Sergeant Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that their Instructions are Whereas there be divers Books News and Tales spread abroad and Libells made by which the Subjects are abused and the Peace may be broken you shall proceed against such Persons till the Authors be found out and they be punished by fines imprisonments papers set on their breasts and the like And he said that those words are not accomtable at Common-law and therfore are not as they seem within their Instructions But admit that yet they have not power to give dammages to the Party Richardson said In the Star-Chamber libellous Letters that are spitefull and scandalous to defame any although that they bear not an Action at Common-law yet they are punishable there and also they give dammages to the Party wronged But there is difference betwéen the Star-Chamber and that c. Henden said that Magna Charta makes the difference Quod nullus liber homo capietur aut imprisonetur nisi secundum legem terrae So by the Common Law and their instructions they have not power to give damages to the party Richardson chief Iustice said that no prohibition should be granted for the Fine of the King for they have power in that Case without question and to the punishing in that matter And if they err in Iudgement for the Libellious Letter and adjudge it to be Libellious where it is not We cannot award a prohibition nor grant error But for the damages that Court differs from the Star-chamber for the Star-chamber had its power by its self and differs from the Common Law But that Court is by Commission and therefore they ought to follow their Instructions And therefore a prohibition as to the damages shall be granted And Yelverton also was of the same opinion but he said there was another clause in their Instructions And for that a prohibition as to the damages shall be granted Hutton and Harvey said That if the sute was by information than it is clear that damages cannot be given But it is by Bill so in nature of an Action as I conceive which concludes that they were damnified But it is now brought too late to grant a prohibition where the parties have admitted the action But a day was given to shew cause why a prohibition should not be granted quoad the damages And so they concluded for that time Note that it was said by the Court That if money be lent upon Interest and the Scrivener who makes the Obligation reserves more then 8. l. in the 100. l. That that is not an usurious Contract See the cause c. Eaton and Morrisâ—s Case EAton and Morris being reputed Churchwardens but they never took any Oath as the Office requires present a Feme Covert upon a Common report for Adultery c. And the husband and wife Libel against them in the Ecclesiastical Court for that defamation And when sentence was taken and ready to be given for them the Churchwardens appeal to the Arches and for that that that presentment cannot be proved but by one witness they sentenced the Baron and Feme And now Ward who that term was made a Serjeant by a special call moved for a prohibition but it was denied by the Court for they were Plaintiffs first And also it is a cause which this Court had not any Conusance of Marshes Case before MOre of Marshes Case which is before Richardson Hutton Harvey and Yelverton said That the consideration also is good For although that it be not expressed that the Plaintiff himself shewed the accounts yet it appears fully that they were upon the request of the wife viewed And it shall be intended by Common presumption that the Plaintiff himself shewed them for he had the custody of them and is owner of them And the Books of Merchants are their secrets and treasure and they will not shew them by their good will Now it is not like to the case of an Obligation for there the certainty of the debt was before and he was compellable to shew it But the certainty here cannot appear without great search and labour and there can be no compassion to shew their Books And by Hutton Iustice There is no question but if the promise had been made after the Sute commenced it haâ—… been good No question by Richardson and it is agreed by all That if the Defendent had required the Books to be brought to his house or to another place it should have been good And there is not any difference although the Books were shewen in the shop by the servant for he permitted his Books to be viewed c. And Yelverton said that Beechers Case and Banes Case is more infirm than this Case is And yet adjudged there to be good And so it was awarded that Iudgement should be entred for the Plaintiff Si non c. Of a Communication of Marriage A Communication between I.S. and A. was of the Marriage of I S. being possessed of a term for years and of certain goods promised to A. that if she would be married to him and they had issue a son that he should have the term If a Female that she should have the moyetie of the goods And after they intermarry and have issue B. a daughter The husband dies and B. brings an action upon the Case against the Administrator of I.S. By the Court she cannot bring the action unless as Administratrix of A. or in the name of A. And the Case of Stafford was recited Where there was a Communication between Stafford and a woman That if she would marry with him that Stafford would leave her at his death 100. l. And after the intermarriage and death of the husband in an action brought by the wife the question was whether the promise was extinguisht by the intermarriage And after grand disputes it was resolved that the intermarriage was but a suspension of the promise And so it was concluded Kitton against Walters KItton brought debt upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 9. for Perjury against Walters for an Action of Trespass for Battery was brought against him by I. S. and he pleaded not guilty and that the Defendant was brought as a witness And that he falsely and corruptedly deposed and did not speak voluntarily that the Plaintiff in the Trespass was wounded and beaten c. And that he could not labour for half a year c. And upon the general issue pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and Hendon moved to have Iudgement But it was objected that the party grieved shall not have that Action for that he did not say voluntarie deposuit c. For although that he falsly deposed wherein voluntary is not but a conclusion and voluntas ought to be in the premisses and corruptive does not include that and so was the opinion of the whole Court And it was awarded that the Plaintiff nil capiat per breve A servant of a Bayliffs Case IT was awarded
stollen from him and that was sold in a Scriveners Shop Resolved that there was no change of the property For by intendment if a man had Drapery stollen from him he would not seck it there So if a man fells stollen Plate and sells it in the High street under his Cloak It does not change property And if a man sells a thing in a Silkmans Shop in London the Curtain being drawn That does not change the property And now to the principal Case Although he said that he was a Goldsmith and that that was his Shop It is not necessary to be intended that he used the Trade of a Goldsmith in it And that ought to be averred For every Shop is a Market overt for these Causes only which appertain to the same trade Williams against Bickerton VVIlliams brought an action upon the Case against Bickerton for saying He hath forsworn himself and I le teach him the price of an Oath for I will have his Ears cropt And it séemed that it lay For although it was not said at the beginning where it was that he forswore himself Yet by the circumstance it shews that he was in such a place for which it was punishable And M. 29 30 Eliz. Dantsleys Case Thou art a Pillary Knave remember that thou hast deserved the Pillary and the Action maintainable And the Plaintiff paid the Box for his Iudgement Bradyes against Johnson BRadye brought an Eject firm against Johnson and declared upon a Lease of Land habend a die dat Indentur praedict And does not speak of any Indenture before And for that the Declaration adjudged naught And so it was betwéen Bell and March. And this same term between Spark Where it was shewed quod concessit per eandem Indent Where he had not spoke of any Indenture before Lowen against Cocks IN Debt by Lowen against Cocks the Case was thus A man seised of an house in St. Edmonds Parish in Lumbard-street in London devises it to his wife for life the remainder to his Son George and if he dye without Issue then to Iohn and Thomas his Sons equally and to their Heirs The wife dyes George dyes without Issue l. and T. make a Lease for years rendring 5. l. to the one and 5. l. to the other l. devises the reversion to his wife and dyes and for that Rent the Action was brought by the Wife And the Question was if they shall be Ioynt or Tenants in Common For if joynt the devise of the Reversion is void And Secondly If by any Act which makes partition viz. the several Limitations of the rent to them If séemed to Hutton that they are Tenents in Common By reason of that word equally which in it self makes a Division In 33 Eliz. in Boucher against Marsh It was held that where a man devises Lands to three Children equally to be divided they are Tenents in Common And so it was 14 lac in case of Goods And it is clear as it is said If a Man devise 100 l. to two equally the Executors shall pay 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other For if that word equally does not make tenancy in Common it shall be all otherwise void And every word of a Will ought to be of some force And in these Cases the word divided was not the force of the matter but only equally And it was the Case of a Shepheard in the Courts of Wards Where a man devises that after the death of his Son all my woods shall remain equally to his Daughters and their Heirs of their bodies And it was there held by Dyer and Manwood that they were Tenents in Common If Parceners agrée to hold by That is sufficient partition And if the one Ioyntenant confirms to the other that does not give any thing but severs the Ioynture Harvey to the contrary First They are Ioint For Ioynture is the greatest equality for every one is seised by himself and the one hath as much of the profits as the other And so equal interest and equal benefit to the Survivor 6 E. 6. in Dyer A difference was taken between a Demise to two when it is said equally divided That they shall be Tenents in Common If equally to be divided they shall be joynt But it was never adjudged 17 Eliz. A man having 3 Sons devises Lands to them equally to be divided The Question was what estate they had For if the younger had not a fee they could not have an Estate equal with the eldest for he had a fee. Resolved that they shall have a fee-simple and also that they shall be Tenents in Common And held that to be divided and divided was all one And it was held also that the word divided makes the Tenancy in Common and not equally 2. As to that reserve of 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other clearly being a joynt Lease and a joynt reversion And the Rent as accessary to the reversion and shall not change the nature of it Yelverton They are Tenents in Common A Will shall be construed according to the intent of the Testator And exposition shall be made of the words to supply his intent Tomlins's Case IT was agreed by all That if one sojourn in the House of another and the House is broken in the night and the Stranger robbed in the House without being put in fear of his life In law He that robbed shall have his Clergy notwithstanding the Burglary For it is out of the Statute of 5 6 of E. 6. cap. 9. Dicksons Case AT Sergeants Inne in Chancery lane this Question was debated If a man steal Goods and the very Owner makes fresh sute to take the felon So that he waives the Goods and flies And before the Owner comes the Goods are seised as Goods waived and af-the Owner comes and challenges them Now if he shall have them or they shall be forfeited was the Question And it was held by Harvey and Crook That they are not at all forfeited for that the Owner had done his endeavour and pursued from village And that the Goods shall not be said to be waived but where it cannot be known to whom the property is Hutton Chief Iustice and Yellerton said That Goods waived shall be said those which are stollen and that the Felon being pursued for danger of apprehension waives and flies Now if they are seised before that the Owner comes the property is presently altered out of the Owner in the Lord although that he made fresh sute If that Sute was not within the view of the Felon allwaies But they all agreed if the Felon do as not flye but is apprehended with the Goods That then the Owner shall have his Goods without Question Or if the Owner comes and challenges the Goods before seisure and after the flight of the Felon Harvey said The Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. does not remedy any thing as to the restitution of the Goods stollen But upon
not but a liberty given by the Conisee to the Conisor to be at large That does not release the Execution Dolbins Case IN a Replevin the parties were at Issue and the Plaintiff sued a Venire f. c. returnable such a day at which day the Sheriff does not return the Writ Wherefore the Avowant by Ward prayed a Venire fac with a proviso for him And it was granted by the whole Court Fossams Case A Man after the Statute of 27 H. 8. makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for term of his life and after his decease to the use of I. S. and his Heirs The Feoffor does waste And I. S. brought his Action of Waste And now if his Writ shall be general or special was the Demur in Iudgement And Hutton and the other Iustices were clearly of opinion That the Plaintiff ought to have a special Writ And so it was adjudged afterwards Doswell against Iames. IN Debt brought upon an Obligation Iames shews that the Obligation was endorsed with a Condition to perform all the Covenants comprised in an Indenture and he pleads that all the Covenants were fulfilled And does not shew in certainty the Covenants nor how they were performed And Hitcham said that the Plea was not good For there is a Diversity when one pleads in the Affirmative and when in the Negative For if in the Affirmative he shews in the certainty how the Condition or Covenants were performed And there is no diversity in my opinion between the Conditions which were upon the dorsed Obligation and the Covenants in the Indenture And it is to be thought that he who knows more of the Truth should shew it in his Plea And therefore he who pleads the Affirmative shews how the Conditions are performed Because it lyes much in his knowledge Whether he hath performed them or not But where he pleads in the Negative otherwise it is For there he is not to shew the certainty And yet I will agree that if one brings an Action of Debt upon an Obligation indorsed with a Condition The Defendant may plead the Conditions performed generally But otherwise it is of Covenants in an Indenture And in an Obligation with a Condition endorsed if he pleads the Conditions performed and he shews what thing he hath done If it be in the Affirmative he ought to shew the certainty of it also So that for that cause the Plea will not avayl Also it is incertain and doubtfull to the Iury. For if in that Case we are at Issue upon such a general Plea Although it shall be tryed by the Iury Yet it would be strange to enquire of such general things Wherefore c. Gerrard against Boden AN Annuity was brought by Gerrard against the Parson of B. And the Plaintiff counts That the said Parson granted an Annuity of 40 l. pro bono consilio suo imposter impenso for term of life of the said Parson And for 30 l. of arrerages this Action was brought Finch thought the Count not to be good And first it is to be considered If that Annuity might be assigned and granted over or not And as I think it cannot For an Annuity is not but as a sum of mony to be paid to the Grantee by the Grantor And not at all to the realty if the Land be not charged by express words in the same Deed. And to prove it If a man grant an Annuity to me and my Heirs without naming of my Heirs If the Annuity be denied it is gone Because my Person is only charged with the Annuity and not the Land So if a man grants to you the Stewardship of his Mannor of D. and to your Heirs you cannot grant that over And so of a Bayliwick But peradventure it may be said That an Annuity may be granted over in this Case Because in the Habendum It is said to the Assignees of the Grantee But that is nothing to the purpose as I think For I take a difference when a thing comes in the Habendum of a Deed which declares the Premises of the Deed For there it shall be taken effectuall but otherwise not As if Lands be given to a man and his Heirs habendum sibi haered de corpore suo procreat That is a good tayl But if a thing comes in the Habend which is repugnant to the Premises of the Deed and to the matter of the thing which is given by the Deed Then the Habend is void for that parcel As in the Case at Bar it is meerly contrary to the nature of the Annuity to be assigned over to another And there is no remedy given for it but an Action and it is Common learning that a thing in Action cannot be assigned over unless it be by the grant of the King Also by their Declaration they have acknowledged it to be no more than a chose in action Then a Rent seck for which he had not any other remedy but an Action after Seisin For he said that he was seised in his Demesn as of Franktenement of the Rent aforesaid Then it ought to be a Rent-seck For of no other Rent can a man be seised in his Demesn because they lye in prend As of Advowsons common for years and of Estovers And I will not agree that difference put by Littleton in his Book to this purpose For of such things which lye in manual occupation or receipt A man shall not say that he was seised in his Demesn as of a Rent Because it lyes in the prend Pasc 4 Car. Com. Hanc And in the 21 E. 4. The Case is doubtfull And Crawley of the same opinion Hitcham of the contrary And at another day Hutton said that the parties were agreed Hitcham We desire to have your opinion notwithstanding for our learning Hutton said We are agreed that the Annuity may be granted over and it is not so much in the personalty as hath been argued by Finch And in some Books it is said that a Release of personal Actions is not a Plea in a Writ of Annuity Groves against Osborn THe Case was thus A man makes a Lease for life the Remainder for life upon Condition that if the second Lessee for life dye in the life of the first Lessee That the Remainder in fee shall be to another And it was said That that Remainder might commence upon that Condition well enough It was said by Atthowe That where a Remainder depends upon a determination of another Estate So that none shall take any Estate by the Remainder upon Condition then the Remainder is good As if a man give Lands to A. for life upon Condition that if I. S. pay me 40 s. before such a day That the Remainder shall be to him That is a good Remainder But when an Estate is to be defeated by a Remainder depending upon that Then the Remainder is not good As if I lease Lands for life upon Condition That if the Rent be in
three things were moved in arrest of Iudgement which Serjeant Barkely answered There was a covenant to enter into an obligation at Michaelmas and the Plaintiff shews that he entred before So he does not perform the consideration which he conceived to be a good performance For if a man be bound to doe an act or pay money at Michaelmas a payment before is good H. 7. 17. 2. pasc It is shewn that an action of Covenant was brought after And they say that upon his shewing covenant does not lie but debt but he said that the Plaintiff had his election here to have debt or covenant As in the Lord Cromwels case the words covenanted provided and agreed give advantage of a condition or covenant If a covenant had been sor 30 l. then debt only lyes But here it is to perform an agreement Thirdly that it appears within the declaration that the action of the case was 6 years before the action brought And so by the Statute of 21. Jac. the action does not lye I agree if the cause was 6 years before yet the breach was within the 6 years and that is the cause of action 6. rep 43. In a covenant there is the deed and the breach of the covenant and that is the cause of the action And therefore being matter in Deed an accord with satisfaction is a good plea to it 13. E. 4. Attaint is grounded upon matter of record but the false oath is the cause of it For that there also accord is a good plea So in our case the non performance by default was not at the time limitted which was before the 6 years but no action was brought against the Plaintiff untill within the six years And then he is not damnifyed untill within the six years 5 Rep. 24. Richardson For the two first exceptions he agreed with Barkley as to the third he said that there can be no action before the breach of the promise or covenant But the breach here is before the six years for the non performance of the agreement is a breach and a breach is a damnificationn In one Boughtons case the non payment is a damnification But all the question here was whether that ought to be pleaded but I conceive that it need not for by the Statute-law the action is taken away And it being a general law the court ought ex officio to taken notice of it For in that after verdict if it appears that there is no cause of action although the verdict be found for the Plaintiff he shall never have Iudgement And upon the matter that latches in time amounts to a release in law the proviso cannot ayd you For every man shall be intended without those disabilities for that that he would shew that he would have advantage of it And Crook of the same opinion for the reasons given before and said that although the Statute took away the Common law yet it is good law and done for the ease of the subject and for that shall be favoured as the Statute of limitations in all cases But he said the non performance was not a damnification before the action brought As if I be bound as for surety for A. who is bound to save me harmlesse Although he does not pay it at the day There is not a breach before the arrest or Iudgement For by the Iudgement the lands and goods are liable But for the arrest his body is troubled for that now the Scriveners put in such obligations that they save harmlesse the party and pay the money at the day But for the other matters in all he agreed and cited Richardson and Burroughs Case Where a payment before the day was adjudged a payment at the day Yelverton That is not found that there is any sufficient notice given to the Defendant by the Plaintiff of the agreement made which he ought to have And he agréed in omnibus with Richardson and said that Scriveners use things ex abundanti Richardson It is said habuit notitiam in the Declaration but does not say by whom Yet after verdict it shall be intended a good notice And although that Nichols had given the notice it is sufficient If there be a Lease for years upon condition that he doe not assign the other accepts the rent of the Afsignee before notice He shall not be bound by that acceptance before notice But if notice may be proved either by the Plaintiff or by any although it be by a meer stranger It is sufficient Yelverton denied that for he said That none but privies can give the notice of it as the case is Et adjournatur Denne and Sparks Case before RIchardson If a will be of lands and goods and that was the occasion of this will the revocation is only tryable at the Common Law But when the will is of goods only the occasion of it shall be tryed only in the Spiritual Court For it is incident to the probate of the will quod fuit concessum And he said that in the case before if the will be not revoked the devise is good at the time and the administration shall be granted as of his goods for the Law will not change the property of the residue after debts and legacies paid Crooke The case here is that the Testator makes his will of his lands and goods and devises the residue of his goods ut supra to his wise his Executrix who dies before probate Denne sues to be administrator as the goods of the first Testator and alleges revocation which because that his Proctor did not goe and swear that in fide Magistri sentence was given against him Vpon that he appeals in which there was the same Obligation and affirmed by the Oath of his Proctor Yet sentence was given against him And a prohibition ought to be granted for three reasons First For that the Will is of Lands and Goods and the occasion of that tryable here Secondly they offer injustice in giving the allegation Thirdly The Wife here dying before the probate the administration ought to be granted as of the goods of the Testator and not as of the wife And also they here would inforce Denne if he had the administration to take it cum testamento annex Which shall be an admittance by him that there was not any revocation Richardson for the first reason he agréed that the revocation shall be tryed by the common law But the goods here are only in question and all the usage and practice is that a prohibition shall be granted with a quoad the lands For the second That they will not allow the allegation If they will not pursue their rules and order of Iustice That is not a cause of a Prohibition but appeal for the third It is fit that there shall be an election if debts and Legacies are owing But it doth not appear here that there are any debts or Legacies to be paid but after Harvey agréed with Crook
