upon the sealing forecloses the Court so that the Execution made after is to be undone of which Opinion was the Court and Ordered the Money to be brought in and not delivered to the Plaintiff Mr. Justice Moreton's Case HE brought Debt as Executor upon the 2d of Edw. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes due to the Testator Vpon non debet pleaded and a Verdict for him it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That this being a forfeiture given by the Statute for a Tort done to the Testator it could not be brought by the Executor To which it was answered That this Action was maintainable within the equity of the Statute of the 4th of Edw. 3. that gives the Executor Trespass de bonis asportatis in vita testatoris So an Ejectione firmae lies upon an Ejectment done to the Testator and Trover and Conversion where the Conversion was in the time of the Testator 1 Cro. adjudged that an Executor may bring an Action upon the Case against the Sheriff for an Escape upon Mesne Process suffered in his Testators life time And the Court were clear of Opinion for the Plaintiff and said it had béen formerly resolved so in the Exchequer Chamber The Lady Wortley versus Holt. A Writ of Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment given in Dower in the Common-Pleas which being affirmed in this Court a Writ of Error was brought returnable in Parliament which was discontinued by the Prorogation of the Parliament Another Writ of Error was brought Teste the last day of the Session of Parliament viz. 1 March Returnable 19 November the day to which it was Prorogued The Court resolved That though the first Writ of Error was not discontinued by any Act of the Party yet this second should be no Superseas First It was doubted whether this Writ of Error bearing Teste the last day of the Session was not determined by the Prorogation And it was held clearly That A Writ of Error returnable ad proximum Parliamentum could not be good But here the Parliament was Prorogued to a day certain But however all the Court held That in regard of the length of time in the Return it should be no Supersedeas And Twisden cited a Case between Limmerie and Limmerie where a Writ of Error was brought Teste 28 Nov. Returnable 28 Nov. proxime sequent ' in Parliament ' and resolved to be no Supersedeas 2 Cro. 341. by reason of the length of the Return Anonymus AN Information was exhibited against A.

the Mayor and Burgesses which never had been Mayors and if in regard it was indefinite it should be intended that all the Burgesses were there and it may be the Amotion was by the Vote of such Burgesses as have not been Mayors they being the greater number and the others might dissent as if the Mayor and Court of Aldermen in London were impowered to do a thing and this is done per Cives Londini it cannot be good Sed non allocatur For First it shall be intended That all the Burgesses were there and that they all agreed in the amoving of Braithwaite And if the truth were that the Burgesses which were qualified dissented which must not be presumed they might bring an Action upon the Case for the false Return And further to enforce the intendment as before it is said to be per Majorem Burgenses secundum Chartam If it had been returned that he was amoved secundum Chartam generally that had not been good for there must be the manner returned That the Court may adjudge whether the Authority be pursued Nota hoc It was further declared by Keeling Rainsford and Moreton That the King and Council might Disfranchise any Member of a Corporation And it was said by Rainsford that the Walls of Northampton were ordered to be pulled down by the King and Council à fortiori an Alderman might be displaced upon just Cause and here was no Exception to the Causes returned But to this Twisden said nothing Anonymus Vid. 5 Co. 32. UPon a Fieri facias to Levy a Debt recovered against an Executor the Sheriff returned nulla bona whereupon after a Testatum c. a Writ was awarded to the Sheriff to enquire c. who returned that Goods to the value of the Debt came to the Executors hands elongavit vendidit disposuit ad proprium usum suum convertit And Issue was taken by the Party who came in upon a Scire facias quod non elongavit c. and the Iury found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Saunders in Arrest of Judgment That there was no proper Issue neither did it appear that there was any Devastavit for the Executor may eloigne and sell the Goods therefore the Return and Issue ought to have been quod Devastavit Sed non allocatur for this tantamounts and the Presidents are so as 't is a good Warrant for a Capias in Withernam when the Sheriff returns that the Defendant in Replevin hath eloigned the Beasts so the Executor ought to be charged de bonis propriis upon his Return Wharton and Brooke IN an Action for Words the Plaintiff declared That she was and had been a long time a Midwife and got divers Gains and that the Defendant to scandalize her in her Profession said of her She is an Ignorant Woman and of small Practice and very unfortunate in her way There are few that she goes to but lye desperately Ill or die under her hands The Court held the Action maintainable But Twisden said this hath been Adjudged Where one brought an Action declaring she was a Schoolmistress and taught Children to Write and Read by which she got her Livelyhood and that the Defendant said of her She was a Whore and that J. S. kept her as his Whore That to slander one in such a Profession was not maintainable without special Damage Sir Thomas Player Chamberlain of London and Jones REsolved by the Judges That the By-Law in London whereby the Number of Carts were restrained was a good By-Law Walter and Chauner IN Trespass the Defendant Iustifies for Damage feasant The Plaintiff in his Replication prescribes for Common in the place where c. in this manner Until the Field was sown with Corn and after it was sown post blada illa messa until it was sown again To which the Defendant Demurs And it was said That this Prescription was unreasonable viz. To have Common in Land sown To which it was Answered and Resolved by the Court That as the Prescription was laid the Common was not claimed until after the Corn was reaped Nota Vpon a Fieri facias the Sheriff Returned That he had taken Goods and that they were rescued from him by certain Persons And it was held to be no Return and that he was to be Amerced Anonymus ONe recovers Debt and then brings a new Action of Debt upon the Judgment The Defendant pleads Tender of the Money before the Action brought uncore prist and the Plaintiff could have no Costs If the Defendant plead in Abatement of the Writ and the Plaintiff Demurs and 't is Adjudged against the Defendant it shall be only quod respondeat ulterius But if he alledge any thing in Abatement whereupon Issue is joyned and tryed and found against the Defendant there the Plaintiff shall have his Judgment to recover his Debt Skier and Atkinson IN an Action upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of Forcible Entry the Secondary craved the direction of the Court before he could tax Costs and they were doubtful in it and rather inclined that the Plaintiff was to have no Costs But upon the view of Pilford's Case in 10 Co. and the Books there cited they resolved that he should have Treble Costs Crosse and Winter IN an Action for these Words Thou art of Thievish Rogue and didst steal Plate from Wadham Colledge in Oxford The Defendant Iustified for that he did steal the Colledge Plate The Plaintiff Replied De injuria sua propria The Words were alledged to be spoken