resolved that upon this Indictment they might all have been found guilty at the Common Law then when all are found guilty within the Statute the Verdict shall be taken as it may stand by Law And the substance of the Indictment being found the rest is but surplusage which hurteth not the Verdict And the Court held that the Indictment need not conclude contra formam Statuti because the Statute doth not alter the nature of the offence but only takes away the priviledge which the Common Law allowed in such case and therefore it is sufficient that the circumstances be expressed in the Indictment whereby it may appear that the offence is within the Statute and the Offendors had their Clergy and upon their reading were burnt in the hand in conspectu curiae Price versus Vaughan Trin. 14 Car. Rot. 1160. IN an Ejectione firmae Ejectione firmae upon a special Verdict upon not guilty pleaded the Case was briefly thus Walter Vaughan being seised in Fee of the Land in question devised it to Francis his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his second Son and the Heirs males of his Body with other remainders the remainder to the Heirs males of the Body of the Devisor provided if the eldest Son should die without Issue male but having Issue female then I do give full power and authority to the said Daughters to enter into the Lands and to take the profits thereof untill he that first shall have the Lands after the death of Francis shall pay to each of them 400 li. towards their Marriage and dies Francis dies without Issue male having a Daughter Elizabeth who entred into the Lands and died the 400 li. being unpaid her Administrator enters and Leases to the Plaintiff upon whom the younger Son of the Devisor enters and him ejects and if upon the whole matter the entry of the Administrator was lawfull they find for the Plaintiff And the question in Law was what Estate Elizabeth had and it was argued by Hale Maynard and Brown for the Plaintiff 1. That she had an interest 5 H. 7. 1. a. 27 H. 8. 16. 1. Dyer 210. d. Br. Devise 48. for an authority to take the profits implies as much as a devise of the profits which gives an interest 2. It is a Chattel like to the case where a feoffment is made rendring Rent with proviso that if it be arrear the Feoffor may enter and hold the Land till it be paid this gives a Chattel to the Feoffor And so it is if the arrears were to be satisfied out of the profits of the land And so it is in case of a devise to Executors till debts be paid And so Brown said it was resolved in a Case between Eire and Haggard Hil. 13 Jac. Rot. 868. C. B. where a Rent was granted out of the Lands and if the Rent were behind that the Grantor might enter into the Land and hold it till he were paid that this was but a Chattel 3. It was argued that this Chattel was transmissible to the Administrator because if the portion it self had been devised though it were toward Marriage it would have gone to the Administrator Now though the profits of the Land are but a gage till the portion be paid yet it follows the Portion as 20 H. 7. 1. a. as if a nomine poenae descend to the Heir with the Rent so if Lands are devised to Executors for payment of Debts it goes to their Executors and the Executors of Tenant by Elegit shall have an Assise for the remedy goes with the duty 2 Inst 396. e. And in this case if it should not be so the Portion might not be paid which were contrary to the meaning and letter of the Will for there is an express proviso that the Lands shall not remain over till the money be paid and Twisden and St. John Sollicitor argued to the contrary But St. John did admit it to be an Interest but that it was no Chattell 1. Because the devise is found to be in pursuance of Articles of agreement made for the like settlement to be made by the Testator in his life-time but if such a settlement had been made in his life it would have given a Freehold for life and not a Chattel 2. The devise was for advancement of Daughters and it is found by the Verdict that 1200 Acres of Land are devised in which if the Daughters should have an Estate for life it cannot but be intended to be as great or greater advancement than if 400 li. only had been devised to them and yet that the Testator lookt upon as a sufficient provision And therefore made the Estate determinable upon payment of that 3. It cannot be thought that the Testator intended to give the whole Land to the Daughters and to debar the Issue male of his younger Sons and yet as this Will is penned if it should not give a Freehold then if the first man dies before payment the Daughters shold have it for ever and Dyer 300 h. was cited And for this cause also it cannot be a Chattel for there cannot be a perpetuity of a Chattel upon no supposal and therefore there is no more reason to say it should be a Fee in them than a Chattel 2. If it be a Chattel it goes not to the Executors or Administrators 1. Because it is personally limited to the Daughters and not to their Executors and Administrators 2. It is limited to them for their advancement which doth not respect their Executors 3. If it should goe to the Executors then there would be a perpetuity of it As to the Cases objected by the Plaintiff's Counsel as 27 H. 8. 