is not assets For it is not the money of Manningham but taken by him to pay to another And Richardson said If the party had dyed intestate by the Common law the Administrator is Executor and all things that were to be performed by the Executor are to be performed by the Administrator There was an obligation to A. to pay to the Executors of B. It shall be more doubted there whether it shall be payed to the Administrator But the obligation here is to Manningham himself Now his Executors comprehend Administrators And Needhams case is plain in that And the mention was that the money shall be payed to these that succeed him in his personal Estate Now it was not the intent that it should be lost if he dyed without Executors Crook an action of debt being brought against an Executor upon an obligation plene administravit is pleaded Then Administrator being included in the word Executor there is a good cause of Action And the Court seemed to be of the same opinion Sed adjournatur Fowlers Case FOwler libels for tithes and a Prohibition was prayed upon a suggestion that he came to the Church by Symony By the Court a Prohibition ought to be granted upon a surmise only that he came to the Church by Symony Then Henden shewed That it was found by verdict in the Kings Bench That he came in by Symony And upon that verdict there was a decree in the Court of Wards accordingly And then the Court inclined to grant a Prohibition And the Case here was That Fowler being convicted of Symony the King presents Glapthorn who was admitted instituted and inducted And afterwards he takes another benefice above the value of 8 l. by which the other was void Yet by the assent of the Lord Windsor Patron Fowler continued possession And by Richardson He cannot be any way removed untill laps incurre Strange against Atthowe SIr Hamond Strange brought trespass against Christopher Atthowe And the trespass was done 8 years after but with a continuando unto the time limited by the Statute 21 Iac. And by Richardson the action is toll'd by the Statute For the continuation within the time makes the Trespass within the time And it is not like the Case in Dyer 119 pl. 17. In the turning of a Cock It was adjudged a new diversion for it was a new action But here is not a new act done Richardson the Statute of 21 Iac. may be well pleaded in this discharge of that action And you ought to commence for all not done after the time of the limitation within the Statute otherwise the Statute should be overthrowed For by that means the continando may punish a trespass done 20 years past with the alleging of a continuando Hutton Crook of the same opinion Yelverton on the contrary who said that it was not material if the Statute was overthrown But the other Iustices said it was a good Statute Crook Suppose that you cannot prove your continuando for in trespass it is not requisite indéed to prove it For it is only put for increase of damages But Hitcham said Now by the Statute the continuando shall be proved Then by Richardson Hutton and Crook You will make a fraction That the trespass shall be partly upon the Statute and partly upon the Common law It was ruled again according to that before That when a Will was proved in the Prerogative Court The Executor or Administrator may be cited out of â—…e Diocess where he lives to the Prerogative Court Because that the Will cannot be executed a libi than where it was proved And so that is out of the Statute of 23 H. 8. But by Richardson Hutton and Yelverton Where a Will is proved in the Prerogative Court That it shall be proved in the proper Diocess also of the Executor then it may be executed there Richardson said The privilege for them of the upper House continued 30 daies after the Session where the Parliament of the lower House but for 20 daies And that the privilege extended to Person Goods and Lands Nortons Case Mich. 4. Car. Com. Banc. IN Nortons Case before A Consultation was granted because of a Custome alleged and found for the party But by Crook and Yelverton There are divers Presidents where in that Case a Prohibition was granted without alleging a Custome Allen against Westby before IT was ruled That the Defendant shall not have costs against the Informer they being found against the Informer And Brownlow affirmed that the course of the Court is That upon the Statute the Defendant shall never have costs against the Informer Although Binge cited a President to the contrary Termino St. Mich. Anno 4 Car. Reg. Com. Banc. Gosse against Skipton IN the Court of Requests Gosse borrowed mony of the Testator of Skipton and gave a term whereof he was possessed for five years to him for security by Indenture with a Proviso of redemption And shews further in his Bill that there was a verbal Agréement between them That if the mony was not paid at the day the Testator should take the profits growing upon the Land And if the profits amounted to the value of the sum of mony that then he shall have his term a-again And that he reaped the profits accordingly which well satisfied him and yet he continued possession of the term Which afterwards came to Skipton and is now expired And so he prayed that the Defendant might account for the profits And the Defendant moved for a Prohibition Richardson Although the trust is contrary to the Indenture yet such an averment is good notwithstanding the Proviso But for that that the Executor shall account to none but the King and the years are now spent And although he occupied the same yet the profits shall be Assets And if it shal be received in the Court of Equity there shall be a Devastavit against the Executor And by the whole Court a Prohibition was granted Rolls against How A Man arrested upon a Latitat makes an Obligation to the Sheriff with a Condition to appear And the Question was if it be good For he may make his appearance by his Attorny Although Hutton thought it was not good For the Law intends that he is in person when he is in custodia Marescall And Brownlow said it was adjudged accordingly when Mr. Tomkins Bayliff of the liberty of St. Andrew took an Obligation in his own name for a personal appearance upon a Latitat At an other day Atthowe moved that the Bond was void For the Statute is general that he shall take a Bond for his appearance And now the Sheriff here had taken a Bond for his personal appearance And there he might answer to the Action by his Attorney But that he ought alwaies to be in custodia Marescal which is meant in proper person and he ought to put in bayl which is good enough It was ruled that Iudgement should be entred for the Plaintiff if cause
And for these faults and because it was Body for Body It was ruled that the Indictment was insufent Braces Case If a Feme sole Executrix of a term mary him in the Reversion and dies the term is not drowned but the Administration of it shall be committed Otherwise perhaps if she had purchased the Reversion And it was the Case of one Owen That if the Debtee mary the Debtor That the Debt is not gone but the Administrators of the Feme shall have it The Marquess of Winchesters Case THe Marquess of Winchester prayed a Prohibition and the surmise was that whereas the late Marquess his Father had made the three Lamberts his Executors which were his Bastards He also devised that they should sell as much of his Lauds as should amount to 100000 l. and does not limit any imployment of the mony inde proveniente And also that whereas by the Statute of 34 H. a man de non san memori is unable to make a Will of his Land And that the Marquess at the time of the making of the Will was not of san memori And it was held by the Court that although Land be not a testamentory thing whereof the Spiritual Court ought to intermeddle with Yet being conjoyned in the Will with the Goods they cannot do any thing with the one without the other Therefore a Prohibition shall be granted Because that for the non compos mentis it is more fit to be tryed in our Law And if cause be a Consultation shall be granted for part scil his Goods again And such a Prohibition was in Case of Lloyd against Lloyd Munday against Martin MUnday brought an Action upon the Case against Martin And declares That whereas at the request of the Defendant in November delivered to him and his Father 30 Kerseys for which the Defendant assumed to pay 40 l. to the Plaintiff The one half in hand and the other half a year after Vpon non â—…ssumpsit pleaded It was found by verdict that the delivery was made to the Defendant in August 31 next before the November mentioned in the Declaration The Question if that will maintain the count or not Ward That it will for the delivery in August is the delvery in November As upon payment of mony upon an Obligation before the day is a payment at the day And then if he does not pay it within a year after November he does not pay it with a year after August Richardson on the contrary For that cannot be intended the same promise For upon such a variance the Defendant may wage his Law And so it is if a man declares upon Debt of one day and the Déed bears date at an other day Also it is that the delivery was to the Defendant and his Father and it is found that it was to him only So that that cannot be intended to be the same Consideration Vpon another Cause upon the Declaration he cannot have Iudgement For it is in consideration quod deliberaâ—set which is in the Preter tence and therefore naught As 10 Eliz. Dyer 272. In consideration that he was bayl for his Servant the Defendant assumed Not good 37 38 Eliz. Between Gereny and Goteman in Consideration quod dedisset duas c. he promised to pay 10 l. at the day of his mariage Held no Consideration Crook To the Case of the variance of the date contained in the Deed. There it varies from that which is his warrant And the date in November cannot be the date in August Nor on the contrary The delivery raises the Consideration and the time is not material as to the Deliberaâ—set It was one Warthingtons Case That where in consideration that you will stand my bayl I will save you harmless A good Consideration Hutton For the delivery the time of the contract is not materially necessary to be shewn for certain But the day of the payment ought not to be mistaken as it is here For if the delivery was in November the payment ought to be in November too But it appears by verdict That the delivery was in August And then so the payment ought to be And then consequently the day of payment is mistaken Yelverton The Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement For then he might charge the Defendant again upon a delivery in August Atthowe If upon an Obligation the mony be paid before the day of payment It is a payment at the day if the Obligee dies not in the mean time But I do think that if he dies before that payment cannot be pleaded in an action of Debt brought by the Executors against him Sed adjournatur Sir Iohn Spencer against Scroggs SIr Iohn Spencer brought Debt against Scroggs who pleads per minas The Venire facâ—… was returned and the Iurors appear And the Array was challenged by the Defendant for Cosinage between the Sheriff and the Plaintiff Whereupon a new Venire fac was awarded to four Coroners who return the Venire fac and subscribe A. B. C. D. Coronatores And in the Habeas corpus A. B. C. D. only And Iudgement was given And upon that Error It was argued that does not lye First For that it is aided by the Statute of 18 Eliz. That no Iudgement shall be reversed after Iudgement for an insufficient return Also as it appears by 8 H. 6. Such a Return at the Common law made by the Sheriff shall be good although he was not called Sheriff But that Law was afterwards changed And only Sheriffs and Bayliffs of Franchises was provided for By which Coroners were not in Hutton The Statute of 18 Eliz. extends to insufficient matter of the Return But does not intend to toll the Statute of York He said also that he thought it was not requisite at the Common law for the Sheriff to put his name of Office upon the back of the Writ But he demanded how it might appear that they are Coroners if they are not named so Crook It hath been adjudged that Coroners ought to put their name of Office And their names are parcel of the Return So that defective insufficiency is remedied by the Statute of 18 Eliz. Richardson Without putting their names it does not appear that they are Coroners Luvered against Owen HE declares upon the Statute of E. 6. for tithes and an exception was taken For that that it was said tam pro dom rege quam pro se ipso But it was affirm'd to be good For the King is to have a Fine Hutton If an Action be brought upon the Statute de scandalis magnatum The Plaintiff may declare tam pro domino Rege quam pro se ipso And so upon the Statute of Hue and Cry It was objected that one Tomlins Case was adjudged to the contrary But that Case was Because that he demanded in this manner and the Statute when it says that he shall forfeit it shall be intended to him who had the loss So it could not be demanded for the King
Hill 4 Car. Com. Banc. that is a good Grant and charges the Heir although it first commenced upon him Yelverton said he charges himself And the Grant is for him and his heirs And warranty which is so granted to commence 40 years after although the Father dye before the commencement of it yet it binds the Heir And so it is of an Obligation to be paid 40 years after Quod concessum fuit Beckrows Case IN one Beckrows Case in evidence to the Iury c. Beckrows intending to a mary a Widdow makes a conveyance by Deed of Feoffment of his Land to several uses by which he setled his Land upon the issue of the Feme having issue by a former wife But after the mariage he by much importunity procured the Déed of conveyance into his hands out of the custody of the Wife and also an Obligation which makes mention of it and it was for performance of Covenants and then he cancelled the Deed and the Obligation and took off the seal from them And afterwards settles his Land upon his former Children and dies having Issue by his last wife And in actions under these conveyances It was permitted by the Court that the cancelled Deed should be read in evidence But first there should be Testimony given of the truth of that practice before it should be read c. A Copiholders Case IT was said by Richardson to Harvey privately That there is almost no Copyhold in England but the Fine in truth is uncertain For if the Rolls make it appear that some time a lesser and sometime a greater sum had been paid for a Fine that is an uncertain Fine And he said that he was of Councel in a Case where the Iury found that the Fine was certain And afterwards by Bill in Chancery It was decreed upon search of the Rolls to be a Fine incertain And that is now the ordinary course scil by decree in Chancery Francis Bill against Sir Arthur Lake FRancis Bill was Plaintiff in an Assumpsit against Sir Arthur Lake who assumed to the Plaintiff that in consideration that he would make for his wife certain apparel and prepare stuff and lace for it That he would pay for the stuff and making as much as should be required And he shews that he provided Sattin and Gold-lace and made the Apparel and shews of what value the Stuff was and what he deserved for his labour which amounted to the value of 39 l. and that he required the Defendant such a day to pay him which was within six years before the action brought but the promise was laid to be 7 years before The Defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations and that the Plaintiff did not bring his Action within the six years after the promise made nor within the 3 years after the Parliament ended But he does not shew when it ended Vpon which there was a Demurrer And by the Court the ending of the Parliament néeds not to be shewn here For the Question is not upon the 3 years after the ending of the Parliament but upon the matter in Law whether an Action ought to be brought within six years after the promise or after the request Richardson said That it ought to be within six years after the promise Here are two causes of Action for the words of the Statute are within six yenrs afcer the cause of Action the promise and the request and the promise is the principal Trin. 5 Car. Com. Banc. and the Action took its denomination from that scil an action of the Case upon an Assumpsit And if there be a demand which is the case of Action Here it will be answered the promise for a Request without promise is no cause of Action And the mischief that the Statute intended to remedy was that a man was should not be put to the proof of the matter de facto so long time after And if the request is said to be the cause of Action the promise may be laid 20 years before and although that may be proved But the other 3 Iustices were against him and said That the intention of the Statute is within 6 years after the cause of the Sute given which is not untill after request As if one promised to another so much when he should mary his Daughter The 6 years there shall be after the mariage Or if one promise such a sum to one at his return from Rome or such a place from whence it is not impossible to return within six years The payment shall be after the return and there is not a cause of Action before and also the promise and the Request are intire For the request is part of the promise and the promise is not intire untill the request They agréed if a man makes a request and suffer the 6th year to pass before an action brought and then makes a new request And this Case was more strong because the consideration was future Heidley said there was a difference where the request is necessary and where it is alleged but for form As if I sell a Horse for 10 l. generally and after the 6 years brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against the Vendee and shews in his Declaration that he was to be paid when he would require it licet saepius requisit c. within the six years Here the Plaintiff is barred For it was due by the contract and the request is but formal If a man brings an Action within the 6 years and afterwards is non-suted for want of request shewen where it was necessary and makes a new request after the 6 years and brings his Action It is good Which was granted by the Court. And in this Case the Court taxed Henden for advising the Defendant to plead the Statute and hazard it upon Demurrer When he might have tryed first the matter in fact But Henden said it was dangerous not to plead the Statute For the opinion of the Kings Bench and Exchequer seemed to be that it ought to be pleaded By the Court when it is apparent within the Record that the Action is brought after the 6 years certainly they doubted not but the Statute ought to be shewn in arrest of Iudgement But the doubt is when a general issue is pleaded in an Assumpsit or Trespass and it does not appear in the Trespass or Assumpsit that it was above the six years the Statute now may be given evidence Trin. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Starkey against Taylor STarkey an Attorny of the Common Bench brought an Action against Taylor for slanderous words and declares that he being an Attorney of the Common Bench of honest fame c. and that he gained much by that profession which was his Livelihood the Defendant maliciously and to hinder him in his profession spoke these words of him Thou art a Common Barrettor thou art a Iudas and a Promoter and a Destroyer and a Viper and a Villain and
all his Interest which he had before usurpation During the life of the Incumbent and non-age of the Infant the Vsurper had an Estate in fee. But after the death of the Incumbent and full age of the Infant the Estate of the Vsurper ceased And the reason is upon the Statute of Westm 2. Infans habeat candem possessoriam actionem qualiter antecessor And 33 H. 6. 42 is that an Vsurper puts an Infant out of possession Infans habeat eandem actionem possessoriam qualiter antecessor But that ought to be understood during the Infancy only Et adjournatur Rawlins's Case HE was Plaintiff in a Replevin and was non-suted after Evidence given to the Iury and the Iurors did not find Costs and Dammages And afterwards a Writ of Enquiry of dammages was granted And Ashley moved that the writ might not be filed Because that the Writ of Inquiry of dammages could not issue but awarded from the Court And the Plaintiff here being non suted was out of the Court and that nothing might be done against him And the Prothonotaries said That in Case of a Verdict where the Iurors omit to find dammages a Writ of Enquiry is many times granted Writ of Enquiry may be granted after a verdict when Jury omit the dammages But they were commanded to search for Presidents in Case of a non-sute Richardson cited one Grimstons Case in the Kings Bench. Which was one Plaintiff in Action upon the Case against an Inne-holder was non suted and the Declaration was insufficient And for that the Plaintiff might not have costs But by Henden It is ordinary now in the Kings Bench If the Defendant had a Verdict although the Declaration be insufficient Yet he shall have Costs Nurse a gainst Pounford NUrse a Barrester of Grays-Inne brought an Action upon the Case against Pounford And declares that he is a Counsellor and was of Councel with several Noble men and that he was Steward to the Lord Barkley of 20 Mannors and also the receiver of his Rents for those Mannors And that the Defendant maliciously intending to disgrace him to the Lord Barkley writ an infamous Letter against him to the Lord Barkley Which Letter was here recited and it was to this effect briefly ut sequitur scil Your wonted Courtesie to Strangers incourageth me to desire your Honor not to protect your Steward in his unlawfull Sutes He hath unjustly vexed his own Brother by Sutes and caused him to be arrested and taken out of his Bed forcibly by Catchpoles He hath likewise almost undone me who have maried his own Sister notwithstanding his entertainment at my House for himself Wife Servants and Horses for several years And now instead of payment thinks to weary me out with Vexations and Sutes at Law I hope your Lordship will give no countenance to him in these things By reason of which Letter the Lord Barkley turned him out of his Office The Defendant pleads not guilty which was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action here would not lye Atthowe said that the Action would lye well by reason of the particular loss the Plaintiff had And that is proved by Anne Davies Case Coo. 4. Such words that there are spoken of a maried woman are not actionable But of a Feme sole who had a Suter the Action will lye If one said of a Feme sole That she is a Whore and such a mans Whore It will not bear an Action in our Law But in the Spiritual Court it will And perhaps for Whore generally there And in the Case of Anne Mayes there was a loss of preferment which she might have But here the Plaintiff lost the preferment which he had If a man said to the Ordinary of a Clark presented to him that he is a Bastard seditious or heretique by reason of which words the Ordinary refuses him An Action lies for the Clark for the temporal losse and he cited Butchers Case and Stewkleys Case Cook 4. Also he cited Sir Gilbert Gerrards Case Cook 4. 18. If one said Take not a Lease of such an one I have a Lease of it an Action does not lie But if the party by reason of those words could not demise it to one with whom he had Communication for the Lease Then it lies Or if he said that another had a Lease of that also an Action lies 6 E. 6. Dyer 72. One saying that a Merchant would be a Banckrupt is Actionable Because that no man will trust him 7 E. 4. 24. One threatens another if he will come abroad he will beat him For the threatning an Action does not lie But if for that Cause he could not go abroad about his Business an Action will lye Secondly It hath been objected that the Action does not lie Because that it appears that the Letter was written out of the time of Limitation by the Statute of 21 Iac. which is for Slander That the Action ought to be brought within two years after the Slander I agree if it be brought for slanderous words But this is an Action upon the Case only An Action upon the Case for slandering of a Title is not within the Statute 21 Jac. for the two years but for the six years So here the Action is not for slanderous words For the Letter does not bear an Action But for the temporal loss But it was resolved by the Court That the Action did not lie For by Richardson Chief Iustice In all Cases where you will maintain an Action for words there ought to be some particular words of Slander spoken or written by which the particular loss came Here is a Letter it had not any Slander in it And it cannot be conceiceived that the Lord turned him away out of his Service or Office by that Letter which does not touch him in his Office of Stewardship nor his Receivorship If he had written that the Plaintiff was a contentious and troublesome man that had been more questionable than this is Yet it would not bear an Action And Richardson said that they alwaies conceived Sir Gilbert Gerrards Case not to be Law For if a man said that he himself had a Title to the Land of an other it is not actionable although he lost by that But if he had said that another man had Title to the Land of another that is actionable And no Case can be shewen where an Action upon the Case lies upon a particular losse unless the words carry some slander with them Hutton said the words of the Letter are not actionable But if being said to be done maliciously and falsesly and to the intent the Lord Barkley should put him out of his place and upon that the Lord displaced him then there would be more doubt of it But here the Iury had found the Defendant guilty and that seemed only to the writing of the Letter and it might be false notwithstanding But if the Iury had found that