in London and thither the Venire facias was awarded and there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That there was a Mis-Trial for the Iury ought to have come out of Oxford for the Issue is joyned upon the Matter in the Justification and the Words are confessed Hob. 76. And with this agrees Ford and Brooke's Case in 3 Cro. 361. expresly But it was Resolved by the Court That this was aided by the late Statute made at Oxford being tried by a Jury of the proper County where the Action is laid tho' the Issue upon pleading may arise out of another place and County Note An Act of Parliament was made to continue for Three years and from thence until the end of the next Session of Parliament Vid. Hob. 78. and no longer And it was Resolved that this must be intended a Session which commences after the Three years expired For if a Session should be within the Three years and continue for many years after the Act would continue Note It cannot be called a Session of Parliament unless the King passes an Act. The King and Serjeant UPon a Certiorari to remove a Conviction of Forcible Detainer by the View of two Iustices upon the Statute of 15 R. 2. The Record Returned was Questa est nobis Jana Wood Vid ' quod quidem pacis Domini Regis perturbatores in domum mansional '

inherit If the Father a Natural Subject hath Issue a Son an Alien who is Naturalized the Father dies the Son shall inherit Co. Lit. 129. Touching the retrospect of a Naturalization and whether the Son being an Alien Naturalized after the death of the Father shall direct the Discent to the youngest depends upon the words of the Naturalization which being by Act of Parliament may by a strange retrospect direct it But as the Naturalization in the Case in question is Penned it would not do it the Naturalization hath only respect to what shall be hereafter The Clause of taking by Discent after the Commencement of the Session of Parliament is sufficient to check that Retrospect And this brings me to the Consideration of the Naturalization in the Case in question and the Effect thereof which I shall not Argue as a Point because I take the Point of the Case to be single But I shall deliver my Opinion of it by way of Conveyance to the Case Read the Naturalization First In this Naturalization I shall set down what Effect it hath And Secondly What Effect it hath not First What Effect it hath It doth doubtless remove that Inability and Incapacity that is in John the Earl and George in respect of themselves being Aliens and so put them in the Condition as if they had been Born in England But if there be a Consequential Impediment or Incapacity derived upon them by Robert their Fathers being an Alien which might hinder their Successions one to another which at the present I suppose or admit I say if there be any such Consequential Impediment this I take is not removed by this Naturalization My Reasons are briefly these First Because this Act of Naturalization hath a proper Subject upon which it may work and with which it is satisfied viz. the Personal defects of the Parties Naturalized because this Defect arising from the Incapacity of the Father is not in any measure taken notice of by the Act nor so much as mentioned that the Father was an Alien By the whole scope of the Act and every Clause of it and those Relative Terms As if Born in England is only to supply the Personal defect of the Parties Naturalized arising from their Birth out of England and therefore shall never be carried to a Collateral purpose Touching the Objection Tho' this Remedy will not Cure a Disease of another nature as Illegitimation Half-Blood c. yet it Cures all the defects of Foreign Births whether in the Parties themselves or resulting from the Ancestors And the Act might have been so Penned as it might have done it but it is not The Plaister is applied only to defects in the arising from their own Birth not defects arising from the Father or that Consequential disability arising thereby Second Objection But we find in Curteen's Case Placita Coronae 241. that where the Father was Attainted the Restitution in Blood granted by the Act to the Son cures that disability that results from the Fathers Attainder and this not only to the Son but also to the Collateral Heirs of the Father And I have before observed the Corruption of the Blood by Attainder is only of the Blood of the Father for the Son's Blood was not at all Corrupted By this Act of Restitution 1. Notice is taken of the Father's Attainder 2. It doth Intentionally provide against it and it was the only business of that Act to remove it 3. Had it not removed that Corruption of Blood it had been useless for there had been nothing else for it to provide against and so the Restitution had been idle had it not had that Effect But in our Case the Naturalization as it takes no notice of the defect in the Father nor provides against it so it hath another business to satisfie it doth remedy the Foreign Birth of the Son And let us examine the several Clauses in this Act of Naturalization we shall find the whole scope of it was no other than to put them in the same and no better Condition than as if they were Born in England This is the Governing Clause both in the first and last Sentence and hath an influence upon all the Clauses that intervene It hath been endeavoured to break the Context and to make the Clause As if Born in England to be cumulative and superabundant But this were by a Nicety to alter the scope and intent of the Act. If it were omitted yet the first Clause making him but a Natural Born Subject to all intents and purposes surely makes him no more and meddles not with the disability of his Father or the Consequence thereof There hath been some stress laid upon the Clause which enables him to make his resort and Pedigree to Ancestors Lineal or Collateral as if that should Entitle George at least to some more advantage by Naturalization than if he had been Born here But to this I say First That is a General Clause and cannot make a Legal Ancestor Secondly Vpon the same Reason it may make John or George inheritable to Patrick and not adjudge the disability of Nicholas his Father which no man pretends It makes him as much inheritable to Ancestors Lineal as well as Collateral and yet it makes no Ancestors Lineal The Words are General and create no new Ancestor that the Law doth not enable It is true that in the Argument of Godfrey and Dixon's Case especially Mountague laid some stress upon these Ancillary Clauses but the rest rather rested upon the very Matter that the party Naturalized was become thereby a Natural born Subject And thus I have done with the Naturalization which doth not Cure any disability of Transmission Hereditary between the Brothers resulting from the disability of the Father if any such be But it doth cure the Personal disability in John and George and makes them to all intents as Natural Subjects as if they had been born in England So that now the Case made is no more than this An Alien hath Issue two Sons born in England and one purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue whether the other shall inherit For as I have before observed the Case of John the Son of George is all one with the Case of George himself whom he represents as to the Point of the Discent from John the Earl Before I come to the Argument of the Question the Verdict had need be delivered from a Question which possibly would make an end of the Dispute It hath been said that if the Wife of Robert were an English Woman there would be no question but the Land might discend between the Brothers John and George tho' Robert the Father were an Alien and that it shall be so intended because nothing appears to the contrary To this I say It is true that if the Mother were an English Woman the Discent from John to George his Son would be unquestionable For notwithstanding the Incapacity of Robert the Father by being an