5. which was much insisted upon where cestuy que use Covenants that his Feoffees shall suffer one of his Executors and Assigns to take the profits of the Land till he or they be paid 100 li. by the Covenants c. if he dies before he hath received it his Executors shall hold it till they be paid It was answered that this was in case of a Vse which was then ruled meerly according to equity and by express words it was limited to the Executors and there it was for money paid by the Covenantee and so for a Duty which goes to the Executors And for the case of a Devise to Executors for payment of Debts there it is a Chattel in them which goes to their Executors because otherwise Debts should not be paid which is the special reason of that case for such an Estate made by Grant will be an Estate for life l. 8. 96. c. And in the case of retaining Land till a Rent be paid there the Land is taken but as a Distress till the Rent which is a duty issuing out of it be paid but in our case neither the person nor the Land is Debtor for no Legacy is devised to the Daughters the Devise is only that they shall hold the Lands untill
T. 22 Car. Rot. IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration of a Marriage Promise inter alia not good ought to set forth the whole Promise c. Inter al' promisit de payer tant puis Verdict pro Querent ' Judgment fuit done vers luy because he ought to set forth the whole promise which is entire Hinacre versus Lemon M. 22 Car. Rot. SLander Words charged with procuring Felony good The Defendant said of the Plaintiff she caused Mr. Langly's Servant to steal and purloin 30 and received them and sold them which was the cause why his Master broke and upon a Verdict and Iudgment in the Common Bench in a Writ of Error the Iudgment was affirmed because she is charged with procuring of Felony and receiving stollen Goods Haines versus Finch Debt upon a promise for bringing up Children good without saying they were the Plaintiff's AN Executor brought an Action of Debt upon a promise made with the Testator for bringing up of Children and Teaching and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon nil debet pleaded it was moved that Debt would not lie in the Case because it was not layed that they were the Plaintiff's Children But the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for Debt will lie upon a promise made by a stranger Debt upon a promise of money to marry a poor Virgin as in N. B. 122. k. If one promiseth money to another for marrying a poor Virgin Debt lieth but the parties agréed and so no Iudgment was given And Roll said that in Trevilian's Case Servant retain'd an Attorney for his Master and promises him his Fees Debt lies against the Servant where a Servant retained an Attorney for his Master and promised he should have his Fées an Action of Debt was brought thereupon by the Attorney against the Servant in C. B. and the Plaintiff recovered but upon Error in this Court a rule was given for the reversal of the Iudgment notwithstanding the like President shewn in Bradford's Case but he said that the Iudgment was not reversed upon the Roll and his opinion was that the Iudgment was good Edwards versus French T. 22 Car. Rot. 675. Slander whereby he lost his Marriage And no agreement of Marriage or mutual Love alledged and the words were spoken only in the innuendo yet good SLander The Plaintiff declares that whereas there was a Communication of Marriage betwéen the Plaintiff and one Mary Hicks who was worth 300 li. and that she deferred Marriage with the Plaintiff q. d. that verisimile fuit that they should be Married the Defendant in the hearing of divers persons said Mary Hicks is Mr. Edwards his Whore innuendo the Plaintiff whereupon Mary Hicks was refused to Marry the Plaintiff And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that there was no agréement of Marriage nor mutual love alledged betwéen the Plaintiff and M. H. 2. That the words were not alledged to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo yet upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Osborne versus Brooke Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 677. SLander Captain Osborne is forsworn Slander Is forsworn and his Oath appears upon Record Act ' gist and his Oath appears upon Record The Defendant as to the first words pleads not guilty and as to the latter justifies that he was forsworn in finding of an indictment of Forcible Entry and upon de injuria sua propria as to the justification both issues were found for the Plaintiff And upon motion of Latch in arrest of judgment First if the Words themselves were actionable Secondly if the Iustification made them good and actionable and upon great debate judgment was given for the Plaintiff in both points First the Court did take the words being spoken together to be the same as if he had said he is forsworn upon Record Justification explains the Parties meaning to be of perjury which is as much as to call him perjured Secondly his justification hath explained his meaning in them to be of perjury And Tuke and Condie's Case was cited for this where the Defendant