all was false and written of set purpose and that for that the Lord displaced him it would be more difficult But for any thing as appears to us there is not any thing for which he might be justly displaced And also it was not said in the Declaration that the Defendant had any fee for his Office And Richardson also said That if it had been found as my Brother Hutton said Yet it is known that it should be more strong But then I conceive that the Action does not lye For it is apparent that nothing in the Letter may be applyed to a particular misbehaviour in his Office And by the Court Although the Declaration be laid falsely and maliciously Yet if the words be nâ—…t scandalous yet it ought to be laid falsely and maliciously And he said that it was adjudged in this Court Where an Action upon the Case was brought for conspiracy to indict a man and upon the Indictment the Iury found Ignoramus There the Indictee was clear And yet for the conspiracy the Action laid which was Blakes Case And it was said by Hutton If I have Land which I intended to sell and one came and says maliciously and on purpose to hinder my sale that he had a Title to it That that is actionable Which Harvey agreed without Question if he does not prove that he had a Title If one says of an Inue Go not to such an House for it is a very cutting House Agreed by the Court not Actionable Mich. 5 Car. Com. Banc. And Iudgment was given quod querens nil cap. per bil Pasc 6 Car. Com. Banc. THis Term there was nothing worthy the reporting as I heard of others For I my self was not well and could not hear any thing certum referre c. Trin. 6 Car. Com. Banc. Tomlins's Case IF the Husband makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Son in tayl By the Court That is a dying seised in the Husband For the Wife shall have dammages in Dower And so it was adjudged in the Lady Egertons Case But the Husband ought to dye seised of an Estate tayl or Fée simple which might descend to his Heir Mich 6 Car. Com. Banc. MEmorandum That Sergeant Atthowe died at his House in Northfolk who was a man somewhat defective in Elocution and Memory but of profound Judgement and Skill in pleading NOte it was was said by Hutton and Davenport That if an Inferiour Court prescribe to hold Pleas of all manner of Pleas except Title to Freehold That that is no good prescription For then it may hold Plea of Murther which cannot be c. Note It was said by Richardson chief Iustice that if two conspire to indict an other of a Rape and he is indicted accordingly If the Iury upon the Indictment find Ignoramus Yet that Conspiracy is not punishable in the Starchamber Father purchases Lands in his Sons name who was an Infant at the age of seaventeen years and he would have suffered a Common recovery as Tenant to the Praecipe But the Court would not suffer him Rawling against Rawling THe Case was thus A man being possessed of a Lease for 85 years devises it as follows viz. I will that R. Rawling shall have the use of my Lease if he shall so long live during his life he paying certain Legacies c. And after his decease I devise the use thereof to Andrew Rawling the residue of the term with the Lease in manner and form as R. Rawling should have it Crew said That after the death of R. Rawling and Andrew the term shall revert to the Executors of the Devisor But by the Court not But it shall go to A. Rawling the last Devisée and in manner and form shall go to pay Legacies And by all a strong Case And together with the Lease be by strong words The Archbishop of Canterbury against Hudson of Grays-Inne THe Archbishop of Canterbury prosecuted against Hudson of Grays-Inne in an Information upon the Statute of E. 1. of Champerty Henden Sergeant for the Plaintiff moved upon the Plea that it was insufficient Because that the Defendant had prayed Iudgement of the Writ when he ought to have pleaded in Bar For the Statute of E. 1. had appointed a special Writ in this Case as the Defendant said But by him the Information is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. which gives that Action by sute in Chancery which before was only by sute at Common Law Richardson chief Iustice said That the Plea is not to the matter but to the manner for the Plaintiff had mistaken his Action For the Action is given to the King only And therefore said to Henden demur if you will The Case was that the Defendant purchased Lands in anothers Name hanging the Sute in Chancery for it And after rules for Publication was given in the Cause Malins Case AYliff moved in arrest of Iudgement in an action of Battery c. And the cause that he shewed was An issue mistaken cannot be amended It was brought against William Malin of Langlee and in the Record of nisi prius It was William Langley of Malin But by the Court it ought to be amended For it is a misprision apparently of the Clark For the whole Record besides is right And the Record of nisi prius ought to be amended by the Record in the Bench according to the 44 E. 3. But if the issue had been mistaken otherwise it had been Arrerages for rent upon an estate for life cannot be forfeit by Outlawry NOte That it was agreed by the whole Court That arrerages of rent reserved upon an Estate for life are not forfeited by Outlawry because that they are real and no remedy for them but a distress Otherwise if upon a Lease for years c. Hill 6 Car. Com. Banc. MEmorandum that this term Sir Humfrey Davenport puisne Iudge of the Common Bench was called into the Exchequer to be Chief barron Browns Case AN Information upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. pro eo that one Brown was retained an Apprentice in Husbandry until the 21 year of his age and that he before his age of 21 years went away And the Defendant absque ullo testimonio detained him contra formam Statuti And by Hutton and Harvey Iustices only shewed the branch of the said Statute which says And if any servant retained according to the form of this Statute depart from his Master c. Hil. 6 Car. Com. Banc. And that none of the said reteined persons in Husbandry until after the time of his reteiner be expired shall depart That is not to be intended of an Apprentice in Husbandry but of an hired servant For the Statute did not intend to provide for the departure of an Apprentice because that an Apprentice ought to be by Indenture And then a writ of Covenant lies upon his departure to force him to come again And by the Common Law an
contained in the Declaration That the Defendants were guilty before scil October Vpon which the Defendants demurre and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Although it was objected that the Iustification here by the Custom before had taken away the property And I shall be debarred in Detinue and so in Trover But the Court was of the contrary opinion That the Defendants Plea in barre here shall not be good without traverse as it is and therefore the time is not made material but any time before is sufficient Méer possession sufficeth to maintain a Trover Pasc 7. Car. Com. Banc. Eaglechildes Case FInch Sergeant said that 6 Car. in the Kings Bench it was ruled upon Bill of Exchange betwéen party and party who are not Merchants There cannot be a Declaration upon the Law of Merchants but there may be a Declaration upon the Assumpsit and give the acceptance of the Bill in Evidence Crompton against Waterford WAterford was sued in the Spiritual Court for saying these words of the Plaintiff she will turn tayl to tayl with any man intimating that she would be naught with any man And sentence was given for the Plaintiff Whereupon he appealed to the Delegates propter gravamen And the Delegates overruled it and assesse costs for the wrong appeal Then there was a prohibition granted because the words were idle words and not punishable in the Spiritual Court Hutton seemed That the costs taxed by the Delegates are not taken away by the Prohibition Richardson on the contrary For the principal is prohibited and the costs are incident And because that a prohibition stays all proceedings the costs are taken away If the costs are to be executed by the Delegates then the prohibition to them will help But if the costs are remanded to the inferiour Court as well as the cause then the prohibition to the Inferiour Court will help So quacunque via data the costs are to be discharged And the party if excommunicat be dissolved And so agreed by the Court. Alleston against Moor. ALleston an Attourney of this Court brought an action upon the Case against Moore for calling him cheating knave and it was not upon speaking of him as an Attourney And for that by the Court in arrest of judgement It is not actionable If he had said you cheat your Clients it would be actionable One said That my Lord Chief Baron cannot hear of one ear colloquio praehabito of his administration of Iustice And it wad adjudged actionable Otherwise it had been if they had had no discourse of his Iustice Trin. 7 Car. Com. Banc. Coxhead against Coxhead IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was to perform an Arbitrament and the Defendant pleads nullum fecere arbitrium The Plaintiff replies that they made such an arbitrament and recites it the Defendant rejoyns that the Condition was to make an arbitrament of all things in controversie and that other things were in controversie whereof no arbitrament was made The Plaintiff sur-rejoynes that the Defendant did not give notice of those upon which issue was taken and no place alleged where notice was given And that exception was moved in arrest of Iudgement And upon that Iudgement was stayed Trin. 7. Car. Com. Banc. NOte It was said by Richardson Chief Iustice If a man sends his servant to a Draper to buy cloath for his Master and makes not the contract in his own name That the Master shall be charged and not the Servant Which was not denied 11 E. 4.6 Tomlinsons Case IF an Executor is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Legacy and the Executor pleads plene administravit a Prohibition shall not be granted if they will not admit that plea. For they ought to judge there if he had administred fully or not But upon suggestion that they did not reject any administration which our law allows A prohibition shall not be granted as Richardson said which was not denied by the whole Court Williams against Floyd WIlliams was Plaintiff by an English Bill to the Council of Marches against Floyd in the nature of Debt upon an Escape and there was a Latin Declaration upon an Escape turned into English because that the Defendant being Sheriff of Canarvan suffered one against whom the Plaintiff had a Iudgement being taken by capias utlegat to escape To his damage of 40 l. And by the whole Court a prohibition was granted Although that by their Instructions they had power of personal actions under 50 l. For this is intended a meer personal action As debt detinue c. But Debt upon a Iudgement or debt upon an escape or upon the 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of tithes an action upon 8 H. 6. or any other action upon matter of Record or Statute In such cases they have not Iurisdiction And the Defendant there might have pleaded nul teil record and then he might have proceeded further But the misdemeanour here in permitting the party to escape might have been punished there by Information Gee against Egan GEe an Attorney of this Court brought an Action upon the Case against Egan and declares that he was an Attorney for many years late past and still is and that he had taken the Oath of an Attorney to do no fraud nor deceit in his Office as Attorney And that colloquio habito et moto inter one Rise Brother in Law to the Plaintiff and the Defendant concerning the Office of the Plaintiff as an Attorney and concerning a Bill of Costs and Expences by the Plaintiff in defence of a Cause prosecuted by one Treddiman in the Common Bench against the Defendant laid out and expended The Defendant 1 Augusti 4 Car. spoke those words to Rise Your Brother and Mr. Treddiman have cheated me of a great deal of mony c. by which the Plaintiff is in danger to lose his Office And it was moved after verdict for the Plaintiff in arrest of Iudgement by Ayliff Because that here is not any certainty in the Declaration that the words were spoken of the Plaintiff as Attorney And then they are not actionable For he does not shew at what time the speech was of him as Attorney Richardson upon reading of the Record said It was true that no time of the speech is shewen neither is it after the speech shewen upon whom he spoke those words Which might help it Neither is it said afterwards that is to say primo die but primo die Augusti he spoke c. And if it can be intended that those words were spoken of the Plaintiff as Attorney That would inforce the words to bear an Action But if such words are generally spoken of an Attourney without speech of his Office they are not actionable For he may be a Cheater at dice or in a bagain c. And here non constat that the words were spoken of the Plaintiff as Attourney Secondly it does not appear that the Plaintiff was was an Attorney in the Cause but says
open Pound if they dye the Distreyn is chargeable 75 A demand before a Distress if the Demand is out of the Land if not then see 86 Where Damages shall not be mitigated 93 Where a Demand ought to be certain and where not 109 On a Devastavit a Writ de bonis propriis issues 110 If a Debtee mary Debtor what becomes of the Debt see 120 In what Cases A must declare tam pro domino rege quam pro seipso 122 Double delay not allowed 126 E DElay in arrear of Error not hinder Execution 17 If a Sheriff remove his Prosoner out of the County without command It is Escape 34 Where he permits him to go for his pleasure Escapes lies ibid. Ne unque Executor found against him upon a Scire fac shall be only de bonis testat 48 Eject firm lies against Tenant at Will if he leases for years 73 If the Conisee permits the Conisor being in execution to go at large be an Escape 79 Excommunication to strike in the Church 86 If an Executor dies before probate the Goods belong to the Administrator of the first Testator 105 A Rent upon Condition reserved to the Executors goes to the Administrator 115 If a devise be void if no Executor be made 118 Ejectments do not lie of a Mannor 146 In Ejectment he ought to shew the certain quantity of Land 176 Antient Demesn is a good Plea in Ejectments 177 F A Franktenement cannot pass from a day to come 29 Feoffment to the use of a Stranger ought to be tendered to him 56 Denyal of the Rent a Forfeiture 6 A Subject may have a Forest but not a Justice Seat 60 No Clergy for Felony committed upon the high way otherwise upon the foot way 75 In a Formedon he ought to make himself heir to him who died seised last of the E-Estate tayl 78 Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-coat 149 Fieri Facias no Bar to the Capias although part of the debt be satisfied 159 I INdictment quassavit for incertainty 35 Upon a Judgement if the Money be paid to the Attorney it is good but otherwise of a Scrivener 48 Inne-Keeper ought to say in his Action transiens hospitavit 49 If Land be descended to an Infant the Sheriff shall surcease his extent 54 59 Iudgement had against an Infant may be reversed 65 Judgement reversed for want of Pledge 59 Imparlance roll may be amended 143 Infans habeat eandem actionem possessoriam qualiter antecessor 160 An issue mistaken cannot be amended 164 K IF the King enters upon any Tenant a Petition of right lies 29 The King cannot take a man in execution out of Prison to his wars causa vid. 57. L VVHether a Lease to two be determined by the death of one 85 Whether a Grant of Estovers out of another place than was the Lease be good 78 Libell for the Seat in a Church 94 Where upon a Lease the Heir shall be estopped and where not 91 Libell for Tithes of two pecks of Apples 100 M VVHat things go to the making of a Feme sole Merchant 9 Where inter-mariage is but a suspension of a promise 12 An action brought in consideration of a mariage 50 How a Lord shall recover in a Writ de valore maritagii 55 O FOr what Causes an Outlawry may be reversed 93 P IN Partition no dammages are to be recovered 34 Prescription for Sallery of a Vicar is tryable at Common law 33 Prohibition where the thing might be tryed and proved at Common law 15 Where Prohibitions shall be granted and where not 19 27 28 49 50 51 60 68 69. Parson cannot discontinue 88 Prohibition upon words 94 A Protestando is no Answer 104 Symony a good suggestion for a Prohibition 116 Whether a Prohibition may be without alleging a Custom 117 Per minas pleaded 121 R VVHether the word Successive so makes a Limitation of a Remainder good matter and Cases thereupon 22 23 24 25 26 If a Feme sole Executrix of a Term mary him in reversion and dies the Term is not drowned 36 Release of Actions and Sutes substantive bars Debt 15 Nul tiel Record replyed where Recusancy convict is pleaded by the Defendant the Record must be shewn 18 Where a Reversion passes without Attornment 73 Where one Request may serve for several Debts 84 Whether on a Rescous the Action shall be brought by the Plaintiff against the Rescousor or against the Sheriff 95 Where no averment against a Record 107 Where a Feme shall be remitted and what makes a Remitter 110 No Rescous can be of Goods 145 Arrerages for rent upon an Estate for life cannot be forfeit for Outlawry 164 S TO grant a Supersedias there must be execution erronice emanavit alleged 30 Surrender determines the Interest of all parties but a Stranger 51 In Case of Symony the Statute makes the Church void 51 No fee due to the Sheriff for the executing of a cap. utlagat 52 That he might arrest the Kings Servant upon this Writ ibid. Quicquid plantatur solo cedit solo 57 T TRover and conversion brought for a load of wheat 22 A discharge of Tithes by the Parson for years runs with the Land and not with the person 31 Where toll ought to be pleaded in Trover and conversion 49 Trespass against Baron et feme dum sola fuit both shall be taken 53 If Part and Portion a like make joint tenancy or tenancy in Common 55 Trespass brought by Baron and Feme they must not say ad damnum ipsorum otherwise of Jointenants 2 Tithes of Fish due meerly by Custom 13 Tithes where due by the Common law of the Land no Prohibition ibid. Tithes of Limekills 14 The word Equally makes Tenancy in Common 64 No Trespass lies against a Disseisors Lessee 66 Where Tithes of young Cattel 85 93 Tithes for hedging Wood. 18 A Term evicted on Elegit is grantable upon a Statute Merchant or Staple not tithes for milk of Calves 100 No Composition for tithes for life without Deed. 107 No tithes for Estovers burnt in an House 110 V A Special Verdict may be amended according to the notes given to the Clark 52 A Verdict finding matter repugnant or which cannot come in question binds not the Court. 4 If a Scrivener not the party reserve more than just interest no Usury 11 Where the Visne and the return differ it is not good 83 If Defendant dies between Verdict and Iudgement Iudgement will be stayed 90 Whether Beer Brewers are within the Statute and intent of Victuallers 101 W VVAste committed by a Stranger the Lessee dies no remedy against the Seranger 97 Tenant for life and he in remainder may join in Waste 105 The Warden of the Fleet nor Westminster never may take Obligations for Dyet 146 REPORTS AND CASES TAKEN In the third fourth fifth sixth and seventh years of the Reign of the late King Charles c. Ralph Marsh against John Culpepper RAlph Marsh brought an action upon the