was found in the Office The Countess also was alive at that time and so could not be seised into the Kings hands And as to the Statute of 7 Jacobi it is plain that it means a Naturalization by Parliament here for it appoints the Lord Chancellor or Keeper to Administer the Oaths if the Bill begin in the House of Lords and the Speaker to do it if it begin in the House of Commons And of this Opinion was Vaughan in these three last things tho' in the Principal Matter he agreed with the other two Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Communi Banco Thoms Harrison Ux ' versus Dr. Burwell IN an Action for suing in the Spiritual Court after a Prohibition sued out and delivered the Plaintiff sets forth that by an Act of Parliament made in the 32 H. 8. c. 38. it was enacted c. That from the first day c. all and every such Marriages as within this Church of England should be contracted between lawful persons as by this Act they declared all persons to be lawful that be not prohibited by Gods Law to marry such Marriages being Contracted and Solemnized in the face of the Church and consummate with Bodily Knowledge c. should be c. deemed judged and taken to be lawful good just and indissoluble notwithstanding any precontract c. and notwithstanding any Dispensation Prescription Law or other thing granted or confirmed by Act or otherwise and that no Reservation or Prohibition Gods Law except should trouble or impeach any Marriage without the Levitical Degrees and that no person of what Estate Condition or Degree whatsoever he or she be should c. be admitted to any of the Spiritual Courts within this the Kings Realm or any his Graces other Lands and Dominions to any Process Plea or Allegation contrary to this foresaid Act. And sets forth further That one Abbot had Issue Robert and Bartholomew that Robert had Issue Mary who married Robert Harrison and by him had Issue Thomas the Plaintiff that Bartholomew took to Wife Jane Brown who is now the other Plaintiff and that Bartholomew died without Issue and that then the Plaintiffs intermarried they say that he and she were free from any Marriage or Contract with any other person and the Marriage was solemnized according to the Orders and Rules of the Church and that this is a good Marriage by the Laws of God and Man and that A. B. a Notary intending to dissolve this Marriage contrary to the said Act cited the Plaintiffs before Dr. Burwell and articled against them in this manner That within the Jurisdiction c. reciting the Alliance c. and that the said T. H. took the said Jane Abbot to Wife de facto cum de jure non potuit nec debuit and so they committed Incest c. Hereupon Dr. Burwell Demurs and prays a Consultation It had been divers tunes argued at the B●r and now Vaughan Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court in this manner Vaughan 'T is the pleasure of my Brothers that I deliver their Opinion in this Case and what I do deliver I do not deliver as their Opinion only but as the Opinion of all the Iudges of England for they have met together by the Kings Command several times to debate and consider of this Case and they all agree that no Consultation be granted This is a Case of great expectation and perhaps the only Case which has been solemnly resolved since the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made there are but three Cases concerning it Man's Case 1 Cro. 228. Mo. 907. Parson's Case 1 Inst 235. and Remington's Case Hob. 181. I must in the first place premise that perhaps if we the Iudges had been makers of the Law this Question had not been but we are to proceed upon the Laws as made and cannot alter them This is not a thing of our promotion and this I speak to satisfie such as might object against us This Statute was made in a time when the Popes Power was warmly pursued and Laws were then made which in the circumstances of another time would not have been made I will first give the Reasons the Iudges went upon in their Resolution and then I will also give some Reasons to satisfie People abroad for I know the Case will meet with many censures First Of the former Antiently the Kings Temporal Courts had nothing to do with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Marriage it was wholly of Ecclesiastical Conisance the Statute de Circumspecte agatis is that the Temporal Iudges should not punish the Spiritual Courts for holding Pleas of those things quae mere sunt spiritualia viz. pro Fornicatione Adulterio hujusmodi and Sir Ed. Coke 2 Inst 488. expounding those words Et hujusmodi he says and he says very right that these are to be taken for Offences of like nature as the two Offences here particularly expressed be viz. as sollicitation of any Womens Chastity which is lesser than these and for Incest which is greater Here is an undoubted evidence that the Temporal Courts used to prohibit c. and the ancientness of that is unquestioned but it seems they did border in their Prohibitions sometimes upon things which were Spiritual which they ought not to have done There was no time but in which some Marriages were lawful and some unlawful but if a man were formerly questioned about such a matter he had no relief from the Temporal Courts By the Ancient Common Law Marriages were unlawful as far as they had names of Kindred viz. to the fourth Degree from Cousin Germans inclusively and therein it irritated the Civil Law but in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the 3d it was ordained thus Sancitum est prohibitionem copulationis conjugalis quartum gradum non excedere and so it stands in all places under the Common Law at this day in Popish Countries with us it has received alteration by this Statute in this matter there is a Reason very much sticks with many viz. That the Temporal Courts are not skilled in the Laws by which this is to be judged and therefore that it is not fit that they should determine concerning it 'T is true the word Cognitio signifies both but yet there is a great difference between Skill and Cognizance But I say further That the Temporal Iudges may well enough have both for though the knowledge of the Canon Law be not adequatum subjectum to a Common Lawyer yet 't is commune subjectum There are four Statutes which have made great alteration in the Cognisance of this matter 25 H. 8. 22. 28 H. 8. c. 7. 28 H. 8. c. 16. and this of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The first indeed is repeased because it was interwoven with matter of Succession of the Crown c. which was set aside But the Second viz. 28 H. 8. cap. 7. is syllabically the same as to this purpose the words are