in an Action brought for saying You are forsworn justified that he was forsworn in an indictment of Battery and the issue upon the justification being found for the Plaintiff he had judgment in Common Bank which was afterwards affirmed in this Court and now allowed for good Law by both the Iudges yet two Objections were made by Latch against this judgment First that the Declaration of it self being insufficent in substance could not be made good by the Defendant's bar Secondly that the ground of the Action is the disgrace that the Plaintiff incurs before the Auditors now they must understand the words according to the common acceptation as they were spoken and not in the sense wherein the Defendant justifies the speaking of them and he cited a Case 21 Jac. betwéen Wheeler and Abbot where in Slander for saying Thou hast stollen my Piece innuend ' a Gun the Defendant justified that the Plaintiff did steal his Gun and though the Iustification which shewed the Defendant's meaning to be of a Gun was found against him and Piece was a word of an incertain signification which could not be explained by the Innuendo Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Reasons aforesaid Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Water's Case Ten in common makes a Wall against the house to prevent the others getting in no disscisin IN an Assise of a House in Westminster upon null ' tort c. pleaded and a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that there were two Tenants in common of the House and one of them nailed up the Doors and made up a Wall against the House to prevent the others getting into the House and this was resolved no Disseisin and so the Iury were discharged But the point in Law would have béen that a Tradesman purchased Lands in fée to himself and his Wife and after became Bankrupt c. whether the Commissioners had power to sell so as to bar the Wife Taylor versus Usherwood Hill 18 Car. Rot. 87. Demise IN an eject ' firmae upon a special Verdict the Case was That one devised Land to one Elizabeth for her life and after her death to the eldest Heir male of her body and to the Heirs males of such Heir male so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth and if he be not of twenty four years of age at that time then that the Husband of Elizabeth shall hold them till he comes to that age and the profits to be disposed among the younger Children Elizabeth dieth her Heir male within the age of twenty four years and after he attained to that age and entred and demised to the Defendant And Hales argued for the Defendant That if the demise had rested in
torn in pieces with Rats if a Stranger by laying the pieces together could make the devise appear good if gnawn before the death against the Will IN an Eject ' firm ' upon a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that one Warner by his Will in writing devised the Lands in question to Henry Etheringham and the Heirs males of his body and bailed the Writing to the Scrivener to kéep and four years after died and about a fortnight after his death this Writing was found in the Scrivener's Study gnawn all to pieces with Rats yet he with the help of the pieces and of his memory and other Witnesses caused it to be proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and now the Court demanded of the Witnesses whether a Stranger that knew not the Contents of the Will before by joyning of the pieces together could tell that the devise of the Lands in question was to Etheringham and the Heirs males of his body for they did agrée that if this clause could be made out though by joyning of the pieces it were a good Will for all that But the Witnesses said that a Stranger could not make out that clause Whereupon the Court directed the Iury that if they found that the Will was gnawn before the death of the Devisor then 't was for the Plaintiff if after for the Defendant and the Iury found for the Defendant in favour of the Will Markham versus Adamson Words I accuse you to be a Witch c. IN Slander The Defendant said to the Plaintiff I accuse you to be a Witch and the next day said I desire to have you searched the Plaintiff asked why would you have me searched the Defendant said because I accuse you to be a Witch and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff judgment was given against him because the words did not import an Accusation of any offence within the Statute But it was agréed that if the Plaintiff had béen accused of bewitching a Man or a Beast though this were not Felony by the Statute the Action would have lain and so hath it béen adjudged Newman versus Zachary ACtion sur le Case The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant was his Shepherd and that two of his Sheep did estray Action sur le Case for his false practice creating trouble c. to the Plaintiff one of which being found again the Defendant affirmed to be the Plaintiff's whereupon the Plaintiff paid for the feeding of it and caused it to be shorn and marked with his own Mark and yet afterwards the Defendant malitiose machinans to disgrace the Plaintiff and knowing the said Sheep to be the Plaintiffs falsò fraudulenter affirmavit