have come to full age the fourth day after The Court agreed that one may be non-suited the Essoyn day and if he confess an Action that day it shall be good And thereupon Iudgement was given that by the relation the Statute should be avoided c. Crookes Case A Feme sole leases at the will of the Lessor and after the Feme takes an husband If by the taking of the Baron the will of the Feme be determined and it was thought not Fenne against Thomas Hil. 3 Car. Com. Banc. A Man inhabiting in the most remote part of England was arrosted eight times by Latitat and no Declaration is put in Banco Reg. And the Counsell prayed Costs for the Defendant The Prothonotary said that he shall not have Costs unless he come in person But Richardson said on the contrary and he shall have Costs for it appears that he had been put to travell and a day given to shew cause why the Costs shall not be given Spark against Spark SPark brought an Ejectione firmae against Spark for lands in Hawkschurch in the County of Dorset The Case was a Copy was leased for a year except one day and that was found in the Verdict to be warranted by the Custome The sole Question is if an Ejectione firmae lyes And by Hutton If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years an Ejectione firma lyes but if it be a Copy-hold for years an Ejectione firmae will not be maintained Deakins's Case IT was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed If a man perjure himself against two the one by himself cannot have an Action upon the Statute but they ought to joyn for he is not the only party grieved Bentons Case A Man Leases for life and afterwards Leases for years to commence after the death of the Lessee for life rendring Rent the Reversion is granted Tenant for life dyes Lessee for years does not attourn And it seemed That the reversion passes without Attournment And he shall have Debt or shall Avow Williams against Thirkill AN â—…ion of Debt was brought by Williams against Thirkill Executor of I. S. who pleads a Receipt against him of 300. l. over and above which non c. The Plaintiff replies that the receipt was by Covin And so they are at issue and it was found for the Plaintiff and judgement was entred de bonis Testatoris And it was said by the by in this Case That Debt by Paroll may be forgiven or discharged by Paroll Ploughman a Constables Case PLoughman a Constable suffers one who was arrested pro quadam felonia antea fact to Escape And because it is not shewed what Felony it was and when it was done for it may be it was done before the Generall Pardon the party was discharged Hobsons Case VPon an Indictment of Forcible Entry Quod ingress est unum Messuag inde existens liberum Tenement I. S. And because he does not say Adtunc existens and without that it cannot refer to the present time scilicet of the Indictment He was discharged Sir Thomas Holt against Sir Thomas Sandbach SIr Thomas Holt brought Trespass against Sir Thomas Sandbach quare vi armis Because whereas the Plaintiff had used time out of mind c. to have a Water-course by the Land of the Defendant So that the water run through the Land of the Defendant to the Land of the Plaintiff The Defendant he said had vi armis made a certain Bank in his own Land so that the water could not have his direct course as it was wont to have Harvey It séems to me that the Action does not lye For a man cannot have an action of Trespass against me vi armis for doing of a thing in my own Soyl. But Trespass vi armis lyes against a Stranger who comes upon the Land and takes away my Cattell And such like things but not in this Case But he may have an Assise of Nusance As in Case where one makes an House joyning to my House So that it darkens my House by the erection of a new House I may have an Assise of Nusance against him who does it But Crook was on the contrary But it séemed to Richardson that he shall have Trespass on his Case but not vi armis And to that which hath been said That if one build a House to the nusance of another upon his own Land That he to whom the nusance is done may have an Assise of Nusance that is true And also if he will he may pull and beat down such an House so built to his Nusance if he can do if upon his own Land But he cannot come upon the Land of the other where the Nusance is done to beat it down per que c. Hutton of the same opinion By which it was awarded that the Writ shall abate And he put to his Action upon the Case Hitcham moved a Case to the Iustices One I. by Indenture covenants with an other that he should pay him annually during his life 20 l. at the Feast of St. Michael or within 20 daies after 10 l. and at the Feast of our Lady or within 20 daies after 10 l. The Grantée before the 20 daies passe and after the Feast of our Lady dies If the Executors of the Grantee shall have the Rent or not And the Iustices Hutton being absent said That it was a good Case And said that the Executors shall not have it Because it is not at all due untill the 20th day be past Fawkners Case A Lease was made to one for 40 years the Lessee makes his Testament and by that devises it the term to I. S. for term of his life if he shall live untill the said term be expired And if he dies before the years expire then the remainder of the years to F. for term of his life and if he die before the term be expired the remainder of the years to the Churchwardens of S. I. If the remainder to the said Church shall be good or not was the Question Because that the Wardens of the Church are not coporate so that they may take by that Grant Hutton and Harvy said that the Remainder was not good to them And said that the first Remainder was not good Peters against Field A Bill obligatory was shewed to the Court in Debt brought upon it And in the end of the Bill were these words In witnesse whereof I have hereunto set my hand and he had writ his name and put to his Seal also And because no mention was made in the Bill of no Seal to be put to the Bill It was moved to the Iustices If the Bill be good or not And it was agreed by the whole Court that the Bill was good enough Tomlinsons Case A Parson makes a Lease for 21 years The Patron and Ordinary confirm his Estate for 7 years the Parson dies The Question is Whether that confirmation made the Lease good for 21
a title be made there by prescription it is méerly coram non Judice and if they cannot meddle with the principal it is not reason that they shall tax costs And a prohibition was granted Fawkner against Bradley FAwkner and others against Bradley In false judgement given before the Sheriff of Bâ—…rkshire Bradley brought a replevin against Fawkner and the others who commanded the Sheriff to deliver the goods and summon the parties to appear The parties being demanded at the day they appeared and then the Plaintiff declared upon which it was proceeded to Iudgement And it was held to be naught For that he declared before any appearance But upon the default he might have an attachment and a distresse insuing Dame Sherleys Case DAme Sherley wife of Sir Henry Sherley sued in the High Commission Court for Alimony And Hitcham moved for a prohibition And said that alimony is not within the jurisdiction of the high Commssion For the Court of high Commission is to try ardua regni which are not tryable by the Common law Richardson The power of the high Commission is not de arduis regni but of heresies and of such other things Ecclesiastical And he said that the Court of high Commission had special words in their Commission but not in the Statute of primo and that the Statute de primo had no prerogative in that And so the question is if the King may by the Common Law grant such a Commission Hutton said that by the same reason as he may grant such a Commission They may grant Commissions for all other things Yelverton I marvail how that came within their Commission he said that in tempore Iacobi upon a debate before him Sir Edward Cook so fully satisfied the King And this matter of Alimony was commanded to be put out of their Commission And upon that Richardson said to Hitcham Move this again when the Court is full for we may advise of this Et adjournat Lynne against Coningham LYnne against Coningham in an action upon the case the matter was thus An action of debt was brought by the Plaintiff and he recovered and had a capias ad satisfaciendum to take the party The Sheriff arrests him and the Defendant made a rescous And in that if an action lies for the Plaintiff was the question And Ayliff said that the action did not lie against the party who made the rescous but against the Sheriff And he cited Fitzher Nat. Brev. 16 E. 4.3 where the difference is If an arrest be made upon a mean process and a rescous made There the Sheriff is not responsable Because that the Plaintiff might continue his processe against the Defendant But if it be upon Execution after Iudgement Now an action does not lye against the party but against the Sheriff And if he had an action against the party he shall have an action against the Sheriff also and so twice satisfied And the Sheriff shall have an action against the party and so he shall be twice charged Richardson said That the action well lies for the Case in 16 E. 4. It is séen there that it is doubted upon the mean proces execution as to the rescous the party may have an action either against the Sheriff or the rescoussers And in some cases a man shall have his election of the actions and both actions are but to recover damages A man had an execution against one He saw the man and conveyed him out of his sight And it was adjudged that an action upon the case lies against him And peradventure the Sheriff is dead then he should have no remedy if he had not an action against the party and no inconvenience follow For he that will do such a wrong it is no matter if he be charged by both If the Sheriff suffer one to escape it is an escape as to the Sheriff but the Plaintiff may have a new execution against the party if he will as it was resolved in this Court but Hutton on the contrary and that the action does not lie As if a man be imprisoned and an other help him out of prison yet an action will not lie against him by the Plaintiff And the difference is good where a man is arrested upon a mean processe and rescued and afterwards becomes non solvend so that they who rescued him is the cause of the loss of my debt It is a wrong upon which he may be indicted Yet the party shall not have a remedy against him because that he may proceed And then he should be the cause of multiplicity of actions Yelverton was of the same opinion and agreed that difference put before And that there is no difference between this case and the case put by Hutton For a rescous made half an hour after the arrest is all one as if it were a year after And Fitzherb nat brev 102. satisfies me Harvey on the contrary He who was injured the law gives him a remedy against the party who did the wrong In the Kings Bench the case how one came to take in execution by a fier fac the goods being in an house and one séeing the Sheriff came and shut close the door and adjudged that an action upon the case lies against him And there is no difference between our case and that where one comes to make execution and the other makes a rescous Richardson in Greshams case Gresham was possessor of the glasse house at Black-fryars Beresford was a Glass-mamaker and had many glasses in Greshams house Seaman recovers in debt against Beresford and coming to make Execution of those glasses Gresham standing at his door séeing them coming and knowing their purpose shut the doors Seaman brought an action upon the case against him and judgement was given for the Defendant because that the Sheriff never demanded the Key to open the house 18 E. 2. If he had demanded the Key it had been adjudged against Gresham And there if an action upon the case will lie for hindring to make execution a multo fortiori when it is actually done and then the party rescued And he denied the case put by Hutton where one is rescued out of prison And said if one be rescued from the Bayliffs the Sheriff ought to have the action Hutton upon a mean process the Sheriff never had remedy for the rescous but he shall return the rescous But upon an execution he shall not return the rescous but he shall have an action and that the party is not prejudiced for he shall have an action against the Sheriff who in judgement of law is the party lyable Crook That the action will lie is a mischief on both parts The Defendant may be twice charged and the Plaintiff may lose his Debt But I conceive the action well lies against him who made the rescous c. And if the Sheriff brings the action he may plead the recovery by the Plaintiff when the Sheriff makes his return of the
and Yelverton And a prohibition was granted Holmes against Chime before PResidents were shewn that such actions were brought scil Hill 3. Car. Elwin against Atkins and Hill 1. Car. Cophin against Cophin both in this Court. And Richardson said although the book makes a doubt of it yet his opinion was that the action would lie For it would be a miserable thing that all things should be shewed precisely And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Port against Yates IN a replevin the case was The Defendant was known as Bayliff to Thomas Kett and the land was Copyhold land And 10 Maii. 3 Car. When it was granted by the Lord of the Mannor to the wife of Thomas Kett. The Plaintiff confesses that the Land is Copyhold land but that the Lord granted 1 Iacob to Robert Salter in Fée who had two daughters the wife of the Plaintiff and the wife of Thomas Kett and dyed seised and that the land descended to them upon which they demurred Berkely The first grant shews that the Defendant was in of all and the descent to the wife but for the moyety whereupon the grant of the whole is not traversed nor confessed and avoided And he cited Dyer 171. Pl. 8. to be the same case in effect and so ruled But Hutton Harvey and Crooke held what difference there was betwéen this case and the case in question Hutton the descent here which is pleaded makes the second grant void But by Richardson although that it be avoided Yet it is not confessed And afterwards for that that upon the whole truth of the matter disclosed It appears that a Copartener cannot distrein the lands of another damage feasant and the matter of form in pleading ought not to be regarded by the Iudges upon the Statute of 21 Eliz. cap. 5. Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Cockett against Delayhay COcket brought an action upon the case in Bristow against Delahay for these words Cockett hath forged a deed and because of that came out of his own Country And the Defendant justifies that he did forge a Déed in Middlesex of lands in Hartfordshire without that that he spoke in Bristowe Richardson said that that plea was naught either with traverse or without the Traverse Whereupon Henden altered his plea scil That he forged a déed of those lands at South Mimms in Middlesex where the lands lie By vertue of which he justified the words at Bristowe Richardson It is a good plea for now the other can plead nothing but de injuria sua propria And then the tryal shall be in Middlesex And by Crooke if there be a Demurrer there shall be a writ of inquiry of damages issue to Bristowe Issue IF the issue be not made up it may be tryed by Proviso But if the Plaintiff neglect that there may be called a non-sute upon the roll for there it shall be discontinued quod nota Page against Tayler PAge brought an Action against Tayler as Receiver c. which was found against him c. And Iudgement was given that he accounted and before the Auditors he pleaded that before the Action brought there was an arbirement that he should pay to the Plaintiff 11 l. in satisfaction of all accounts and demands which he had performed And it was ruled by the whole Court that that was not a good plea in discharge before Auditors but a plea in bar of the account And by Crooke an accord with satisfaction may be pleaded in Bar not in discharge Which the Court seemed to agree And by Crooke If the Defendant had any other matter to shew on the Declaration before Auditors it might be shewn c. Richardson Although that the Arbitrament was made after the action brought it cannot now be pleaded but he ought to have his Andita querela Manninghams case In Manninghams case The doubt was this A condition of an obligation made to Manningham was that he should pay after his death to his Executors after his death 10 l. per annum to the use of the Children of Manningham And Manningham dyed and there was no Executor whether the payment should be to the Administrator and so the obligation forfeited Berkly said that it ought to be payed to the Administrator for an Executor includes an Administrator And this money is as assets if not to satisfie debts yet to perform this case which is illsgal 5 H. 7. 12. 26 H. 8. 7. And also if a man limit a thing to be done to his Executors that may be done to his Administrators So that the nominating of the Executor is not but an expresse intention to whom the money shall be paid viz. to him who presents his person And he compares that to the case of 46. E. 3. 18. A rent upon a condition reserved to the Executors goes to the Administrators 15 E. 4. 14. Dy. 309. Cranmers case Where it seemed that if a lease be made to one for life and after to his Executors for years that the Executors shall not have the term as assets 32. E. 3. A quid juris clamat Fitzharb A Lease for life to his Executors for years in remainder Lessee for life atturns saving the term which proves that the Executor had that as privy not as strangers And he cited Chapmans and Daltons case the principall So that the Infant and the Executors shall have the money in right of the testator and therefore it goes to the Administrator Secondly The Executor extends to an administrator 8. rep 135. there kindes of Executors and an Administrator is an Excecutor datinus 3 H. 6. An action is brought against divers executors by the Statute when some appears upon the distresse it answers that extends to an Administrator although the Statute names only Executors Thirdly It does not appear here that Manningham made not Executors for it may be that he made Executors and that they dyed intestate or before probate And he cited 18. H. 8. And Shelleyes case 1. rep and 33. Eliz. If Executors dye before probate It is in Law a dying intestate Richardson Here is but meer trust and as it hath been said It doth not appear whether he had made Executors or not For if he dye and makes Executors and they dye before probate or refuse he dyes ab intestato but not intestate Nor shall it be questioned if the obligation had been to pay to Manningham only or to him and his Executors But it goes to the administrators But because that he had specially put his Executor Whether he ought to have the forfeiture of the obligation or whether he ought to have the sum to be annually payed to the Administrator Berkley the letters of administration make mention that he dyed ab intestaro Atthow That is matter de hors but by the declaration it is clear that he dyed intestate And the action brought by Administrator who who had not any cause of action Secondly admitt that there was an Executor and the money payed to him that
was not shewed within two 2 daies And Bents Case and Hoptons were adjudged accordingly See 30 Eliz. rot 126. In the Case of a Sheriff there Wroth against Harvey DOwer was brought against an Infant and upon default Iudgment was given against the Infant and there was something assigned for error but notwithstanding Iudgement was affirmed as to that But afterwards an other errour was assigned in the record For that that the entry is obtulit se per Clerk atturnatum suum and names him not And so was the Case where such an one by Higgius atturnatum suum obtulit se And for that cause naught And Dyer 93. Because in waste the obtulit is per atturnatum suum and names him it was naught But Richardson said upon the first obtulit se it is not requisite to name the Attourney but upon the second Barleys Case NOte It was said by Richardson If a man says in his sickness I give 20 l. to I. S. and does not make Executors Yet I. S. shall recover against him who has the goods Crook said that 3 H. 4. That a devise is void if a Legacy be given and no Executors made Winchcombe against Shepard IN an action of the case for cutting of the bank of the River of Charwell by which the water run forth and drowned his meadows The Defendant pleads in bar that one Brooke was seised of a Mill called Gammons Mill and that there is a certain rivulet betwéen Gamors Mill aforesaid and Clyftons And that he and those whose Estate he had in Gamons Mill have used time out of mind c. as often as the said Gammons mill should be ruinous to cut the aforesaid bancks of the aforesaid rivulet in which the Trespass aforesaid is supposed to be done and to let out the water in old Charwell to repair the mill And he shews that the mill was ruinous and that he cut as aforesaid to repair and the water run out of the said old Charwell and so justifies And there was an exception taken by Atthow to this bar For that that he does not answer nor justifies to the place where the Trespass was done For he said that there is quidem Rivulus which is always to be intended of a strange thing As 6 E. 6. Dyer 70. In Trespasse the Defendant said quod quidam I. S. granted the part to him and afterwards said again quod quidam I. S. granted And because that he conveys two grants to himself by two persons for so the second quidam shall be intended And it shas ruled to be naught See the 33 and 34 Eliz. Debt by Lowe against Wotton The Defendant pleads that a long time after the Obligation was made by himself and Bassett quod quidam Iohannes Bassett acknowledged a Statute to the Obligor And because that he says quidam which shall be intended a strange person it was no plea. And the debt upon the Obligation is gon by the acknowleging the Statute See 9 H. 6. 16 17. In a quare impedit for the King of the Chauntry of St. Tho. and alleges a presentation The Defendant says that there is a Chapel of St. Thomas in the same Village and that the Defendant and all his Ancestors have béen Patrons of the same Church It was held no plea for there is no answer to the title made by the King For it shall be intended of another Chapel But here because that he said virtute cujus he cut the aforesaid banks of the rivulet aforesaid in quo transgressio praedict fieri supponitur A sufficient answer was made to the same place so ruled by the opinion of all the Iustices But it was objected that this barre was not good upon the matter For although he might let it out yet he ought not to drown any ground But because that the fault was in the banks of old Charwell He is not punishable for that lawfull Act which he had done Otherwise if he had not prescription 6 E. 4 6. If I have a pond I cannot so let it out that it shall surround the ground of my neighbour Another exception was taken for not pursuing the prescription For he does not shew that the place where the cutting was alleged was between them two mills whereof he makes mention Yet adjudged contra querentem And afterwards this judgement was reversed by errour because he had made his prescription local and that ought to be pursued But for the overflowing after the letting out It was by all held that it is not punishable Ienkins's Case THomas Ienkins as heir to Iohn Ienkins brought errour upon a Iudgement given upon an indictment upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Recusancy and assigns this error For that the Indictment was contra formam Statut. edit 23 Ian. 1 Eliz. Where the Parliament began 25 Ian. And for that it was held erroneous 3 Eliz. Dyer 203. Other matter was alleged for that that the Statute is that it shall be taken before Iustices of the Peace or Gaol delivery The Indictment was before the one and the conviction before another But that was thought a small matter And it was beld by the Iustices that the heir might have a writ of Error upon such a Iudgement As upon execution of a Statute after the death of his father It was objected that he brought error as heir but does not shew how he is heir But nothing is answered to that Keene against Cox IN an action upon the case brought by Keene for saying He is falsly forsworn before the Iustices of Assize between A. and B. Adjudged that it lies Mercer Ux. against Cardock Ux. MErcer Ux. brought debt against Cardock and his Wife as Administrators of one Tox. And upon plene administr pleaded The Plaintiff replies that they had assetts to satisfie the aforesaid Defendant whereas it should have been Plaintiff And because that it was but the misprision of the Clark It was held that it might be amended the record now being brought before them by errour Calthrop against Allen. IN Debt the demand was of 19 l. 17 s. and declares upon five several contracts and shews the certainty upon every of them which being cast up amounted to 20 s. more than was demanded And because that he does not shew how he was satisfied of the remnant It was held quod nihil cap. Goodridges Case AN Indictment of Murder was brought against Goodridge and this exception was taken because that the Indictment was That the said Francis who was murdered such a day apud quondam Down vocat Westmen Downe in the County of Hampton insultum fecit quod ibidem habuit tenuit quoddam gladium in his right hand praedict Franc. percussit and does not say ibidem percussit And therefore naught For it is not of necessity to be intended that the percussion was at the same place Also he said whereof instanter obiit that is no certainty but by argument that he died in the same place