an one carries an Evidence of fraud yet is not upon that account only always to be reckoned fraudulent or to be avoided by a Purchaser upon a valuable Consideration Thirdly Whereas it was objected That the Trust of the Term which was but a Chattel could not be Entailed and therefore the Term was liable to the Rent notwithstanding the Assignment of it and limiting the Trust as before It was answered and resolved by the Court that if it had béen a Term in Gross in F. D. the Trust of it could have been no more Entailed than the Term it self but F. D. having the Term in Point of Interest and at the same the Trust of the Inheritance might Entail the Trust of the Term to wait upon the Inheritance and that the Chancery does every day allow which they should take notice of But then it was objected that he ought to have limited the Trust of the Inheritance and of the Term both together but F. D. by a distinct Clause in the Deed limits the Trust of the Term which divides it and makes it independent upon the Inheritance the Trust of which he limits by another Clause To that it was said by the Court that tho' the Limitations were by several Clauses yet all must be taken as one entire Conveyance And Hale said that in 1646 a Lease for years was assigned and the Trust of it Entailed and two days after the Trust of the Inheritance Entailed in the same manner and it was held by the best Counsel then in England that tho' this were done by several Deeds and at several times yet being in pursuance of one Agreement that all was to be taken as one entire Act according to the Case of 17 Jac. where a Fine was levied to Lessee for years with an intent that he should suffer a Recovery which was had the Term following and resolved that his Term was not drowned The Jury hearing the Opinion of the Court found for the Plaintiff for all save a 12th part for so much was drowned and surrendred by the Assignment of F. D. to Sir W. S. one of the six Joynt-tenants of the Reversion Wood versus Coat AN Action for words That the Defendant being indicted of a forcible Entry at the Sessions and the Plaintiff produced as a Witness for the King and Swore nothing but what was true the Defendant after habens colloquium of the said Oath said The Plaintiff took a false Oath against me at the Sessions innuendo the said Oath c. After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved That the Action did not lye for the Defendant might mean an Extrajudicial Oath In Pritchards Case 2 Rolls where one said of him He took a false Oath against me at the Assizes It was held that the Action did not lye Sed non allocatur for in that case there was no colloquium laid which is alledged in this case and shews to what the words spoken did relate Bradnox Case A Habeas Corpus was brought to remove the Body of Broadnox who was taken by Process upon a Plaint exhibited in the Court of the Sheriffs in London and it was returned That time out of mind the Mayor Aldermen and Common Council of the City have had the Government and Regulation of Trade within the City and power to make By laws concerning the same and that they had made a By-law that there should be but 420 Carrs allowed to work within the City all which should be Licensed by the President of Christs Church Hospital and that there should be paid for the License of every Carr 1 l Fine and 17 s per annum to the said President to be employed for the use of the Poor within the Hospital and that none should use a Carr without such License under a certain penalty to be recovered c. Provided That all persons may send their own Carrs to the Wharfs c. and carry Goods in their own Carrs from Wharfs except such as shall be Traders or Retailers in Fuel That B. without such License wrought with a Carr pro lucro suo proprio and for the penalty forfeited thereupon a Plaint was levied against him c. It was prayed that there might be no Procedendo in this Case for tho' the By law should be admitted to be good having a Custom to warrant it as was ajudged in this Court 19 Car. nunc between Player and Jenkins yet it appears that the Plaint is insufficient for in that no Custom is alledged and in 1 Rolls 364. such a By-law to limit the number of Carrs was held void for there no Custom is alledged to ground it upon and then a By-law cannot restrain Trade Again 't is unreasonable that such as Trade in Fuel should not be permitted to bring home the Wood which they buy in the Country in their own Carts or to carry it out to their Customers for tho' they might limit the number of Carmen which in too great a multitude would be a Nusans and infest the Streets yet they cannot restrain a Man from using his own Carrs to carry his own Commodities As to the First The Court were of Opinion that it was not necessary to mention the Custom in the Plaint for 't is Lex loci and they take notice of their own Customs in their own Courts As in Norwich the Custom is that in Debt upon a Specialty the Debtor fatetur Scriptum sed petit quod inquiratur de debito and no Custom is set forth in the Record to warrant that But here in the Habeas Corpus they have returned the Custom which shews they had good cause to proceed upon their Plaint for it hath béen often resolved that Custom may create a Monopoly as the case in the Register is a Custom was that none should exercise the Trade of a Dier in Rippon without the Archbishop of Yorks License As to the Second the Court doubted whether this By-law could be adjudged reasonable or good because it would restrain the Woodmongers from bringing their Wood c. home in their own Carrs so that tho' they brought it in the Country Carts as far as the Liberties of the City they must then unload and put it in City Carrs which would be extreamly inconvenient and so it would be if they should send City Carrs to fetch it and tho' it might be reasonable to prohibit them carrying their Commodities out in their own Carrs that they might not have so great an opportunity to cheat in their Measures yet there could be no Colour to restrain them from bringing them in Et Adjornatur Cuts versus Pickering UPon a Trial at Bar one Baker who had been Solicitor for Pickering was produced as a Witness concerning the Razure of a Clause in a Will supposed to be done by Pickering The Court were moved Whether he could be Examined touching this because having been retained his Solicitor he should by reason of that be obliged to keep his Secrets But it

to Bernard to make his Wife a Joynture it shews that it was intended he should have but an Estate for Life which needed such a Power and not an Estate Tail for then he might have made a Joynture without it I Answer That Tenant in Tail cannot by virtue of such Estate make a Joynture without discontinuing or destroying his Estate Sed Judicium pro Quer ' There being Justice Twisden and Justice Rainsford against the Chief Justice Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 24 25 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court for that they Cited one out of the Diocess to Answer a Suit for a Legacy But it was denied because it was in the Court where the Probat of the Will was For tho' it were before Commissioners appointed for the Probat of Wills in the late Times yet now all their Proceedings in such cases are transmitted into the Prerogative Court And therefore Suits for the Legacies contained in such Wills ought to be in the Archbishop's Court for there the Executor must give account and be discharged c. Note When a man is in custodia Marescalli any man may Declare against him in a Personal Action and if he be bailed out he is still in custodia to this purpose viz. quoad Declarations brought in against him that Term For the Bail are as it were Delegated by the Court to have him in Prison Hob. Error is not well assigned That there was no Bail filed unless added That the Defendant was not in custodia Debt IN an Action of Debt upon a Sheriffs Bond the Case was this A man was Arrested upon a Latitat in placito Transgr ' ac etiam bille pro 40 l de debito And the Condition of the Bond given to the Sheriff was to appear at the Day of the Return of the Writ to answer to the Plaint in plito debito And it was urged that this made the Bond void by the Statute of 23 H. 6. for the Condition should have been to Appear at the Day to Answer in the Action upon