to the Bailiff of the Manor that had waifs and strays belonging to it that this Shéep was an Estray whereupon the Bailiff seised it to his damage c. And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff Latch moved that there was no cause of Action for there is no breach of trust in the Defendant as Shepherd and his words cannot endamage the Plaintiff for he shall have his remedy against the Bailiff of the Manor that seised the Shéep wrongfully But it was adjudged that the Action would lie because the Defendant by his false practice hath created a trouble disgrace and damage to the Plaintiff and though the Plaintiff have cause of Action against the Bailiff Upon slandering a Title though the party hath remedy vers Trespasser yet Action lies against him that caused the disturbance yet this will not take off his Action against the Defendant in respect of the trouble and charge that he must undergoe in the recovery against the Bailiff and Hales said that if one slander my Title whereby I am wrongfully disturbed in my Possession though I have remedy against the Trespasser I shall have an Action against him that caused the disturbance Sir Thomas Bowe 's Case If Lessee for years hold over and pay his Rent quarterly that makes a Tenant at will 21 H. 7. 38 E. 14 H. 8. 11. f. Dyer 62 a. 173. IN Debt for Rent upon a Lease at Will of Houses in London upon a Trial at the Bar touching the Title of Sir T. Bowes it was agréed and given in charge to the Iury by Roll that if Tenant for years holds over his term and continue to pay his Rent quarterly as before that this payment and acceptance of the Rent amounts to a Lease at Will Ten. at will begins a new Quarter over shall pay the Rent Inst 56. 69. 13 H. 8. 16. a. Kel 65. 6. 2. That if Tenant at Will rendring Rent quarterly begins a new Quarter and voluntarily determines the Will before the Quarter ended yet he shall pay the Rent for that Quarter Evely versus Livermore H. 17 Car. Rot. 1409. Stat. 3 Jac. that does not extend to a special Action upon his promise and to give a Ticket of his charges IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant reteined him as his Attorney to follow his Causes in the King's Bench Chancery and Court of Request and gave him so much in hand to defray his charges and promised to pay him what more he should lay out and alledges that he layed out 10 li. more then he received for Fees of Counsel and other charges in the Defendants Suits which the Defendant hath not paid c. The Defendant pleads the Statute 3 Jac. 7. that the Plaintiff did not give a Ticket to him of his charges c. and after demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Statute doth not extend to a special Action upon a promise and so it was adjudged in Dobbins his Case Farrer versus Bates P. 22 Car. Rot. Arbitrement Debt and other Controversieslie in Arbitrement though Debt solely does not IN an Indebitatus Assumpsit for 9 li. upon an Insimul computaverunt the Defendant pleaded a submission of all actions and controversies to Arbitrement and that the Arbitrators awarded that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff 4 li. in satisfaction of all Accounts and upon issue quod non se submiserunt Arbitrio it was found for the Defendant and upon motion in arrest of Iudgment it was agréed Where Arbitrement is no plea in Debt it is no plea in an Assumpsit upon the Debt that though Debt it self doth not lie in Arbitrament yet that and other Controversies doth 10 H. 7. 4. 4 H. 6. 27. But it was likewise agrréed that where Arbitrament is no plea in Debt it is no plea in an Assumpsit upon the Debt 2. Where it does not reach the thing demanded It was resolved that the Arbitrament did not reach the thing demanded for that was only of all Accounts and this is a duty upon the Account and so the Defendant could have no Iudgment then it was moved to have a Repleader Repleader denied but denied by Roll being then sole present Hil. 22 Car. Banco Regis Powel versus Waterhouse
invaded the Realm with an hostile Army of men and with the same force did enter upon the Defendant's possession and him expelled and held out of possession from the 19 of July 18 Car. till the Feast of the Annunciation 21 Car. whereby he could not take the profits whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and the plea was resolved insufficient 1. Because the Defendant hath not answered to one quarters Rent 2. He hath not averred that the Army were all Aliens which shall not be intended and then he hath his remedy against them and Bacon cited 33 H. 6. 1. e. where the Gaoler in bar of an escape pleaded that Alien enemies broke the Prison c. and exception taken to it for that he ought to shew of what Countrey they were viz. Scots c. 3. It was resolved That the matter of the plea was insufficient for though the whole Army had been Alien enemies yet he ought to pay his Rent And this difference was taken that where the Law creates a duty or charge and the party is disabled to perform it without any default in him and hath no remedy over there the Law will excuse him As in the case of Waste if a House be destroyed by Tempest or by Enemies the Lessee is excused Dyer 33. a. Inst 53. d. 283. a. 12 H. 4. 