of Entries If one said of a Chirurgion he did poyson the wound of his patient That is not actionable for it might be for the cure of it But if he said as it was in 33 and 34 Eliz. Com. Banc. He did poyson the wound of his patient to get money That is actionable And the words here are allayed if they be joyned with the first For being spoken of a Iustice his power and greatness may oppresse him without fault in the Plaintiff One said M. 37 Eliz. of a Iustice of Peace That he was a Bloodsucker and thirsteth after blood yet if you 'll give him a couple of Capons he 'll take them Not actionable for they are too general As to the Iustification all is justified clearly It was objected then is omitted in our justification It is true if he complain of oppression one time and we justifie at another time it shall be insufficient But the matters of Iustification here well enough meet with the time By which c. Gosse against Brown Gosse brought an action upon an Obligation against Brown dated 23 Feb. 20 Iac. to pay money upon the 30 of December following It was then said that the money was not to be paid until the 30 day of December For it is all one as if the bond had been without date But if the condition had been to have béen paid the 33 Febr. It was then presently due upon demand because it was an impossible date Gibbs against Ienkins GIbbs brought an action upon the case for scandalous welch words spoken in the presence of divers understanding the language And witnesses were sworn to the Iury who deposed that the signification of those words were to steal or at least to carry away Which words in English not being able to bear an action Iudgement was given against the Plaintiff Ravyes Case A Sheriff had taken one by capias ad satisfac a Stranger assumes to him that if he will let him goe at large that he would pay him what damages he should sustain thereby No action upon the case will lie for that promise because it is against the Common Law And 23 H. 6. 2 H. 5. If a man oblige another in a bond not to follow his trade It is void Darlyes Case SErgeant Atthow shewed to the Court that an action upon the case was brought by the Sheriff of S. And declares that the Defendant assumed that if he would put such an one in Execution into the Castle of which he had recovered against him to save him harmless And shews that he did take him in execution and that for that he was indicted for a forceabie entry and sues in the Star-chamber ad damnum 500 l. And the Court séemed that it was not a sufficient consideration For it was no more than by his office he ought to doe But if it was upon an other matter otherwise it should be And for that they said to the Serjeant that he might have demurred to the Declaration NOte that it was said that an Ejectione firm does not lie de una pecia terrae although that it was added conteining by estimation half an acre of land vocat It is not good But he ought to shew the longitude and latitude And it is otherwise in an assize and that for the view And so it was held by the Court. Hadves against Levit. AN action upon the case was brought That in consideration the Plaintiff would consent that his Son should marry the Daughter of the Defendant and that after the Coverture upon request of the Defendant the Plaintiff shall make a joynture of 20 l. to the wife That the Defendant should give 200 l. to the Son in marriage they are married the mony is not payed the Father of the Son brings this action and shews how he is indamaged by it because that he is constreined to give more to the Son and his Wife for to allow them maintenance then otherwise with an averement that be is forced to make that Ioynture if the other will make the request Richardson This action should have béen more properly brought by the Son for he is the person in whom the interest is And he put the case 22 Eliz. A man had a license to transport Herrings to Spain and the Daughter one of the parties had a license And a stranger comes to the Father and says to him procure me that license and I 'll give you 100 l. and 100 l. to your daughter It was held that the Daughter should have the action for the one 100 l. for more specially it concerns her And put the case of lorning Iorning 37 Eliz. Where A. was indebted to B. a stranger follows the sute for B. A. comes to the stranger and says to him leave the sute and I 'll pay your Master The Master shall have the action upon the case And now in our case the father does not demand the 200 l. but only the damages which will happen to him by the non-payment to the Son Hutton There is a difference when the promise is to perform to one who is not interessed in the cause and when he hath interest In the first case he to whom the promise is made shall have the action and not he to whom the promise is to be performed If A. promise B. to pay I. S. 10 l. upon a consideration which is not done B. shall have the action and not I. S. If there be two joynt of a Horse and the one conditions with the other to goe to Market to sell it who does it and appoints the payment to be made to another In this case he only to whom the payment is to be made shall have the action So also if my servant by my command sell my Horse the money to be paid to me I shall have the action and not my Servant for the interest is in me So here the interest is in the Son and he is to have the money It was said at the bar betwéen one Cardinal and Lewis It was adjudged that where two fathers promise upon marriage betwéen the daughter of the one and the Son of the other that the Father of the Son will give 100 l. stock and the Father of the Daughter 100 l. in money The money was paid and the stock not delivered And the action was maintained by the Father And the Iustices said that they would see that Record viz. 27 H. 8. Tathams case of a promise made to the wife c. They put at the bar one Cores Case That a man promised to one to make satisfaction of all debts in which he was indebted to another who was then absent He to whom the satisfaction was to be made brought the action upon the Case and well maintainable ve Mich. 43 44 Eliz. in t Rixon Horton Stone against Tiddersly THe action was brought upon an Obligation the condition whereof was that a conveyance of a Mannor shall be made to one P. and two others to the use of Richard Tiddersly and the heirs males of his body The remainder to the heirs males of Rob. Tid Vpon issue whether conditions were performed And it was found by verdict that it was to the use of the heirs males of his body the remainder to Rob. Tid and the heirs males of his body Held no performance for they agréed not to the words of the Condition IT was agreed by all That antient Demesne was a good plea in Ejectione firm but not after imparlance Crosses Case THere was errour brought because the appearance was by Anthony Goodwin Attornat suum And there was not any such in rerum natura The Court said that this averment shall not be received against the Recorder of the Court. FINIS
the Civil Law And it was resolved First that the King by his Charter deprives the subject of his Liberty and Priviledge of Tryal As he cannot by his Letters Patents alter the nature of Gavelkinde Land but by prescription he may alter it in particular places As 9 H. 6. 44. In corpus cum causa to the Chancellor of Oxford was certified that the prisoner Pro extensione detentus fuit convictus And an exception was taken for that that he should have been indicted and convicted and it was answered that it was Mos Universitatis And by Hutton Iustice That custom was to be intended to be by prescription But so the Charter is confirmed by Act of Parliament it is as good Secondly that there is a good cause of action in the Chancellors Court. For Wilcocks who is one of the parties is a Scholar and the Charter was only made for the ease of Scholars that their Studies might not be interrupted by Sutes in other Courts But then he ought to be a Scholar resident in the Vniversity at the time of the Sute commenced there And he ought to be only one of the parties And for that if another be joyned with him he shall not have the priviledge or benefit of the Charter as it is 14 H. 4. 21. and by Richardson chief Iustice that is not a priviledge which may be waved for every person may Recusare jura introducta pro se But that it was an exempt Iurisdiction and differs where the priviledge goes to the person As if a Clerk in his Court will sue in another Court or suffer himself to be sued that is a Waver of the Priviledge Thirdly that a Proeedendo shall not be granted for that the Charter is not pleaded for the Iudges give Iudgement of the Record and the cause of their Iudgement ought to appear by pleading of the Record And also a prohibition is granted where by Demurrer or by Pleading and not by verbal surmise there ought to be a discharge And in the case of a prohibition It is not like the Case of 35 H. 6. 24. Where Conusans is one time allowed by Charter shewn and another Record there should be allowed without demand without other shewing But Yelverton Iustice to the contrary That it might be remanded upon pleading of the Charter And he said that there was a difference where the suggestion was upon matter of Fact as prescription c. Where an issue may be taken there it ought to be pleaded in writing which appears fully by the mean of the Court and not by suggestion Fourthly it was resolved that a prohibition may be granted in case where the Court cannot give other remedy for the ease of the Subject who is the party as it was adjudged in the Court of Requests Vpon the custom of London concerning Orphans a prohibition was granted and yet no remedy at Common Law was afterwards to be expected Trin 5. Car. Fawkner against Bellingham FAwkner against Bellingham in a Replevin The Avowry was for that that the Defendant was Lord of a Mannor and of Lands which were Chauntry Lands and held of him by Rent and other Services And after coming to the Crown by the Statute of 10 E. 6. cap. 14. Who granted it then over by Letters Patents c. And now the Lord distreins for Rent and avows that he had not seisin within fourty years And whether seisin was requisite for him who made the Conusans was the sole question in the Argument First for that that it is a new Rent created by the Statute of 1 E. 6. For when that Land is granted to the King by Parliament yet the King hath operation upon it and may dispose of it Secondly that the Land passed from the Priest and others by their assent confirming it And it is a Grant of the Seigniory by the Lord himself unless the saving hinder it But so by the Grant the Rent is extinguished And the saving is so a creation of a new Rent 1. rep 47. Altomeoods Case And there is diversity between a Rent-service viz. where the Tenant grants Land to the King and he grants that over He cannot distrein upon the Patentee for it is distinct from a Rent charge Stamford prerogat 75. Mich. 20. E. 3. 17. And so it is ordered by the Statute de Religione when he enters by Mortmain that he ought to revive the Services Stam. 27. If the King enters upon my Tenant there a Petition of Right lies Dyer 313. 10. rep 47. By the saving in the Statute of Wills c. A primer Seisin is given to the King de novo where he ought to have it before And then being a new Rent no Seisin is requisite Secondly the second reason is for that there is a new remedy and then no matter whether it be old Rent or new Rent Finchden A Rent granted out of White-acre and a distress out of Black-acre the Rent yet remains and there is one thing part of the Rent another of the remedy Because the Rent is only altered in quality Dyer 31. There our Case directly Now the Statute of Limitations is a Statute for the good of the Common wealth to settle inheritances and possessions And it should be expounded liberally Then if a scruple be of the Act it ought to be expounded benignly And so it is of all other Statutes which settle possessions Always shall be expounded favourably for the ease and benefit of the Tenant and Lord. And for that adjudged That a Copy-hold and Leases for years are within that Statute And the Statute of 32 H. 8. 11. rep 71. binds both King and Realm because it is for the publick good Owen against Price before BRamston argued for the Defendant I agree that Lease to be a Lease in remainder and I admit also that that Lease is warranted by the Statute 10 Eliz. For that that he is not punishable of waste And the case admits two questions whether it be a void Lease at Common Law And First In respect of the limitation Secondly there is not any Livery in the Case Wherefore first of all it had been said a Frank Tenement cannot pass from a day to come in case of a Grant 38 H. 6. 34. 8 H 7. Claytons Case 5. rep It had been agreed that a Livery made the first day by himself or by his Attorney should not be good And moreover if by his Attourney after the day if his Grant may be granted the same day it is not good And then I hold that the date of the Grant of Attourney is not material Trin. 43 Eliz. rot 402. Conibar It was resolved in such a Case as that is That the Livery is not good And the reason was that the Livery had not relation to the Deed which was void in Law Bucklers and Binsluns Case The release was made 1 May as this and executed by Attourney and by Attourney authorised the same day the second of May. And it was adjudged
was found for the Plaintiff And Atthowe moved in arrest of Iudgement First for that That in the Record it was entred that the Issue was inter praedict Robertum where it should have been Radulphum And secondly that the words were not actionable Richardson said as to the mistake it was helped by the word aforesaid And although that it was inter praedict Andrews it should have been well For it cannot be intended but the same Andrews And Crook Iustice cited Dyer 260. Cook and Watsons Case to be the same Case and 11 H. 7. Penningtons Case That the words were actionable For the Statute punishes forgery and the procurers of forgery And it is all one although he did not say falsly procured as the precise words of the Statute are Yet it shall be intended that that is implyed in the word Forge But if it had been said the Deed given in evidence was forged that was not actionable Wood against Symons VVOod against Symons in a Prohibition in which Symons libels for Tithes of Hay And Wood suggests for the Prohibition That he used to pay tithe of Hay in specie in consideration whereof he used to be discharged for all Doles Green-skips and Headlands not exceeding the breadth that a Plough or a Teame might turn about the Lands And Henden moved for a Consultation For that it is said about c. that is circa terras arabiles When the truth is there are Skips at the side of Lands as broad as the Lands themselves and then he would be discharged of them also Whereas it ought to be at the end of the Head-lands only Richardson said that in arable lands inclosed Pasture is at the end and at the sides which is mowed and yet discharged of tithes But the Court in respect there was a Prohibition granted said That he ought to joyn Issue or demurre upon the Declaration Summons IN a Writ of partition after the Summons an Estrepment was granted and generally against the Parties and their servants For in partition no dammages are to be recovered Quod nota Escape IF a Sheriff remove his Prisoners out of the County without being commanded it is an escape But if he remove them from one place to another in his County as he changes his Gaol it is not an Escape But if he remove prisoners for their ease and delight in the same County it is a Escape As the Case was cited by Harvy That one went with his Prisoner to a Bear-bating in the same County And it was adiudged an Escape And Hutton Iustice said So that if a Sheriff permit his Prisoners to go to work for their benefit it is an Escape And the Question was if in an Audita Querela for a voluntary Escape of one in Execution there should be bayl and the opinion of the Court was That if it appears That the Cause upon which the Audita Querela is grounded is called a good proof by the Record and that he should not be bayled unless good and special bayl Duncombe against Sir Edward Randall IN an action upon the Case betwéen Duncombe and Sir Edward Randall for diversion and stopping of a River It was agreed by the Court That if one had antiently Ponds which are replenisht by Chanels out of a River He cannot change the Chanels if any prejudice accrew to another by that And yet the effect by prefluxions is to have the Ponds fed out of the River But sic utere tuo ut ne laedas alieno The Vicar of Hallifaxes Case A Chaplain that was under the Vicar of Hallifax libells against him for his Sallary And he prescribes that the Vicar ought to pay the Chaplains four pounds a year And the Vicar prays a Prohibition First for that he alleges That the Chaplains were eligible by himself And because that Chaplain was not elected by him He is not Chaplain But he is in of his own wrong c. Secondly That prescription for Sallery was tryable at the Common law Yelverton the Sallery is spiritual as the Cure it self is spiritual for which it is to be payed As the Case in Dyer 58. Pl. 4. But a Prohibition was granted untill it was determined to whom the election appertained And that now depends by Prohibition in this Court Assault and Battery TRespass of Assault and Battery was brought against two and the one of them appeared and a Verdict was found against him The other was in the insimul cum And dammages were taxed against him who appeared But the Court by view of the Plaintiff increase the dammages from 30 l. to 40 l. And afterwards a verdict was given against the other Defendant and dammages also were taxed And Thime moved that the other Defendant had murdered the Officer who came to serve the Execution upon him for the 40 l. And so they by possibility might recover nothing against him that the Court would increase the dammages against this Defendant upon another view of the wound But the Court denied that For they can have but view one time in this Action But if they had brought several Actions then it had béen otherwise But he directed him to stay all untill the first Defendant was hanged And then they may make a view and increase the dammages Margery Rivets Case A Iudgement in Debt was brought against Margery Rivets Administratrix durante minori aetate of her Son And in a Scire facias against her she pleaded in Bar that she was Administratrix c. and that such a day her Son came to full age scilicet 17 years and that after she refused before the Ordinary And that the Administration was granted to a Stranger And that she had delivered all the Goods in her hands at the time of the Writ brought or after c. The Plaintiff replies and confesses all the Bar But that before the delivery of the Goods and Administration granted by the Ordinary devastivit and does not say that praedicta Margery devastavit The Defendant joyns Issue Quod praedict Margery non devastavit Which was found for the Defendant And Hitcham the Kings Sergeant moved in arrest of Iudgement For that that there was no Issue For every Issue ought to be returned certain and the Issue grows upon the affirmative Then the word of the Defendant quod praedict does nothing for the affirmative makes the Issue Coo. Countess of Salops Case A Bar may be taken upon Common intent But a Replication ought to be precise and certain In the Exchequer Chamber Tho. Harris's case One pleads that he was seised of White acre and Infeoffac .. And adjudged naught for it ought to have been feofavit inde For he may be seised of White acre and enfeofft of another acre And also it may be said that another devastavit although that the wife was Administratrix Atthowe observed all the course of the Reeord there is not a word of Margery in the Replication but only in the recital But says ante diem quo devastivit And
Case 8 Rep. 65. et in Rep. 108. cited arreere et il dit que cest case la cite proue ceo mult Si Snor et Tenaunt soiet le Tenaunt fait done in taile le remainder in Fee la si le Snor incroach sur le Donee il lier lui mes nemy son issue Et le reason que il lier est le seisin donque suppose que fuit le very Snor et very Tenaunt devaut le Stattute de primo Snor incroach sur sou Tenaunt et donque il release distres al Tenaunt et donque le Stattute de primo est sait uncore seisin do et ee alleadge ou autermeut vous easyement leape over le Stattute et il dit que les livers differe mult in lour case de seisin car ascuns diout ne unque seisie est bone plea 24 E. 3. 26. 39 E. 3. 34. 36. H. 6. 25. mes le Conclusion ore per Donor in authority est que do et pleade ne vuque seisie apres temps de Limmittacon Dyer 315. 4 Rep. Bevills Case et 9 Rep. Bucknalls Case est agree le diversity la mise scilt que cest Stattute de 32 H. 8. do et ee liberallmeut expound pur le repose dl Subjects voier est que B. Limmitacon primo dit que cest Stattute ouste les auters Stattutes de Limmittacons mes il intende que avoit prist le force del auters Stattutes et le mischeefe serroit si tiels reuts come tiel est ou comencement ne Poet ee scavoy ne serra deins le Stattute que people voieat ee idle et negligent in clamant enx si poieat vener et monstre reut sur ceo Stattute de primo et proue seisin devaut le Stattute per le auntient Court rolle ou Bailiffes Accounts que est bone Evidence al Jury come le reut perhapps navoit ee paye pur 100 anns et perhapps Poet ee discharge et nul cognize de ceo Et vucore sur tiel Evidence il Poet recover per lauter construccon mes Hutton coutra lui que cest reut nest deins le Stattute de Limmittacons deux choses sent dee consider primerment coment el in quel mannor cest reut est sane et ore il prise effect et avoit sou birthright in cest mannor come est dl saueing Secundment in quel mannor nature cest rent estoiet al cest iour Tout que est die del auter part adhunc consiste de 3 obejections solement c. Primerment que cest rent est novel rent et le comencement de ceo ne poet e'e scavoy donque le consequence est ore seisin est necessary de' e alleadge Et tertio que do et e'e liberall Construction de 32 H. Et ils conclude sur le danger de cest Construction que le Tenaunt seroit sans remedy si rent soiet claime primerment cest stattute de primo est solement confirmation mes in a scun mannor creation de cest rent in quantity del benefitte on est de' e consider quel force le saneing avoit car est agree que si jeo done ceo rent donque dehors ceo stattute de 32. Et appeirt que ceo rent port effect dl saneing quelcunque do et e'e alleadge in avowry et sans quel na voit title done effect al ceo mes ciy le saueing de necessity do et e'e alleadge ergo c. saneing in le stattute do et aner construction solonque le matter si ne soiet repugnant Et le stattute intende que les averont lour Suoryes arreere per le saueing in 31 H. 8. de Monasteryes on rent services sout except et ieo avoy vewe les liuers et arguments sur 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. Et la leopinion de Meade est que le terre serroit ore tenus de deux Suors et Roy et veiel Suor Et est reason que le Tenure seroit revive auxi pur ceo jeo agree que le stattute primo seroit expound liberallment et compare ceo one auters auntient Stattutes de tiel nature le stattute de 7 E. 4. cap. 5. est expound que si Tenauncy veign al roy per attainder et graunt al auter que le Suory dl common person serra revive br Revivor 9. Et uncore le stattute est penned come ceo est issuit que est Equity que ils que perde lour Suoryes sans lour default que tiel saueing seroit liberallment expound Carfi le Suory fuit extinct per ascun act dl Suor cest exposition de distres ne serroit mes sur cest stattute est expound que il aver distres pur ceo et de comon droit jeo compare ceo al case de rent fait sur auter stattute Le stattute de 27 H. 8. de uses ou si home soiet seisin de terre al intent a paier rent al estraunger le stattute fait ceux rents bone et done distresse al party pur eux et nul de ceux rents sout de deins le Stattute de Limitations et si feoffment soiet fait al cest iour al intent a paier rent al estraunger on c. si poet destrainer sur cest stattute coment nul clause soiet de distresse come Dyer 36. 3 Plo. 21 c. Et ceux rents avoient lour birth right de cest stattute per cause de distresse done issuit est in nostre case voier est mesme le rent in touts quallityes beneficial et in mesme le quantity et parcel del mannor 2 E. 2 Extinguishment 6. et come est in Bevels Case seisin devant est bone seisin apres si ne de veigne rent seck person act demesn et le Signiorye fuit dl part le mier le rent vaier al heir dl part le mier mes le Stattute done cest Construction Et le matter de avowry est sur le stattute et est tiel avowry que vous alleadge nul seisin que forsque devant le Stattute Et un tenure devant que est solement a faire lui able daner benefit per le Stattute si avoit e'e un particular saneing de ceo rent est agree que seroit hors dl Stattute de Limitations Et jeo die que ore est tout un car quant il avoit son case appear al nous est tout un come si cest rent avoit e'e sane car quaunt un graunt est generall est averrement devant les ludges de un particular de' e deins le general est lout un come avoit e'e graunt come le case est 30 E. 3. Avowry on le Roy graunt al Corporation tiels Liberties que auter Corporation avoit c. et 6 E. 33. Balliels case et seroit icy in Chres et nemy in act de Parlament et coment le commencement de rent ne Poet ee conus uncore ceo comiencement est ore per saueing