which the Process went out and that was in this Case but an Action of Trespass and the adding the Ac etiam debiti c. is but to satisfie the late Act and for Direction to the Sheriff to what Value he shall require Bail And it was usual to Endorse the Cause of Action before the Statute upon the Latitats that the Sheriff might insist upon Bail accordingly So this is a material Variance from the Statute and not like some of these which are remembred in Beaufage's Case in the 10 Co. and Dyer 364. And to this the Court inclined And Hale Cited a Case between Button and Low adjudged Mich. 1649. An Attachment went out of Chancery to answer Coram nobis in Cancellaria ubicunque c. and the Sheriff took a Bond Conditioned to Appear Coram Rege in Cancellaria ubicunque c. apud Westmonasterium And for the addition of Westminster the Bond was held to be void Anonymus THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the Archbishop's Court to stop their Proceedings in a Cause belonging to the Jurisdiction of Durham upon a Suggestion that the Dean and Chapter of Durham Sede vacante have Cognizance there as Guardians of the Spiritualties And the Court granted a Prohibition for the Right of Jurisdiction was tryed between the Archbishop and Dean and Chapter the last Term and found against the Archbishop and therefore he was concluded by the Verdict until the Record was reversed by Error or Attaint Thodie's Case THody and two others were Indicted for that Conspiratione inter eos habita they enticed J. S. to play and cheated him with False Dice Thody pleaded and was found Guilty the others not having pleaded It was moved that Judgment might not be Entred against him until the others came in for being laid by way of Conspiracy if the rest should chance to be acquitted no Judgment could be given against him And so is 14 H. 6. 25. Hale said If one be Acquitted in an Action of Conspiracy the other cannot be Guilty But where one is found Guilty and the other comes not in upon Process or if he dies hanging the Suit yet Judgment shall be upon the Verdict against the other And so is 18 E. 3. 1. and 24 E. 3. 34. Wild said The difference was where the Suit was upon Conspiracy wherein the Villanous Judgment was to be given and where the Conspiracy is laid only by way of Aggravation as in this Case Hale said It would be the same in an Action against two upon the Case for Conspiracy but not in such Actions where tho' there be a Charge of Conspiracy yet the Gift of the Action is upon another matter But the Court said They would give him two or three days for the bringing in of the other two and defer the Entry of the Judgment in the mean time Methyn versus the Hundred of Thistleworth THe Case was moved again by North Solicitor He urgrd for the Plaintiff That the Issue being Whether they took the Felon upon Fresh Suit It being not found that there was any actual Taking or that the Fresh Suit continued until Sir J. Ash found the Felon in the presence of Sir P. Warwick Also it was found that Sir J. Ash was a Justice of Peace and therefore it was his duty to Apprehend him To this it was Answered That the Statute of Winton upon which the Action is founded and not upon the 27 of Eliz. and therefore it is ill if it concludes contra formam Statutorum doth not say shall Take but shall Answer the Bodies of the Offenders which is Answer them to Justice And therefore if the Felon be taken upon another account and the Country finding him in Prison cause him to be Indicted this satisfies the Statute Goldsb 55. Again it was more decent for Sir John Ash being concerned as an Inhabitant of the Hundred to leave this Matter to the other Justice of the Peace for it has been known that Justices of the Peace have been Censured in the Star-Chamber for being too forward to interpose in their own business But if it were an omission of the Duty of his Office that could not be Objected to him as an Inhabitant having done enough to satisfie the Statute of Winton Wild said That the Defendant should have Demurred because the Issue is ill joyned viz. absque hoc that he took him super eadem recenti insecutione For if he were not immediately taken upon Fresh pursuit it were sufficient but the Verdict finding Fresh Suit was made it may be taken by Intendment which shall help out a Special Verdict that it was directed this way and continued until the finding of him in the presence of Sir P. Warwicke Et sic Judicium pro Def. Ante. Dacres versus Duncomb IN Trover after Imparlance the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff with two others brought Trover for the

should be informed what their course is and has been and therefore let us hear the Civilians as to this point Post The King and Marlow THe Defendant being a Printer was indicted for his second Offence for Printing of a Seditious Book contrary to the Act of 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. and being found Guilty at the Sessions of the Old Baily the Iudgment was given That he should be for ever disabled to exercise the Art or Mistery of Printing and pay 20 l Fine and to stand in the Pillory And a Writ of Error was brought and Errors were assigned in the Judgment as varying from the words of the Act. For First The Act is That he should be disabled to exercise the Art and Mistery of Printing or Founding of Letters And the Judgment is only to disable him from Printing Secondly The Act is That he shall receive such further punishment by Fine Imprisonment or other Corporal Punishment And the Judgment is both for a Fine and Corporal Punishment when it ought not to be for both Curia The first is as it should be for Printing and Founding of Letters are two distinct Trades and the words are to be taken respectively to such Trade as the Defendant is of Again 't is a Rule that a Man shall not Assign an Error in that which is for his advantage But the second was held an Error for that the Act did not intend a Fine and Corporal Punishment both and therefore the Judgment was reversed Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davis versus Price IN Error upon a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action of Trover where Iudgment was given by default The Error was assigned in the Declaration which was de decem Juvencis Anglice Bullocks and Heifers and not said how many of one and of the other But it was answered that the Latin word being proper and of known signification the Anglice was void according to Osborns Case 10 Co. But the Court reversed the Judgment and cited the Case before in this Court Trover de viginti ovibus matricibus agnis And it was resolved to be naught for not ascertaining the number of each But Twisden said there was a Trover brought de Viginti averiis ivz. Bobus agnis c. and Viginti was applied to each Species and held well It was offered in this case to distinguish it from the case de Ovibus matricibus agnis that there the Latin was of two sorts Sed non allocatur for the words here being Equivocal it was all one Dutton versus Pool AN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That his Wives Father being seized of certain Lands now descended to the Defendant and about to cut a Thousand pounds worth of Timber off from the said Lands to raise a Portion for his said Daughter the Defendant promised to the Father in Consideration that he would forbear to fell the Timber that he would pay the said Daughter 1000 l After Verdict upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Father ought to have brought this Action and not the Husband and Wife and there was a case shewn to be adjudged in the Common Bench Hillary 23 and 24 Car. 