6. so of an Escape Co. 4. 84. b. 33 H. 6. 1. So in 9 E. 3. 16. a Supersedeas was awarded to the Iustices that they should not proceed in a Cessavit upon a Cesser during the War but when the party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself he is bound to make it good if he may notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity because he might have provided against it by his Contract And therefore if the Lessee covenant to repair a House though it be burnt by Lightning or thrown down by Enemies yet he ought to repair it Dyer 33. a. 40 E. 3. 6. h. Nota. Now the Rent is a duty created by the parties upon the reservation and had there been a Covenant to pay it there had been no question but the Lessee must have made it good notwithstanding the interruption by enemies for the Law would not protect him beyond his own agreement no more then in the case of reparations This Reservation then being a Covenant in Law and whereupon an Action of Covenant hath been maintained as Roll said it is all one as if there had been an actual Covenant Another reason was added that as the Lessee is to have the advantage of casual profits so he must run the hazard of casual losses and not lay the whole burthen of them upon his Lessor and Dyer 56. 6. was cited for this purpose Vide Co. 4. 82. g. that though the Land be rounded or gained by the Sea or made barren by Wild-fire yet the Lessor shall have his whole Rent And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Wheeler versus Walroone P. vel T. 18 Car. Rot. 600. By devise of all the rest of his Goods Chattels Leases Estates Morgages c. to his Wife passed but an Estate for life Crooke 3. part 447 449. 450. the reason In an Ejectione firmae Vpon a special Verdict the case was that one being seised of the Manor of D. and other Lands in Somersetshire by his Will in writing devised the Manor to A. for six years and part of the other Lands to B. in fee and then comes in this clause And the rest of all my Lands in Somersetshire or elsewhere I give to my Brother and the Heirs of his Body And the question was whether the reversion of the Manor passed or no for it was said that the word Rest did extend only to such Lands as were not devised before but it was adjudged for the Defendant that the reversion of the Manor passed by the devise Baker versus Edmonds Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 222. Action sur le Case In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant was indebted to one Gode in the summ of 43 l. 1 s. for c. And being so indebted promised to pay him which Gode was indebted to the Plaintiff and became Bankrupt whereupon a Commission upon the Statute was sued forth and the Commissioners did assign debita praed ' Gode in quadam schedula continent ' praed ' summam 43 li. 1 s. to the Plaintiff c. the Defendant pleads that he made no such promise to Gode And by special Verdict it was found that the Defendant was indebted to Gode but in 41 li. 1 s. which he promised to pay and that the Commissioners assigned debita praed ' Gode mentionat ' in quadam schedula continent ' praed ' summam 43 li. 1 s. to the Plaintiff And if this be same promise that the Plaintiff hath declared upon they find for the Plaintiff And two Objections were made 1. That it is not the same promise because the Plaintiff hath declared of a promise to pay 43 li. 1 s. and the Iury find the promise to be but of 41 li. 1 s. That upon the whole Record it appears that the Plaintiff hath not made a good Title to his Action for he hath alledged the Assignment to be of a debt of 43 l. 1 s. whereas the debt was but 41 li. 1 s. And this being an entire thing will not pass by the Assignment of a greater sum But it was answered and resolved 1. That it is the same promise for if Gode himself had brought the Action he should have recovered upon this Verdict and the Assignment by the Commissioners vests the Debt in the Plaint And he hath the same remedy to recover as the Bankrupt himself had Dyer 219. g. 21 E. 4. 22. a. And the difference was taken between an Action upon the Contract it self c. for there if the party mistakes the sum agreed on he fails in his Action but if he brings his Action upon the promise in Law Br. Issue joyn 80. which arises from the Debt there though he mistakes in the sum he shall recover and so hath it been adjudged 2. The Assignment is not in question for the Issue and Verdict are concluded to the promise and so that which they find touching the Assignment is not material however the Assignment is not laid to be of such a sum as by that name for then it would have been a question whether good and the Court inclined that it would not have been good Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis But the Assignment is laid to be of the Debts of Gode mentioned in a schedule containing that sum and so it was found by the Iury therefore the Court shall intend it to be in such a manner as that the Debt of 41 li. 1 s. might well pass thereby And after much debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Munday versus Baily Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 83. or 82. IN an Assumpsit Assumpsit upon an