for a Legacy and that upon the Statute of 23 H 8. cap. 9. And Henden said that a Prohibition might not be granted for two causes First The Statute is general That no person c. then there is a proviso That this Statute does not extend to any probate of Wills in the Prerogative Court Then a Legacy cannot be recovered in any other Court. For if a Will be proved there no inferiour Ordinary will meddle with that Will and alwaies they had the execution of all Wills proved there in that Court Secondly It is pretended that the party is cited out of a particular Iurisdiction But that is not a Iurisdiction within this Statute For no Iurisdiction is intended but where there is an Ordinary But in the Tower of London there is no Ordinary But it is but as a Lord of a Mannor who had probate of Wills which is but a lay Iurisdiction c. Thirdly There is no Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction there But Davenport replyed That although for the present time no Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction is executed there because the Lord is dead Yet Spiritual Iurisdiction is executed there Hutton said If there he cause de bonis notabilibus Then the Archbishop had the Prerogative and might cause the proving of the Will But it stood with reason That where an Executor is tyed to perform the Will which may be there sued and the property of sute ought to be there where there is cause of Prerogative Harvey If there be cause of Prerogative and proof of the Will in the Prerogative Court Yet in the inferiour Iurisdiction the party will be compelled to prove the Will also But by Crook and Hutton minus juste An Action of Battery AN Action of Battery is brought against two and one dies before tryall and it was entred upon the Roll But the Venire facias was awarded against both and dammages assest And by Yelverton it cannot be amended For it was not the Act of the Court but of the Iury So that now dammages cannot be severed For although he may have the entire dammages against which he will yet if they be severd you will then oust him of his Election Quod non fuit negatum A Prohibition IN a Motion for a Prohibition where the Ordinary would make distribution It was agréed Richardson being absent That if the Ordinary commits Administration to the Wife of the Intestate that he cannot revoke that But if he grant Administration to one as Prochein de Sank and another more near of Blood comes He may revoke And because the Administration being granted all the power of the Ordinary is determined and then he cannot make distribution And if the Administration be one time justly granted the Grantée had a just Interest which cannot be revoked And although it was urged that those Prohibitions were not granted untill of late time yet they say those things passed Sub silentio Yelverton They cannot grant Admistration before a division was made And by Crook and Harvey An Action upon the Case lyes against the Ordinary if he will not grant Administration where he ought And at an other day it was moved by Finch Recorder That such a Prohibition could not issue in one Davyes Case And Richardson said That because that that Case was a Case of Extremity For Davyes had not any thing or portion allotted him by his Father who was dead And his Mother who was Administratrix turned him out of her House without any maintenance stopped the Prohibition which was granted before And said that it was in the discretion of the Court to grant such a Prohibition or not But Harvey and Crook said secretly betwéen themselves that it was not in the discretion of the Court. Garton against Mellowes AN action of Battery was brought by Garton against Mellowes And the Plaintiff pleaded a Recovery by the same Plaintiff for the same Battery in the Kings Bench against another who joyned in the Battery And the Piaintiff replies Nul tiel Record Vpon which they were at issue and the Record was brought in at the day assigned And these variances were objected for to make it fail of a Record And first The award of the Dist jurat in the Kings Bench is Coram domino Rege and there it was Coram domino nuper rege But not allowed For the King died before the Plea there and then it ought to be so pleaded Secondly That in one Record the Plaintiff is Generosus in the other Armiger Brampston said That that was such a variance which could not be amended Dyer 173. One recovers in debt by the name of I. Cives and Sadler And the Defendant brought Error and removes the Record inter I. Civem Salter c. And it was rul'd that the Record was not well removed upon that Writ Dyer 178. Plo. 8. Vpon Nul tiel Record there was a variance in the day of the Return of the Exigent and in the place where the Outlary was pronounced And adjudged a variance which could not be mended And now here there cannot be an amendment because it is after tryall And by amendment there might be a cause of changeing the Plea For he took that Issue by reason of the variance and after verdict there cannot be an amendment Mich. 2 Jac. Kings Bench Tayler and Fosters Case In an Ejectione firm upon a Lease made 10 Iunii and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And in Error it was assigned for error that the Imparlance roll was 10 Iunii and Issue roll the 12 Iunii and it appeared there was a rasure And it was agréed that if it was after verdict it could not be amended Atthowe This variance is not substantiall And the cases put do not make to this case For Salter and Sadler are two severall Trades And it cannot be intended the same man for he may vary in his action as he pleases But the Court said nothing to that Exception Thirdly In the Record of Nisi prius there was another fault It was agréed that a Material variance cannot be amended Yelverton said That he might have new Execution For he pleaded a recovery and execution in Bar and that they came to take whereof he had failed For that it stood now as another battery For it does not appear by the Declaration of the Plaintiff c. Smith against Sacheverill AN Action of Wast is brought by Smith against Henry Sacheverill and declares Whereas Henry Sacheverill the Grandfather was seised of these Lands he levyed a Fine of them to the use of himself for life with power to make a Lease for three lives and after to Smith his son for his life the remainder to the first begotten son of Smith in tayle The Grandfather makes a Lease for three lives and dyes and Smith and his first begotten son bring this Action of Wast against the Lessee and they assigne their wast in killing red Deer in a Park and upon nul wast pleaded it was
Executor shall have the Land and yet the heir cannot have the rent Harvey In this Court it was the case of one Asham who had a purpose to enclose a Common and one Tenant was refractory wherefore Asham made him a Lease of the soil in which he had Common and afterwards he surrenders it again And it was agreed that the Common was suspended during the term Crook A Lease for years is by the contract of both parties and the surrender may revive the rent but by the surrender the arrearages shall not be revived And suppose that the surrender was by Indenture and a recitall of the grant that is a grant and then it is expresse that by the surrender their intent was that the rent should be revived 3 H. 6. A surrender determines the interest of all parties but of a stranger But it is determined to themselves to all intents and purposes Crook It was one Cooks Case against Bullick intrat 45 Eliz. rot 845. Com. ban It was there adjudged and this diversity was taken If one devise Lands in Fee and after makes a Lease for years of the same Lands to the Devisee to commence after his death it is a countermand of his will if the Lease was to commence presently it is no countermand and the reason is In the first case both cannot stand in Fee the Devise and the Lease But when the Lease commences immediately he may outlive the Lease And this Case is put upon the intents of the parties But Henden This Case is also adjudged If two Tenants in Common are and one grants a Rent charge the Beasts of the other are not distreinable But if a Tenant in Common takes a Lease for years of another his Cattel are discharged again But Yelverton and Hutton doubted that Case and so it was adjourned to be argued c. Thomsons Case THompson libells for delapidations against the Executors of his predecessor and Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that Thompson is not incumbent for his presentment was by the King ratione minoritatis of one Chichley and the King had not any such Title to present for where the King mistakes his Title his Presentment is voyd and he is no Incumbent 6 Rep. 26. Greens Case And Sir Thomas Gawdys Case where the King presented jure praerogat when he had another Title and the present Action was adjudged voyd and whether he is incumbent or not that shall be tryed But by the Court a Prohibition was denyed because that he was now incumbent And the Iudges would not take notice of the ill Presentment of the King But in case of Symony the Statute makes the Church voyd and then the Iudges may take notice of that and grant a Prohibition if the Parson sues for Tythes But if a quare impedit be brought and appears that the King had not cause of Presentment then a Prohibition may be granted which also was granted by all the other Iustices Richard Youngs Case RIchard Young was Demandant in a Formedon and admitted by Prochein amy and the Warrant was allowed by a Iudge and it was certified and entred in Gulstons Office in the Roll of Remembrance but it was not entred in the Roll as the course in the Common Bench is and after Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff And for that Formeden the Defendant brought a Writ of Errour and removed the Record and assigned it for Errour And before in nullo est erratum pleaded And Davenport moved that it might be mended for he said that there was a difference between that Court and the Kings Bench as it is in the 4 Rep. 43. Rawlins Case for the Entry of the Roll was Richard Young came et obtulit se per atturnat suum where it should have been proximum amicum And the Entry in the Remembrance Roll was That he was admitted per Gardianum Richardson said that all the Books are That an infant ought to sue by Prochein amy and defend by his Guardian and so is a Demandant But the Court agreed That that should be amended according to the Certificate As a speciall Verdict should be amended according to the Notes given to the Clerk And Davenport said that he would venture it although it was by Guardian for he held it all one if it were by Guardian or by Prochein Amy. See afterwards more of this The Vicar of Cheshams Case THe Earl of Devonshire had a Mannor in the Parish of Chesham in Buckinghamshire which extended to Latmos where there is a Chapell of Ease and the Vicar of Chesham Libells for Tithes against one of the Tenants of the Mannor And Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that the Earl prescribed that he and all his Tenants should be acquitted of all the Tythes of Land within Latmos paying 10. s. per. ann to the Chaplin of Latmos And he said that such a Prescription is good as it was adjudged in Bowles Case And a Prohibition was granted Wildshieres Case IT was agreed by the whole Court That for Executing of a Capias utlagatum or for a Warrant to Execute it or for a return of it no Fee is due to the Sheriff c. It was afterwards agreed upon an Habeas corpus sued by Wiltshiere who was imprisoned being under-Sheriff by the Lord Chamberlain for arresting Sir George Hastings Servant to the King upon a Cap. utlagat That he may well doe it upon the Servant of the King for it is the Sute of the King himself and he is sworn to serve it and there is no cause of the Commitment returned but only a recitall of the Commitment unless he was released by the Lord. And the Iudges took exception to that and said that it ought to be unless he can be released by the Law and said if no cause be returned they ought to dismisse the Prisoner And they ordered the Keeper to inform the Lord Chamberleiâ— and that their Opinion was and so was the Opinion of all the Iudges of England That he who procured the Commitment of the under Sheriff ought to pay all the Charges and Expences Quod nota Wentworth against Abraham THe Lord Wentworth brought an Action upon the Case against Abraham upon an Assumpsit and declares that the Defendant 1 die Maii Anno Dom. 1625. in consideration that the Plaintiff would permit the Defendant to re-enter in a Messuage and Croft in which the Defendant had dwelt before promised that he would pay to him 30. s. yearly during the time that he should enjoy it And that he permisit ipsum reentrare and that he should enjoy it a year and an half which ended at Michaelmas 1626. And for that he would not pay 45. s. he c. And upon non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Davenport in Arrest of Iudgement for that that the Assize is to pay 30. s. Annuatim then before the Action be determined nothing is due and the Plaintiff cannot divide the
tax cannot be made by the Church-wardens But by the greater number of the Inhabitants it may and a Prohibition was granted But by Yelverton If it be cited by ex Officio a Prohibition will not lye For so it was ex insinuatione c. For the Wardens came and prayed a Citation c. But by Richardson Harvey and Crook privately a Prohibition will lye in both Cases Commin against Carre COmmin brought Trespass against Carre for taking of two Heifers The Defendant pleads that the King was seised of a Wapentake in Yorkshire And had so large Iurisdiction as another Turn of the Sheriff And then he said that the Plaintiff plaid at Cards within that Wapentake in the House of such an one and said that that is contra formam Statuti 33 H. 8. ca. 9. And said then that he plaid at Cards another day And thirdly that he broke a Pin-fold c. And that the 24 Martii 21 Iac. warning was given to the Plaintiff he being an Inhabitant for a year before within the Iurisdiction of that Court that he ought to appear the last day of March following And said that the Court was then held and those offences were presented and that for his not appearing he was amerced 12 d. and for the playing 6 s. 8 d. and for the breaking the pound 3 s. 4 d. And now for all those amerciaments he distrained by vertue of a Warrant of the Steward of the Court and does not say what warrant And then justifies the selling of the said Heifeâ—s for 20 s. and that he retained 17 s. and offered the surplusage to the Plaintiff Atthow there is not any thing to prove any sorfeiture by the Plaintiff For the Statute is upon two branches First That no Common house of play be kept Secondly If any use those Houses and play c. That it is not said that that is a Common house of play But then it will be said that it is alleged contra formam Statuti and that will imply that But now that is not sufficient For if any inform contra formam Statuti If by his own shewing it does not appear contra formam Statuti He shall not have Iudgement Richardson A Common house of play is a House for lucre maintained for play And there the Law makes a difference between Common persons and private c. But contra formam Statuti will not serve For the offence ought to be alleged fully Yelverton made four causes of Distress selling the Distress If it be good for any it is sufficient And if there be a Iustification for three causes in Avowry If it be good by any It is sufficient 9 H 6. But so it is where a trespass c. Harvey A Iustification in a Leet That he distreyn'd and sold and delivered the overplus to the party in the Case of the King it is good But in the Case of Common persons I doubt whether he may sell And in the Case of the King he ought to deteyn the distress for 16 daies before sale But by Yelverton and Hutton All Leets are the Courts of the King and they may be used as the Courts of the King And it was said afterwards by Richardson That the Statute was grosly mistaken And that divers amerciaments were wanting And so Iudgment for the Plaintiff Traver against the Lord Bridgewater et Ux. TRavers brought an action upon the Case against the Lord Bridgewaters and his Wife Administratrix of T. D. her Husband deceased For that the said T. D. in consideration that the said Travers tradidisset deliberasset to the said T. D. divers Merchandizes he promised to pay c. The Defendant pleads that the said T. D. non assumpsit And 't was found for the Plaintiff and pleaded in Arrest of Iudgement that it was no Consideration And adjudged for the Defendant For when he said tradidisset deliberasset That they might be his own Goods Otherwise if he had said vendidisset de novo E. 4. 19. Accordingly Palmers Case IT was held by the Court If a man assume to pay mony due in consideration to forbear to sue him paululum temporis And if he forbear for a convenient time It is a sufficient consideration upon which to ground an Assumpsit The case was between Palmer and Rouse P. 40 El. rot 537. The Plaintiff counts that I. S. was indebted to him upon an Obligation and he forfeited it and dies and made the Defendant his Executor And that the Plaintiff was forced to sue the Obligation and in consideration of the premises The Defendant assumed that if the Plaintiff would forbear him pro brevi tempore that he would pay him And the Paintiff fidem adhibens c. forbore 4 years to sue him and said that the Defendant had Assets The Defendant said absque hoc that he had Assets And upon that the Plaintiff demurred and adjudged for him For the alleging of Assets in the Count is surplusage And now the consideration was sufficient for he had counted he had forbore for four years Panton against Hassel PAnton brought an action upon the Case of trover and conversion against Hassell who declared That whereas he was possessed of certain Iewels 16 April he lost them and 20 Ian. they came to the hands of the Defendant and he converted them And this was supposed to be done in Huntingtonshire The Defendant pleads that time out of mind c. the City of Bristow is and hath been a Market overt in Shops et locis apertis and the Defendant bought them in his Shop And further shews that he is a Gold-Smith by reason of which he was possessed of them as his proper Goods and converted them to his own use which is the same conversion Hutton When the Defendant had supposed an absolute property by the sale in the Market overt that Conversion after cannot be a Conversion of the Goods of the Plaintiff For of necessity there ought to be a mean time between the change of the property and the conversion Also the Custome is naught for he ought to say in locis apertis shops apertis For the cause of the change of the property is Because every one may come thereto and see if they are his Goods and there challenge them So that by some intendment in this prescription that Shop might he a private Shop And although that it be averred in facto that that Shop is apert Yet when the prescription is mislayed the Bar is naught For if Issue be taken que fuit shop apert That is not a good issue Also he prescribed that there was a Market overt every day except Sunday and Festivals and that it was not Sunday or Festival where it should have been nec Festival per que c. Harvey said That word apertis shall have relation as well to shops as to locis Hutton at Newgate Sessions seven of the Iustices being present there was a Question That if a man having Cloath
30 l. by the year to the use of Richard and Anne Daughter of the Bishop after mariage for their lives Which Lands and Tenements to the value of 30 l. per annum shall be appointed and limitted out by meets and bounds and put in writing before Hillary Term next and delivered to the use of Edward Thomas and Walter Thomas for their lives which were Vncles of Richard if Richard and Anne had Issue male When the Survivor of them dyes without Issue male or if all the Issue male dye without Issue male Then the use to Edward and Thomas to cease Also there be two Conditions the one Precedent the other Subsequent And the precedent Condition makes that a contingent Remainder But Atthow would have that settled without Issue born to Richard c. But if all their Issues dye before the Survivor It can never be setled For the words scil at the death of the Survivor c And then before the contingency happen it cannot be setled If the contingency had been void at the time of the limitations I agree it should be void Now if the particular Estate be contingent all that depends upon it is contingent also And Edward and Walter took nothing but after the death of the Survivor of Richard and Anne without Issue And then it is as in the Case of Cook 10. 85. A Feoffment to the use of A. for life and after the death of B. to the use of C. and his Heirs That Remainder is contingent Because that B. ought to dye in the life of A. or the Remainder shall never vest So also to Richard and Anne for their lives and after their deaths without Issue to Edward and Walter And if they ever take an Estate it ought to be after their deaths c. Secondly For the uses of the Residue To the use of Richard for life and if he dye living A. without Issue male ingendred of the body of A. Then to A. for life that is contingent then of the residue after the death of Richard to the use of Edward Walter if Richard had not issue of Anne at the time of his death Whether it vests after his death see before c. That is contingent also And it is contingent whether he will dye without Issue male As if a Feoffement be made to the use of one for life and if he had no Heir of his body to another in fee that is contingent during the life And he had not but an Estate for life by that limitation and then that is destroyed by the Fine also And now if nothing was in Edward nothing can be setled in his Son And then those contigent Remainders being destroyed there is a good estate in the Purchasors and this special verdict was not found for any doubt but for the intricacy of the Indenture And therefore he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Harvey against Fitton HArvy the Administrator of Edward Fitton brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation of 200 l. against Edward Fitton and declares of Letters of Administration committed to him by the Archbishop of Canterby c. The Defendant says That the Intestate became possessed of Goods in Chester within the County of York And before the purchase of the Writ and after the death of the Intestate I. S. Chancelor of Chester committed Administration to Richard Fitton of all the goods c. And that he released to him and upon that de murs Bramston He doth not shew what person that Chancellor was or how he had that Authority to grant Administration quod fuit concessum per Cur. That for that it was naught And it was agreed that the Prerogative of Canterbury does not extend to York Dame Buttons Case DAme Button was Administratrix of Goods and Chattels of her Husband And the Sisters of the Husband would compell her in the Prerogative Court to make Distribution And after sentence given prays a Prohibition and divers causes were alleged But Richardson rejected all unlesse it was upon the Statute 21 H. 8. And upon that Statute he said that upon conference with the Iudges He conceived that it was in the discretion of the Court to grant a Prohibition in such Cases or not c. Hutton said That a Prohibition in such cases ought to be granted For he said if Sisters may come in for portions by Distributions where Cousins cannot And Sisters have not any colour to have Distribution For although that the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 18. extend a pueris Yet not All Freres or Sisters And the Ordinary although heretofore would compell an Executor to make Distribution yet now they never meddle with an Executor And hath not an Administrator the same power as an Executor And in Isabel Towers Case a Prohibition was granted For when they have executed their Authority one time lawfully they cannot make a Distribution Harvy to the same intent The Ordinary had not such a power upon the Goods of any especially where Administration is granted For then they have put the Property in the Administrator to pay debts c. And there may be a sleeping debt which by that means shall never be satisfied For if the Ordinary might grant Administration and afterwards make Distribution His Authority is not warranted and he does and undoes and so mocks the Statute In Flames Case it was said that if they are not permitted to make Distribution They will compell it before Administration shall be granted But they have not any such power for he ought to commit Administration if it be demanded And it was so in one Clarks case In which the whole Court was of opinion But Yelverton would not shew his op'nion in the power of the Ordinary But he consented to a Prohibition without other cause Iohn Owens Case Mich. 3. Car. Com. Banc. IOhn Owen lived apart from his wife And upon petition of the Wife to the Iustices of Assise for maintenance they refer'd it to the Bishop of Bangor who ordered that he should pay to his Wife 10 l. per annum which was afterwards confirmed by decree in the Councel of Marches of Wales And because that Iohn Owen disobeyed that Decree and did not pay the 10 l. per annum the Councel sent a Messenger to apprehend his body and caused his Goods and the profits of his Lands to be sequestred And Henden prayed a Prohibition for that that Alimony was not within their instructions Richardson demanded of him if they could grant Prohibitions If they meddle with a thing which belongs to Ecclesiastical power where they themselves have power Harvey was of the same opinion For this Court should preserve other Courts in order Yelverton said For the sequestration of the Lands they could not do that Richardson They have not any power to sell the goods The Ecclesiasticall Court is the proper Court for Alimony And if the person will not obey they cannot but excommunicate him And by Yelverton when that comes to them