2. Rot. 1538. between Pine and Norris where the Son promised the Father that in Consideration that he would Surrender a Copyhold to him that he would pay a certain Sum to his Sister for which she brought the Action and then held that it would lie for none but the Father for where the Party to whom the Promise is to be performed is not concerned in the meritorious cause of it he cannot bring the Action But if a Promise were to a Man that if his Daughter should Marry his Son he would give her 1000 l there because the Daughter does the Act which is the Consideration she may bring the Action On the contrary the Case was cited 1 Rolls 32. Starkey and Miln where in Consideration of certain Goods sold the Promise was to pay part of the Money to another there that other might bring the Action And it differs from the case where Money is delivered to A. to pay over to B. B. may bring Debt Yelv. 24. If the Father had in the Case at Bar cut the Trees And the Son had said Let me have the Trees and I will pay the Daughter so much that had been the same with the Case before cited 1 Roll. and it doth not seem to differ as it is 1 Cro. 163. Rookwook Case where the Father being about to charge the Land with a Rent of 4 l per Annum to his Younger Sons the Eldest promised that if he would forbear to charge the Land he would pay the 4 l per Annum and the Sons upon this brought the Assumpsit and recovered Sed vide librum that Promise is said expresly to be made to the Sons who were present Vid. 1 Cro. 619.652 Levett and Haws Case where the Promise was made to a Man in Consideration that he had agreed that his Son should Mary his Daughter and to settle such a Joynture upon her that he would give the Son 200 l with her and for this the Father brought the Action and held well brought tho' the Court seemed to incline that the Son might also have brought it And the Court here inclined for the Plaintiffs Sed Adjornatur Post Saunders versus Williams IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff Declared that he was seised in Fee of one Acre and possessed for a certain number of years in another Acre and had a Common in Black-acre for Beasts levant and couchant thereupon and that the Defendant put his Beasts in the place and disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Title of Common to himself also there Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had made no Title to the Common by Prescription or otherwise Sed non allocatur The Defendant being a Wrong-doer And the same Matter was Adjudged in the Court between St. John and Moody St. Mich. 27 Car. 2. quod vide ante and in the 2 Cro. 43.122 3 Cro. 500. Robinson versus Woolly THe Case was this Term Argued again And Holt Argued That the Induction tho' executed by the Archdeacon after the New Bishop was Consecrated was sufficient The Bishop is only to Admit and Institute and to send a Mandate to the Archdeacon to Induct who is to do it de communi Jure and therefore if the Bishop hath Admitted and Instituted and made a Mandate for Induction 't is a sufficient Excuse for him in a Quare impedit 11 H. 4. 9. for the Bishop is meerly a Spiritual Officer A Prebendary is to be Inducted by the Dean and Chapter Pl. Com. 529. But 't is Objected That the Archdeacon does not Induct ex Officio ●ut a Mandate from the Bishop is requisite scilicet First The

could not be digged up there might be an Indictment Exhibited to the Grand Jury who might Enquire thereupon Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 32 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Motion was made against a Judge of an Inferiour Court of Record for increasing upon a View the Damages in an Action of Trespass and Battery to so much more than was given by the Jury Curia The proper way is to Reform it by a Writ of Error for none but the Courts at Westminster can increase Damages upon View Anonymus IF a Writ of Error in Ejectment c. abates by the Act of God a second Writ will be a Supersedeas Otherwise where it abates by the Act of the Party Anonymus IN a Writ of Error to Reverse a Fine the Proclamations were pleaded in the same Fine and Five ●ears quiet possession and this in barr of a Writ of Error The Court Inclined that the Error being in the Fine Five years possession could not be pleaded Sed Adjornatur Mo. Rep. 8. Termino Paschae Anno 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis NOte This Term Sir Francis Pemberton was made Lord Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench in the room of Sir William Scroggs who was displaced Page versus Denton HIll 32 33. Car. 2. Rot. 45. In Debt upon a Bond against an Executor who pleads that the Testator was Indebted to him by an Obligation the Condition whereof was to pay Rent and that at the time of his Decease there was 300 l due for Rent and that he had not more than 60 l Assets to pay it c. The Plaintiff Replied That there was but 30 l due for Rent at the time of the Testator's death Which the Court held to be a good Replication altho' the Penalty of the Bond was forfeited at the time of the Testator's death For if a Bond due to a Stranger be forfeited and this be pleaded by an Executor and that he hath not Assets ultra 't is a good Replication to say That the Obligee would have taken part of his Money in full and it shall be a Bar for no more and here the Defendant ought to take but his due Debt And the Court said that if men would plead their Case Specially it would save many a Suit in Chancery Fitzharris's Case EDward Fitzharris was Indicted of High Treason upon which being Ar●aigned and demanded to plead he delivered in a Paper containing a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court which could not be received as the Court said not being under Counsel's Hand Whereupon he prayed to have Counsel assigned and Named divers whereof the Court assigned Four And he was taken from the Bar three of four days being given him to advise with his Counsel to prepare his Plea as they would stand by him The Counsel prayed that they might have a Copy of the Indictment But the Court denied it and said that it was not permitted in Treason or any other Capital Crimes But Justice Dolben said that sometimes it had been allowed to take Notes out of the Indictment Vid. Mirror 304. Abusion est que Justices ne monstre l'Indictment à les Indictes s'ils demandront Sect. 115. Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN an Action of Debt against an Executor in the Debet and Detinet upon a Surmize of a Devastavit the Defendant was held to Special Bail And so Ruled upon Motion Anonymus IT was said by the Court That if a Corporation that hath been by Prescription accept a New Charter wherein some alteration is of their Name and likewise of the Method in the Governing part yet their Power to remove and other Franchises which they had de temps d'ont c. do continue And if the Power to Remove be at their Will and Pleasure this Will must be expressed under their Common Seal but in Return to a Mandamus debito modo amotus may suffice Note No Writ of Error lies upon an Indictment of Recusancy and Conviction by Proclamation Note In an Ejectment where there are divers Defendants which are to Confess Lease Entry and Ouster if one does not appear at the Trial the Plaintiff cannot proceed against the rest but must be Nonsuit Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 33 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Covenant the Plaintiff Declared upon several Breaches one whereof was for not paying of 7 l according to the Covenant It was moved for the Defendant that he might be admitted to bring 7 l into Court to pay to the Plaintiff together with his Costs hitherto c. as is usual in Cases of Debt or Assumpsit for Money and that the Plaintiff might proceed for the rest if he thought fit But the Motion was denied because the Plaintiff had Declared of other Breaches and the Matter lay in Damages Anonymus ERror upon a Judgment in the Common Pleas where the Plaintiff Declared in an Action upon the Case that he had Common in the Defendants Lands habere debuit c. The Defendant Demurred because not set out how the Plaintiff was Intituled to the Common whether by Prescription or otherwise Notwithstanding which Judgment in the Common Bench was for the Plaintiff and now the same Matter insisted on for Error here and the Court doubted To make the Declaration good there was quoted the Case of Sands and Trefuses in the 3 Cro. in an Action for Stopping of a Watercourse to his Mill which was held good without saying an Ancient Mill or that he was Intituled to the Watercourse by Prescription or otherwise 2 Cro. 43.122 Dent and Oliver an Action for disturbing of him to take Toll and no Title set forth Sed Adjornatur Vid. Co. Entr. 9. 