from the Bishop to be confirmed They cannot but walk in the steps of the Bishop And a day was given to shew why a Prohibition should not be granted And so it was ruled Feakes against ONe was sued in the Councel of Marches upon a Bond of 500 l. to pay 40 marks per annum And he alleged that he did not intend to take the forfeiture of the Bond but to compell him to pay the 40 Marks per annum And a Prohibition was granted to the Court at the motion of Hoskins For that their instructions were not to hold Plea but for c. And if this should be permitted it is but a window to draw more within their Iurisdiction and also the King would lose his Fines But he ought to have an Action of Debt Harvy If an Obligation was to perform an Annuity of such a sum by another Deed. The party may bring his Action upon the Obligation or Annuity And Yelverton said If it were to perform a Collateral thing or if the Condition was all one with the Obligation they cannot sue for the performance there Quod nota Intra Mich. 3 Car. rot Banc. 633. Watson against Vanderlash VVAtson brought an Action upon the Case against Vanderlash for scandalous words and declares that whereas he was skillfull in the art of Chirurgery and that he made much gain of that Art of the Kings Subjects that now is c. Et colloquio tunc ibidem habito de peritia sua in arte Chirurg c. et de quodam Matthews nuper ante sub cura ejus who is now dead He spake these words Thou didst kill Mr. Matthews thou didst kill him And upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and an hundred pound dammages given And now this was urged in arrest of Iudgement by Crew That he does not allege that he was a Chirurgean at the time of the words spoken So that his allegation to be a Chirurgean does not include the time c. that he spoke those words And then his profession is not discredited Secondly he does not allege thac he died under his cure but that he is dead For if those had been alleged it would have been more questionable And for that the words are not Actionable Now a man may kill a man divers wayes and justifie it As a Minister of Iustice 14 Eliz. in the Kings Bench Yates and Bostocks Case Thou wast the cause that I. S. did hang himself and that I. N. did cut his own throat And adjudged that they are not Actionable for he might have committed an Offence and because the other prosecuted him he might cut his own throat or hang himself and so this man might be under his cure and he doe his best endeavour to save him but yet he might dye And the Court does never extend words further than the Law directs them Coo. 4. 15. Stawloeps Case and Hexts Case fol. 20. Barhams Case The Court there does not supply that which the words doe not directly imply And here in this Case where the words may have a qualification they shall be taken in mitiori sensu Henden The word kill generally will bear an Action because that it shall be intended to be felonionsly as in the Lady Cockains Case Although it was not Felony in facto But here the words so spoken and particularly applyed they will not bear an Action They had a discourse of his skill in Surgery and of one Matthew who was sick of a dangerous disease Then that cannot to be intended it was Felony objecting the fayler of skill will not bear an Action As if I should say of a Lawyer He hath lost his Clients Cause And as it may be taken in mitiori sensu it cannot be strained to Perjury And so here there can never be intended a voluntary killing But Bramston and Finch on the other side That although there are not these words Tunc existenti Chirurgeon yet there are other words which supply them for it is That when Matthews was under his cure he was a Chirurgeon c. And the words are actionable without other reason for that he impeaches his credit and implies misbehaviour in his Art Hutton For the Exceptions we ought to intend that he continued a Surgeon and that his skill continued And also it is supplyed Then being speech of his skill c. Which proves that then he was a Sureon And Then ought to be intended that he is a Chirurgeon for it is not to be supposed that he laid aside his profession in the mean time And for the words if he had said For lack of skill of Chirurgery c. thou didst kill him will bear an Action for that is a slander to his profession And if one had said Goe not to such a one for he hath no skill in Chirurgery if he be a Chirurgeon if is actionable Or if of a Lawyer Goe not to such a one c. for he will deceive you And the Question will be whether it ought to be intended that he killed him for want of skill If one sayes Such a one was found dead and you killed him there it should be intended murderously And for the Case put by Crew I agree that a man may be a cause that another hangs himself by imagination But if one sayes You did kill such a one as hanged himself or cut his own throat that will bear an Action And so it ought to be intended also that when he sayes of a Chirurgeon c. That it was for want of skill Goe not to such an Inne the Plague hath been lately there These words are actionable for it drives away Guests Then these words were spoken to hinder him in his profession and benefit And because that he dyed under his hands it ought to be necessarily intended that it was for want of skill Harvey of the same Opinion Also there is sufficient matter to prove that he was a Chirurgeon at the time of the speaking the words c. When he came to the words it is saie that there was a speech between them c. and the speech was of his skill and of Matthews death If he had said Thou hast killed I. S. or murthered I. S. whereas he is living that will not bear an Action And so also it was that he dyed of his disease it must be by consequence that he did not kill him But it is said that he dyed that may be by killing And for that the word kill without doubt will bear an Action for if it be not murther it may be Man-slaughter And so it shall be intended if you cannot make a Iustification as a Minister of Iustice or se defendendo And then when he sayes that he killed him it shall be meant for want of skill which is actionable I. S. hath no more Law than a Horse If he had resembled him to any thing but a Beast it would not maintain an action But if he
appear gratis if he will Warner against Barret ELizabeth Warner libells for a Legacy in the Spiritual Court against one Barret who moves for a Prohibition Because he had there pleaded plene administ and proved that by one Witness and they would not allow it Richardson before the Statute of E. 6. The proper Sute for Tithes was there and they allow one Witness to prove payment a Prohibition shall be granted And he put Morris Eatons Case in the Bishop of Winchesters Case Where it was ruled if the Spiritual Court will not allow that plea which is good in our Law a Prohibition shall be granted as in Case of Tithes And he said that the Case of a Legacy is all one Crook When one comes to discharge a thing by due matter of Law and proves it by one Witness If it be not allowed no Prohibition shall be granted there Richardson Our Case is proof of plene Administ pleaded which goes in discharge But if there be enough pleaded which goes in discharge and proves that by one Witness and not allowed A Prohibition shall be granted Hutton said that properly for a Legacy the sute is in the Ecclesiastical Court although they may sue in the Chancery for it yet the proper Court is the Ecclesiastical Court And they said they used to allow one Witness with other good circumstantial proofs If they be not in some criminal Causes where of necessity there must be two Witnesses In one Hawkins Case Farm or of a Propriation libells for Tithes of Lambs for seven years And there he proved payment by one Witness and a Prohibition was granted for not allowance Yelverton There may be a difference where the Sute is meerly Ecclesiasticall for a sum of mony as for a Legacy there the payment of the legacy is of the nature of the thing And the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of the proof and matter But if one gives a legacy of 20 Oxen And the other pleads payment of as much mony in satisfaction there they cannot proceed but upon Common law For that that the legacy is altered And if a proof of one Witness is not accepted a Prohibition shall be granted For now it is a legal Tryall 35 H. 6 If the principal is proper for their Court the accessory is of the same nature Also the Sute is commenced for a Legacy and the other pleads plene administ There they proceed upon the Common law For they sometimes take that for Assets which our Law does not take It was adjudged in the Kings Bench that a proof by one Witness of a Release of a Legacy was disallowed a Prohibition shall be granted Crook In this Case a proof of setting out of Tithes by one Witness a Prohibition shall be granted Hawkeridge's Case IT was agréed by all in Hawkeridge's Case That in a forcible entry or Trespass brought against one If the Defendant is found guilty by verdict and before Iudgement the Plaintiff releases to him Because that by that the Plaintiff is barred The King is also barred of his Fine Falkners Case ATthow Sergeant said That if these words were wanting in a Déed In cujus rei Testimon That the Déed is not good And he said that all Covenants Grants and Agréements which came after those words in a Déed are not of force nor shall be pleaded as parcell of the Déed It was observed by the Court That the Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron in all writings they shall be named Ladies But the Wives of Knights shall be named Dames And it was likewise observed that if a Wife of a Duke Earl or Baron takes a new Husband of a more base degrée That she loses her name of Dame or Lady and shall be named in every Writ according to the degrée of her Husband As it happened in the Case of the Lady Johnsons Case IT was said if a Parson leases his Rectory for years or parcel of his Glebe reserving a Rent and dies his Successor accepts she Rent That acceptance does not make the Lease good Because by his death the Franktenement is in abeyance and in no Man And also a Parson cannot discontinue And by consequence That that he did without Livery is determined by his death And it is not like to the Case of an Abbot Prior or Tenent in tayl Joyce Norton and Thomas Ducket against Harmer IOyce Norton and Thomas Ducket Plaintiffs against George Harmer the Vicar of c. In a Prohibition the Libel was for Wood imployed in Hedging and for Fire-wood Issue was joyned that there was in the Parish a great quantity of Land inclosed And that they used to take Wood for Hedge-boot and Fire-boot and they were discharged of Tithes in consideration that he payed Tithes in kind of Hay and Corn c. And it was found for the Defendant Crowley moved That a Consultation cannot be granted for that that they ought to be acquitted of Tithes for those of Common right And for that although prescription was alleged it is nothing to the purpose Atthowe For Fire-wood it was proved that Tithes alwaies were paid Richardson There is no doubt but the discharge also ought to be by Custome and to be grounded upon modus decimandi Yelverton and Crook otherwise that it is not upon modus decimandi But by the Common law And the reason is for that that when a man is Owner of arable Land and he pay tithe-milk and Corn And for that they are discharged of things consumed in the House Which are to make Masters and Servants fit to manure the Land c. Richardson said It is seen that it shall alwaies be discharged in consideration it is alleged how a small consideration will serve Crook It is not modus decimandi but the discharge is for that that the Parson for them had a benefit for he had by them better means of Tithes Hutton If a man had an House of Husbandry and demises all the Lands but the House He shall pay tithes for them absumpt in the House Crook not No profit is made by them to the party but the Parson had a benefit by him And a day was given to search Presidents Bibble against Cunningham BIbble brought an Action upon the Case against Cunningham and declares That there was a Communication between him and the Defendant of the sale of a Banck and an acre of Land And that in consideration thereof and that the Plaintiff would assure and deliver to the Defendant possession of all the Banck assoon as he could and that at all times upon request to be made to the Plaintiff by the Defendant the Plaintiff would become bound in a Statute Merchant to make the Assurance to the Defendant The Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 72 l. at the end of 3 years from Michaelmas next ensuing And that in the mean time for the forbearance he would give after 8 l. in the 100 l. and that he became bound in a Statute Merchant for the
upon twenty matters Crook Admitting that all the offence was committed after the pardon yet you may suggest it to be before Henden and Bramston That so it was Pas 50 Eliz. In one Prat and Husseys Ease One that had a benefice took another but was not inducted Yet that was the irregularity upon which he was deprived and a prohibition was prayed upon the general pardon And it was concluded That if the libel contained that the irregularity was before any pardon and it appears also that it continued after yet a prohibition shall be granted Crook the offence is layed 1621 1622 1623 c. in one or every of them Now for a prohibition there are two clauses in our case Although it be that the offence was before and part after pardon yet we ought to grant a prohibition for that which was before is involved 5 Iac. Conveys case He and his wife after the death of Sir Blunt were sued before the high Commissioners for that that his wife committed Adultery with Sir Richard Blunt and he himself was the Pander And a prohibition was granted for two causes The one for that Adultery was not inquirable there the other because it was pardoned And although the word Adultery be in their Commission yet that does not give them Iurisdiction They cannot meddle with Alimony was one Condiths case upon the Canons in 1 Iac. Which gives to the Parson jurisdiction to appoint the Clark of the Church There was a custom there that the Parish should appoint it and several Clarks being appointed they set several Psalmes in the Church to the disturbance of it And a prohibition was granted to the high Commissioners for medling with it Richardson objected divers things with much earnestness but so apparently contrary to Law that I have omitted it Yelverton said she ought not to put in security to obey the sentence For if it be averred that all was before the pardon then there was no cause of sentence and if no sentence then the prohibition ought to be for all Crook The sentence is to pay a fine and to make submission and to be imprisoned until she found security to obey the sentence That is void Richardson said That they had not any means to make the party to pay the fine and if she would pay it presently she might be discharged But by the other Iustices the High Commissioners cannot demand the sine But they may Estreat it into the Exchequer At another day it was said Sir Wil. Chamcer before the high Commissioners was by sentence fined and imprisoned and by the opinion of all the Iudges of England They may proceed by fine and imprisonment and his case was for Adultery Hutton 44 Eliz. It was resolved that they cannot impose a fine but for Heresies Schisms and Errours c. Richardson The words of the Statute are that the high Commissioners may proceed according to the tenour and effect of the Letters Patents of the King Yelverton The sentence is the fine and the penance and there is the end of the sentence and when it is said she shall be imprisoned until c. That is no part of the sentence If it was that she should pay a fine do pennance and should be imprisoned three months Then all should be the Sentence Richardson said that they may procéed against other things than Heresies and Schismes upon that Statute de primo For there are the words Abuses Contempts Offences and Enormities Hutton The words in that Statute shall have exposition according to the meaning of the first intent It was that they had Authority to punish the Bishops and Prelates for Errors and Schisms and the change of Religion For that that they did not regard the power of the Ordinary But they had incroached many other things And if those words include any thing they might punish anything whereof the Gcclesiastical Court had Authority As working upon Saints daies But there was a Case of one that was sentenced there for such a Cause And the Fine estreated And upon Argument in the Exchequer their proceedings adjudged void Richardson The word Enormity contains a thing of lesser nature For quicquid est contra regulam et normam Juris is Enormity And therefore in Trespass quare clausum fregit et alia enormia ei intulit But Yelverton The word ought to be intended of a grand offence For so in common acceptance it imports Harvey The Fine being pardoned all is pardoned Richardson said that they should procéed by excommunication and not by fine and imprisonment No more at this time was said in this Case Humlocks Case A Man makes a Lease for 21 years reserving 20 l. rent per annum payable at two daies and if he fayl of payment that it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to enter At the day of payment the Lessor came and demanded the Rent by these words I demand my half years rent And it was moved by Atthowe If that demand was sufficient for the Lessor Hutton and Yelverton seemed that it was sufficient For the thing that he demanded is enough certain and known Crook on the contrary For although it appears by the circumstances how much of the Rent he demanded Yet the words are not so plain as they ought to be For if a man makes a Lease for years reserving such a Rent as the antient Farmor was wont to pay from time to time to this day When the Lessor comes upon the Land and says to the Lessee Pay me my Rent that is not sufficient or good because it is not certain in Terms And yet it appears by the circumstances And when a man pleads a demand He shall shew the Lease and the Rent reserved and shall say That he demanded redditum praedictum And as I remember it was adjudged very lately That such a Demand shall be certain Hutton I hold a difference between such things which lye in notice of the person to whom the demand is made and where not For in a praecipe quod reddat if there be a recovery by default and the Tenant brings a desceit and by examination of the Summoners it appears That they came to the Land and summoned him in the Land but they do not shew to him at what day he ought to appear So the Lessee knows well enough that the Rent ought to be paid for it is certain by the Lease to which he is party and privy But Crook said in the Case that Hutton put If the Summoners had read the Writ upon the Land and had summoned him to appear at a day comprised in the Writ It had been certain enough And so in this Case if he had read the Indenture upon the Land and after demanded the Rent as afore it had been Without question it appears to me it should be good enough And so in our Case also Leech against Watkins IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was that if the Obligor and his Heirs did or suffered