11. Day versus Copleston IN an Assumpsit for Money the Defendant pleaded the Statute for the Discharge of poor Prisoners and that he had been Discharged by that Act which provides that there shall be no after Prosecution by a Creditor in such case so as to subject the Body to Execution and says that he can say nothing further in Bar of the Action Vpon which the Plaintiff Demurred and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer and Judgment was Entred up for the Plaintiff but with a Cesset executio quoad Corpus c. And the Court approved of this way of pleading the Statute for otherwise they said if the Matter had not been disclosed in pleading they doubted whether the could have given the Defendant the benefit of the Act but he would be driven to his Audita Querela Anonymus ERror of a Judgment in the King's Bench in Ireland it was suggested that the Plaintiff was in Execution upon the Judgment in Ireland And the Court seemed to be of Opinion that a Habeas Corpus might be sent thither to remove him as Writs Mandatory had been awarded to Calais and now to Jersey Guernsey c. Anonymus THe Case was A. Tenant in Tail Remainder to B. in Tail c. A.

one hath to his Liberty Whoever excites the People to the disobedience of a Law commits the Highest Offence under High Treason I do not mean every Law as if one which should cause a Trespass to be done should be so guity but Laws which are of a publick Nature As to the Retorn I think it is the most insufficient I ever yet saw The certainty of the sum ought to have been expressed in which he and his Sureties should have been bound for otherwise the sum required might be so great that any Person might be constrained to remain in Prison There may may be lawful inciting to the breach of the Law as a Counsel or Attorney advising an Action which is not maintainable and sometimes it may be upon some particular design as in Dier 168. Bronker being made Sheriff one Hyde dissuaded him from taking the Sheriffs Oath because of the difficulty of the Articles B. was condemned in 100 l fine and 5 weeks imprisonment for refusing of the Oath and H. in 20 l and 5 weeks imprisonment for inciting him to it and the reason was because Hyde knew it to be an Offence and that makes it differ from the case of a Counsel or Attorney but the Offence was the less because the incitement was upon a particular reason and not against the Law quatenus a Law In the Retorn here they don't say that they found he was guilty but only that they found cause to suspect him Now what Remedy can be had in such a Case can an Issue be taken whether they had cause to suspect him or no Put the case one who had been fined 10 l for an Offence against this Act in which case the Statute allows of an Appeal had come to Mr. Rudyard to know what he should do and he had advised him to bring an Appeal at the Quarter Sessions this is no Offence and yet 't is an abetting to such as meet and perhaps might be a cause of suspition to a Iustice of Peace I do not see that the Retorn is good in any part of it and therefore he ought to be discharged but I think the Iustices should do well if they know him to be guilty to commit him by a better Warrant whereupon the Prisoner was discharged For it is the usage of this Court when the Iudges are of three Opinions as here my Lord Chief Justice and Tyrrell for discharging him Archer for putting him to Bail and Wyld for remanding him to give the Rule according to the Opinion of the Two which agree The Court said they had often directed that no Habeas Corpus should be moved for in this Court except it concerned a Civil Cause because when the Party was brought in and the Cause shewn this Court cannot proceed upon it therefore the proper place to move for them is the Kings Bench but they permitted it in this Case because the Party was an Attorney of the Court. The Court demanded of Rudyard upon his first bringing in whether he would submit to what they should propose and direct he said he would submit to the Rule of the Court but the Court told him that he must do but demanded whether he would yield to what they should do by way of Arbitration but he tho' advised otherwise by his own Counsel discovered his unwillingness to submit to any thing but the Rule of Law Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 23 Car. II. In Communi Banco Methuselah Turner versus Sir Samuel Sterling Pas ' 23 Rot ' 363. IN an Action upon the Case brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant the Plaintiff declares That London is an Ancient City and that there is an Ancient Bridge and that there use to be two Officers for it to look after it called Bridgmasters and that they have certain Fees and Profits belonging to them And that there is a Custom for the Citizens assembled in a Common Hall or Court yearly to choose or continue those Bridgemasters And another Custom that if one of these die within the Year that the Mayor shall assemble a Common Hall and they being Congregated shall proceed to the election of another Bridgemaster in his stead for the residue of the year And another Custom that upon their proceeding to Election if there be two Persons upon Election he that is chosen by the major number of Votes is duly Elected and that if one in such case require that the Polls should be numbred that the Mayor ought to allow the Poll and that the Assembly ought to be dismissed till that were done And another Custom that the Party so chosen ought to be sworn and used to receive the Profits to his own Use That 24 June 22 nunc Regis there was a Common Hall assembled the Defendant being then Mayor and that A. and B. were then and there chosen to this Office c. and being so A. died in October following and on the 18th of the same October there was another Common Hall for the Election of a Bridgemaster in his stead congregated by the Defendant and then and there the Plaintiff and one Allen stood as Competitors to be chosen for that Office and the Question grew which had the greatest number of Electors and the Plaintiff avers that he had the greatest Number and the other denied it and he requested that according to the Custom they might go to the Poll and the Defendant not minding the execution of his Office but violating the Law and Custom of the City did then and there malitiously refuse the numbring the of Polls and made Proclamation That the Congregation of Electors should depart and discharged the Court and the other man was sworn and so he lost the Profits of the Place c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff after it had been several times spoken to in Arrest of Iudgment the Court delivered their Opinions seriatim Wyld I think the Action well lies for otherwise it will be in the power of every Head Officer to get whom he will have chosen or refused It is objected That non constat whether the Plaintiff should have been chosen Answer The Law gives an Action for but a possibility of Damage as an Action lies for calling an Heir Apparent Bastard It was objected also That at the Common Law there was no Action for a Parliament man against a Sheriff for not returning of him being Elected I Answer That is a place of Burthen this of Profit if I have an Horse or Beast-Market and a Toll for Sale and one hinder the Beasts from coming hither non constat whether they should be sold Yet for the possibility of that and of the loss of the Toll thereon an Action lies 41 E. 3. 24. Pl. 17. b. An Action of the Case was brought against a Sheriff for making of a Precept to one to make a Retorn in the Plaintiffs Case who indeed was not a Bailiff of a Franchise and thereupon the Retorn was quashed Br '

of the Crown so 11. and so it was held in the Case of the Earl of Essex in Queen Elizabeths Time and in the Lord Cobham's Case in the Reign of King James the First And the Chief Justice cited the Statute made 29 H. 6. cap. 1. upon the Rebellion of Jack Cade which Act sets forth that John Cade naming himself John Mortimer falsly and traiterously imagined the Death of the King and the destruction and subversion of this Realm in gathering together and levying of a great Number of the King's People and exciting them to Rise against the King c. against the Royal Crown and Dignity of the King was an Overt act of imagining the Death of the King and made and levied War falsly and trayterously against the King and his Highness c. So that it appears by that Act that it was the Iudgment of the Parliament That gathering Men together and exciting them to Rise against the King was an Overt Act of Imagining the Death of the King Vide Stamford's Pleas of the Crown fo 180. And according to this Opinion Judgment was given against Harding in the following Sessions and he was Executed thereupon NOta At an Adjourned Sessions held the 19th of May 2 Willielmi Mariae it appeared that one of the Kings Witnesses which was to be produced in an Indictment for Treason had been the day before Challenged to Fight by a Gentleman that it was said was a Member of the House of Commons he was by the Court bound in a Recognizance of 500 l to keep the Peace And because it appeared the Witness had accepted the Challenge he was bound in the like Sum. NOta Vpon an Appeal to the House of Lords Anno 2 Willielmi Mariae the sole Question was Whether upon the Statute of Distributions 22 23 Car. 2. the half Blood should have an equal share with the whole Blood of the Personal Estate And by the Advice of the two Chief Justices and some other of the Judges the Decree of the Lords was That the Half Blood should have an Equal share Samon versus Jones IN an Ejectment brought in the Court of Exchequer in the year of the Reign of the late King James the Second The Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect William Lewis seised of a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate for Life did by Deed Poll in Consideration of Natural love and affection which he had to his Wife and Robert Lewis his Son and Heir apparent begotten on the Body of his said Wife and to Ellen his Daughter give grant and confirm unto the said Robert Lewis the Son all those Lands c. the Reversion and Reversions Remainder and Remainders thereof To have and to hold to his Son and his Heirs to the Vses following viz. to the use of himself for Life and then mentioned several other Vses not necessary to be here mentioned as not material to the Point in question and then to the use of the Wife for Life and after to the use of Robert and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such Issue to the use of Ellen the Daughter and the Heirs of her Body c. William Lewis and his Wife died Robert the Son devised the Estate to the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died without Issue Ellen was in possession and claimed the Lands by this Deed in which th●re was a Warranty but no Execution of the said Deed further than the Sealing and Delivery was had either by Enrolment Attornment or otherwise So that the sole Question was Whether this Deed should operate as a Covenant to stand seised or be void And it was Adjudged to amount to a Covenant to stand seised in the Court of the Exchequer And upon a Writ of Error brought upon the Statute of Ed. 3. before the Commissioners of the Great Seal and others empowered by that Act to sit upon Writs of Error of Judgments given in the Court of Exchequer the said Judgment was Reversed by the Opinion of Holt Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Pollexfen Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas And upon a Writ of Error before the Lords in Parliament brought upon the said last Judgment it was Argued for the Plaintiff in the VVrit of Error That this should enure as a Covenant to stand seised to the use of the Wife Son c. It appears by Bedell's Case in the 7 Co. and Foxe's Case in the 8 Co. that the words proper to a Conveyance are not necessary but ut res magis valeat a Conveyance may work as a Bargain and Sale tho' the words be not used so as a Covenant to stand seised tho' the word Covenant is not in the Deed and and Poplewell's Case were cited in 2 Roll. Abr. 786 787. A Feme in Consideration of a Marriage intended to be had between her and J. S. did give grant and confirm Lands to J.S. and his Heirs with a Clause of VVarranty in the Deed which was also Enrolled but no Livery was made It was Resolved to operate as a Covenant to stand seised Vide Osborn and Churchman's Case in the 2 Cro. 127. which seems contrary to that Case but the chiefest Case relied upon was that of Crossing and Scudamore Mod. Rep. 175. where a man by Indenture bargained sold enfeoffed and confirmed certain Lands to his Daughter and her Heirs and no Consideration of Natural Love or Money exprest This was Resolved 22 Car. 2. in B.R. to operate as a Covenant to stand seised and upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was affirmed It was said on the other side for the Defendant That the Case at Bar differed from the Cases cited for here the Intention of the Deed is to transfer the Estate to the Son and that the Vses should arise out of such Estate so transferred In the Cases cited no Vses are limited upon the Estate purported or intended to be Conveyed but only an Intention appearing to convey an Estate to the Daughter in Crossing's Case and to the intended Husband in Poplewell's Case and seeing for want of due Execution in those Cases the Estate could not pass at Law it shall pass by raising of an Vse But the Case at Bar is much the same with the Case of Hore and Dix in Siderfin the 1st Part. 25. where one by Indenture between him and his Son of the one part and two Strangers of the other part in Consideration of Natural love did give grant and enfeoff the two Strangers to the use of himself for Life Remainder to the Son in Tail c. and no other Execution was three than the Sealing and Delivery of the Deed this was Resolved not to raise an Vse for the Vse was limited to rise out of the Seisin of the Strangers who took no Estate Vide Pitfield and Pierce's Case 15 Car. 1. Marche's Rep. 50. One gave granted and confirmed Lands to his Son after his Death this Deed had been