And at length it was adjudged that the Declaration was good Harding against Turpin IT was agréed by Hutton If a Copyholder makes a lease for years to commence at Michaelmas it is a forfeiture presently None gainsaid it Hutchinson against Chester AN action upon the case was brought against Chester And declares how the Plaintiff was in doing of certain businesse for the Defendant The Defendant said to him Do it and I 'll repay you whatsoever you lay out And shews that he had expended 4 l. and does not shew in certain and particular circa quid And for that cause it was held naught Read against Eaglefield IN debt by Read against Eaglefield and others who were Sheriffs of Bristowe The case being that they being Sheriffs took the Plaintiff by a Capias ad satisfaciend and detained him in prison untill the party Defendant and now Plaintiff paid the money to the Sheriff It was held that that was contrary to his warranty which is ita quod habeat denarios hic in curia And for that he did not so he is chargeable to him that was in Execution Stone against Walsingham STone libels against Walsingham in the spiritual Court and he pleads an agréement that for five years he ought not to set forth his tithes but to pay for them 6 s. 8 d. upon which matter a prohibition was granted Richardson you ought not to have a prohibition A lease for tithes ought to be by deed but by way of contract it is good for a year only without deed Vpon the Book M. 26 H. 6. But for 4 or 5 years by parol Such an agreement is not good Richardson May a Parson bargain and sell his tithes happening 4 years after by parols Yelverton It had been so adjudged in many Cases in the Kings Bench and the difference is where it is by way of demise and where by discharge Hutton The reason why it is good for years is for that that the contract moves severally But by way of deuise between Parson and Parishioner it is not good And Weston and Biggs case where it was resolved If there was an agréement made between Parson and Parishioner for discharge for tithes for years it was good without deed otherwise if it be for life Davenport not Richardson Then for more than a year that contract is void And you cannot bargain and sell the profits of beasts which a man hath not in his possession now but for those which he hath in his possession he may sell any profits Quod concessum Intr. 4 Car. rot 670 or 870. Litman against West LItman brought an action upon the case against West for words And he declared he being an Attourney c. and colloquio habito between them concerning his office The Defendant spoke these words He is a Cozener and hath cozened me of 20 s. And Serjeant Henden objected that the words were not actionable For that that they are too general And although they had Communication of his Office As Attorny Yet when the words were general and might be applyed as well to other things as such as touch his place yet for that c. As if one says of an Attorney Thou art a Common Barrettor Is not actionable And it was adjudged where one said to a Wheeleright Thou art a Cousener and hast cousened me of a pair of Wheeles Is not actionable And Sir Wil. Fleetwoods Case One said of him He is a Cousener and hath consened me in entring the Kings Accounts So here he might cousen him of 20 s. twenty ways and not as Attorny Richardson said the words were actionable Some words spoken of some men would bear an Action although the same words spoken of another would not As the Case of an Attorny especially as the Case is laid here And he had spoken of him as an Attorny Then it ought to be taken that he was a Cousener in his profession If one said of an Attorny Thou art a Cousener and hast delivered cousening Bills c. If it had been laid here that he had been an Attorny for the Defendant It would be actionable And this Case is more strong than Birchleys Case in Coo. lib. 4. One said of Chomely Recorder of London That he could not hear but of one side of his head And that was adjudged actionable And that being spoken of an Attorney there it would bear an Action One said in the North Country That one was a Daffidowndilly and adjudged actionable Because that the word there used expresses an Ambidexter being a flower of party colour Hutton said That the action would lye In one Gardleys Case who was an Attorny One said of him he was his Attorny and he had cousened him So of a Goldsmith Thou hast consened me and sold me a Saphire for a Diamond These words are not actionable because that the Goldsmith himself might be deceived in the stone And here these words spoken of an Attorny cannot be otherwise but to disgrace him in his profession An action in the Kings Bench. Thou art a cousening Knave Coroner and adjudged actionable One said of a Lawyer He hath no more Law than an Horse an action lies for both are applyed to his profession Yelverton agreed that the Iury had found that the words were spoken of him as Attorny For they have found the words in the Kings Bench. The Case was An Inne-keeper and an other were in communication and he said to him No man comes to thy House but thou cousenest him And adjudged actionable And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Middleton against Sir Iohn Shelly MIddleton recovers in Debt against Sir Iohn Shelly and had Execution And afterwards Sir Iohn purchases the Land of the Plaintiff And long after the Execution was sued by Elegit and that land extended But before Livery by any the Plaintiff dies Yet the Sheriff returns that he delivered the Land Hutton We will not credit that he is dead But you bring a Writ of error Yelverton agreed The return of the Sheriff Richardson the return of the Sheriff does not prejudice a third person although it concludes the parties And if the Execution was made if the party brings an Ejectione firm Whatsoever the Sheriff returnes his proceedings ought to be proved legal See if the Sheriff deliver possession where the partie is dead if any thing lies It was urged to have a writ of restitution But where the Sheriff gives possession contrary to the rule of the Court. Coventries case IN Coventries case before Ashley brought a Copy of the sentence given in the high commission Court which was that the parties shall be excommunicated and be fined 30 l. and imprisoned Whereupon he prayed a prohibition Richardson If they had gone but to excommunication they had been well Yelverton Iustice they have power by fine and imprisonment in some cases but here where the party grieved may be fined at Common law not For if the party be fined in the high Commission and be
W. who died seised of the Lands which descended to his Vncle who was the Defendant Crawley Two things are required to maintain the action Whether the Defendant be heir Secondly who held lands by descent from the Obligor now is heir at Common law And now the heir by the Mannor shall be charged in debt as well as the Heir at Common law Dyer 228. All Brothers in Gavelkind shall be charged 11 H. 7. 12. The heir of the party of the mother shall be charged and so shall Bastardeign 4 E. 3. 14. Heir by Borrough-English And in this Case R. is not heir but by the Mannor Yet he shall be charged 32 Eliz. Dyer 368. by 4 the Iustices And the Defendant here had Lands by descent from the Obligor by which he shall be charged which was agreed by the whole Court But by Richardson It is not sufficient that he be heir in Blood and heir by the Mannor But he ought to have also Land to him by descent from the Obligor But here the Plea is that the Land descended to him immediately And for that you ought to have pleaded that the Obligor died and Lands descended to W. his Son and Heir who died without issue seised of the said Land which descended to R. his Vncle as Brother and heir to the Obligor Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Grays Case HEnden shewed cause that a prohibition should not be granted to the Ecclesiastical Court where the case was That one Brother had taken administration and the other would have distribution of the goods of the intestate And said that issues might enforce distribution of it And it is grounded upon Magna Charta cap. 18. Where there is a saving to the wife and the issues their reasonable part And upon the same reason that there may be a division between the issues so there may be between the Brothers but more remote degrees have no distribution And it is hard that one Brother shall have the whole estate and the others nothing And the Ordinary here is the most indifferent man to make distribution Hutton if the eldest son had lands descended to him and the youngest took Administration It is reason that the eldest shall have distribution And by him and Harvey a Writ de rationabile parte bonorum lies only where there is a custom And they said if it should be admitted that the Ordinary should distribute to the Brothers by the same reason he may to more remote degrees And he declared their opinions that many terms before they were against those distributions But they said That now the Ordinary would have an Obligation before they granted a Prohibition and they coloured their Obligation with the Statute of 31 E. 3. cap. 11. That an Administrator shall be count able to the Ordinary And Harvey said that be knew where a man that was rich died and the Ordinary had 600 l. to pious uses before he would grant administration But he said that in the time of Sir Iohn Bennet such an Obligation was questioned and they would not endure the tryal of it Hutton said that now for that that they could not distribute they might invent a new way scil divide the Administration As if the Estate be 400 l. they might grant Administration of the Goods of the value of 100 l. to the other But by him and Harvey That is illegally granted Doctor Wood and Greenwoods Case DOctor Wood libels against Greenwood in the Ecclesiastical Court for tithes of Wool Wood and Apples c. And he shews that he was Vicar there and that the 8 E. 1. there was a composition that the Parson should have the tithes of Grain and Hay praeterea the Viccar should have Alteraginum And for that that those tithes did not belong to the Viccar he prayed a prohibition And Henden objected that the Parishioner ought to set forth his tith and not dispute the Title of the Parson or Viccar But the Viccar ought to come in the Spiritual Court pro interesse suo but notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the Viccar refuses to claim those tithes that always within memory they have been paid to the Parson yet a prohibition was granted And in the end upon this Composition power is reserved to th◠Ordinary if any doubt or obscurity be in the composition to expound or determine it And if he please to encrease the part of the Viccar And there was not power of diminution As by Hutton It is also usual in such compositions And they say that the word Alteraginum shal be expounded according to the use As if wood had always been paid to the Viccar by vertue of this word so it shall continue otherwise if not And so it had been ruled in the Eschequer And upon that president it was ruled accordingly in this Court And by them wood is minuta decima as in the case of St. Albans it was ruled Sir Richard Dorrel against Blagrave SIr Richard Dorrell was Plaintiff in action of debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. against Blagrave who demanded oyer of the condition which was that if Blagrave fulfilled and kept all Covenants and agreements in an Indenture c. between him and the Plaintiff which on his part is to be performed and kept Then the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants on his part to be performed c. And the Plaintiff shews that Blagrave the elder by his Indenture granted a rent of 20 l. per annum to one that he intended to marry for her joynture which was to commence after his death And that it was out of all his lands in Watchfield And afterwards by the same Indenture he Covenants that he was seised of a good and perfect estate in Fee simple of lands and tenements in Watchfield to the value of 40 l. per annum And he assigns for breach that Blagrave was not seised of an Estate in Fée of the lands and tenements aforesaid in Watchfield Whereupon the Defendant demurred And Heidley moved two questions First that admitting the breach here well assigned yet the obligation is not forfeited And then when the Defendant is bound that he perform all Covenants on his part to be performed and not to the Covenants broken As if Lessee for years rendring a rent at Michaelmas and the Annunciation covenant to pay the rent at a day and afterwards he fail and then a Stranger is bound that he perform all Covenants c. That extends to the failer of payment which is past here in our case And by the whole Court not allowed For by such means all assurances of England should be deluded And now in this case the Indenture and the Obligation shall be sealed and delivered at the same time But if the Obligation had been sealed afterwards at another day yet it was allowed For by Richardson Suppose that the Condition of the Obligation recites the grant c. And the condition is that if the land
both If a man hinder the Sheriff to make execution and assault him will not a Rescous lye in such a Case Richardson Hutton and Henden that it will not That no Rescous can be upon a Fieri facias but the party shall have an Action upon the Case And Rescous lies only upon a Capias which lies against the Person himself Iohnsons Case IF a Prohibition be granted upon matter at Common law as upon a personal agreement between Parson and Parishioner for his Tithes and not upon matter within the Statute of 2 E. 6. 13. the suggestion shall not be proved within the 6 months as the Statute limites and as it is agreed by the whole Court Termino Mich. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Common Recovery A Common Recovery was suffered and a writ of Entry was not filed and for that a writ of Error was brought And Hitcham moved that it might be examined whether any writ was filed or no. But the Court denyed that But if it might appear upon Record That there was a writ filed Mich. 5 Car. Com. Banc. then they would consider whether a new one should be filed or or not And they said that the Recovery should be exemplified by the Statute of 23. Knight against Symonds THe Plaintiff being cast put this exception in to avoid costs that the Venue was mis-writen and it was allowed by the Court. And because the Defendant might have Iudgement for that he cannot have costs And Richardson said that in the Kings Bench one Grimston brought an Action upon the Case against one Hostler and it was found against him and the Plaintiff alleged that the Declaration was not sufficient for the prevention of costs and allowed But if the Plaintiff be non-sute he shall not have benefit of the Exception to prevent costs by reason of the unjust vexation Harris against Lea. HArris Warden of the Fleet is Plaintiff against Iohn Lea in Debt upon an Obligation where the Condition was That one Lea should be his true Prisoner and pay every month for his diet and the fees due to the Plaintiff by reason of his Office The Defendant pleads the Statute of 23 H. 8. and that this Obligation was made for the ease and favour of the prisoner by colour of his office And the Plaintiff replyed that the Fleet is an antient Prison and that time out of mind c. they used to take such Obligations absque hoc that this Obligation was made for the ease and favour contrary to the Statute That the Warden of the Fleet and Westm never may take Obligations for Dyer c. upon which the Defendant demurred generally But Atthowe prayed Iudgement for that that the traverse waives the matter before which was but an inducement and in 23 H. 6. There is an Exception of the Warden of the Fleet and the Warden of the Palace of Westminster That they might take such Obligations which they used to which the Court agreed And for that that the Traverse ever destroys the Bar the Defendant ought to have joyned in that upon which Iudement was given for the Plaintiff If c. Wardens Case Ejâ—ctments not he of a Mannor IT was said by the Court Although an Eject firm lies of a Mannor or of the moyety of a Mannor if Attournment of the Tenants may be proved yet it is not safe to bring an Ejectione firmae of a Mannor c. Hides Case IN one Hides Case the Defendant was out-lawed before Iudgement and procures a Charter of pardon and the Question was whether he should put in bayl And it was agreed by the Court that he should put in bayl For although the Statute of 5 E. 3. cap. 12. goes only to a Charter of pardon not to the reversal Yet by the Equity of that Statute he must put in bayl for it is that he stand right in Court which is that he appear and put in bayl And although the use of the Court hath been otherwise yet perhaps in some Cases the Plaintiff never required bayl New Entries title Pardon pl. 1. So if an Out-lawry be reversed by 31 Eliz. for want of Proclamation The Defendant puts in bayl at the Common law Manucaptors were only fined for the Defendants default But now the use is for the bayl to enter into a Recognisance c. And if at Common law upon a scire fac he revive the sute he shall find Manucaptors by the same reason he now found bayl Wood and Carverner against Symons THe Defendant here in the Prohibition libels for tithes of Hay in the Spiritual Court Intrat Hil. 3 Car. Pas 4. Car. rot 454. The Plaintiff suggests that the Hay was growing upon Greenskips Deales and Headlands and that within the same Parish there is a Custom that Parishioners in a meadow there used to make the tithe Hay for the Parson and in Consideration of that to be discharged of all tithes of Hay growing ut supra and also that for the Hay of the land no tithe ought to be paid of such Hay but does not aver that the Hay was growing upon Greenskips c. And an exception was taken by Henden First That the exception is double The Custom and Common law But by Yelverton that is not material For you may have 20 suggestions to maintain the suggestion of the Court But Richardson was against that that a suggestion might be double here for the suggestion of the Common law is a surplusage As in Farmer and Norwiches Case here lately One prescribes to be discharged of tithes where the law discharged him and so was discharged by the Common law Second exception is that he does not apply the Custom to himself in the suggestion For he does not shew that the Hay grew upon the skips upon which a Plow might turn it self That had laid the Custom And for this cause by the whole Court the suggestion is naught And here Richardson moved how that two should joyn in a Prohibition Yelverton if they are joined in the libel they may joyn in the prohibition and that is the common practice of the Kings Bench. Richardson the wrong to one by the sute in the Spiritual Court cannot be a wrong to the other Hutton they may joyn in the writ but they ought to sever in the Declaration to which Harvey agreed Yelverton the Prohibition is the sute of the King and he joyn tanâ— as in a writ Richardson But it is as the sute of the party is and if any joyn here I think good cause of consultation Richardson It is against the profit of the Court to suffer many to joyn And it is usual in the case of Customs of a Parish in debate to order procéedings in the 2 Prohibitions and that to bind all the Parish and Parson And it was said by them all That the consideration of making Hay is a good discharge because it is more than they are bound to do Rises Case IN evidence to the Iury it was
But by the Court it is after verdict For the Original for part cannot be applyed to this Declaration and it shall not be taken as the Original for it And then there is no Original which is aided by the Statute and so it had been frequently ruled By Harvey it was one Blackwells Case here where the Writ was bona catalla cepit and the Declaration was viz. unicum discum plumbi And that was ruled to be no Original The Wife of Cloborn against her Husband THe Wife complains against her Husband in the Spiritual Court Causa saevitiae For that he gave her a box on the ear and spat in her face and whirled her about and called her damned whore Which was not by Libel but by verbal accusation after reduced to writing The Husband denies it the Court ordered the Husband to give to his Wife 4 l. every week pro expensis litis and Alimony Barkley and Henden moved for a Prohibition The Sute is originally Causa saevitiae and as a Case that they assesse Alimony And now for a ground of a Prohibition It was said that Cloborn chastised his wife for a reasonable Cause by the Law of the Land as he might which they denyed and said that they had Iurisdiction in these matters de saevitia c. And afterwards that the wife departed and that they were reconciled again And then that reconciliation took away that saevitia before as reconciliation after elopement Richardson It was said here that the Sute was now held and without Libel but that is no ground of a Prohibition for he proceeded upon that matter reduced in Articles and we cannot grant a Prohibition if they proceed to their form For we are not Iudges of their form But if they will deny a Copy of the libell a Prohibition lies by the Statute And you you 'l say that an Husband may give reasonable chastisement to his Wife and we have nothing to do with it But only that the Husband may be bound to his good behaviour by the Common law And the sentence in causa saevitiae is a mensa thoro and we cannot examine what is Cruelty and what not And certainly the matter alleged is Cruelty For spitting in the face is punishable by the Star-chamber But if Mr. Cloborn had pleaded a Iustification and set forth a Provocation to him by the wife to give her reasonable castigation Then there would be some colour of a Prohibition Henden We have made such an Obligation as it is absolutely refused Hutton Perhaps he is in contempc and then they will not admit any Plea As if one be out-lawed at Common law be cannot bring an Action But the Plaintiff they advised to tender a Iustification and if they refused it then to move for a Prohibition Bachus and Hiltons Case HUtton cited one Bachus and Hiltons Case in the Kings Bench Where a Bill was of Lands 17 Maii and the Declaration 20 Mail which was after and so the Original before the trespass and after verdict Because it was mistaken Iudgement was stayed Mortimores Case AMhurst desired the opinion of the Court in this Case Copiholder is ousted and so the Lord disseised and the Copiholder releases all his right to the Disseisor and dies his Heir enters and brings trespass against the Disseisor who pleads his Franktenement And by the Court the Release is clearly void the Disseisor never being admitted Copiholder But they ought not to teach him how to plead And Hitcham cited a Case in which he was of Councel Two Copiholders in fee the one release to the other by Deed. And that was adjudged a good Release which was now also agreed by the Court. Earl of Mulgrave Ratcliffes Case Intratur Exchequer Chamber 18 Iac. Rot. Argued by Sergeant Atthowe D' e Mercurii post festum Sanctae Margaret 17 Edwardi 2d Iohn de Malo lacu gave to Peter de Malo lacu and the Heirs of his body the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave by divers mean conveiances the Land came to Sr. Ralph Bigod 11 Ian. 6 H. 8. Sr. Ralph Bigot made a Feoffment to William Euer and others to the use of his last Will and died and the right of the Land together with the Entayl and the use also after the Will performed descended to Sr. Francis Bigot 10 Dec. 28 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod made a Feoffment to Iohn and others to the use of himself and Katherine his wife and the Heirs of their bodies and they had issue Ralph Bigod and Dorothy then the Statute 16 H. 8. cap. 13. for forfeiture for treason is made and 26 Maii 29 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod was attainted of Treason committed 7 Ian. 28 H. 8. and was executed and Katherine survived H. 8. by the special act of attainder of Sir Francis Bigod and his forfeiture is made 4 Novem. E. 6. Ralph Bigod Son of Katherine and Sir Francis was restored in blood and died without issue Dorothy maried Boger Ratcliff and they had Issue Francis Ratcliff 5 Octob. 8 Eliz. Katherine died and Francis Ratcliff died having issue Roger Ratcliff 1 Febr. 34 Eliz. Francis Ratcliff Roger Ratcliff entred 11 Aug. 33 Eliz. Office found for the Quéen 28 April 34 Eliz. The Quéen by Letters Patents granted the same to Edward Lord Sheffield and the Heirs males of his body begotten at the rate of 9. 18. 3 d. Roger Ratcliff upon the whole matter sued his Monstrare de droit in the Exchequer and had Iudgement for him and Writ of Error being brought by the Lord Sheffield to reverse the Iudgement formerly given in the Case Points 2. First whether Francis Bigod who had Estate in special tayl in possession had also any right in the antient entayl left in him at the time of his Attainder or whether it were not in abeiance in respect of the Feoffment made 21 H. 8. and whether that right did accew unto the King by the Attainder of Francis and the general Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. or by the particular act of Attainder of 31 H. 8. and I am of opinion that there was a right of the old entayl remaining in him and that the King ought to have it together with that estate in special entayl in possession freed and discharged thereof as long as the Estate entayl endured In the handling of this point I shall occasionally speak of rights of Actions real given or not given to the King upon Attainder of Treason by force of Statute 26 of H. 8. or of the general Statute of 33 H. 8. for this Statute is so near of kin to that conservation of antient Rights that we must foresee that we do not in the Iudgement of this Cause prejudice the Statute ex aliqua Secondly Whether there be a Remitter in the Case after Attainder of Treason and if there be such a Remitter here when the Remitter begins and in whom whereas nothing hath as yet been distinctly said I am of opinion that there
himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not
only upon the Land in possession but also the rights to the same the one in point of Giving The other in point of renouncing The Land in possession could be but in one that is in the Offenders and so it was given but the rights to the same Lands might be in sundry persons in the Offendor or in his Heirs or in Strangers Now when the Statute saith the King shall have the Land without saving the Rights of the Offendors or his Heirs or any claiming to their use Tenant in tayl discontinues and after disseiseth his Discontinuee and is attainted of Treason he forfeits his Estate gained by the Disseisin and also his right of Entayl for he cannot take benefit of his ancient Right against the King by force of the Statute of 26 H. 8. and 32 of H. 8. and this agrees with the reason and the rule in the Marquess of Winchesters Case for if the Traytor have right to a Strangers land that shall not be given to the King for the quiet of the Stranger being Possessor for the quiet of his possesion but such right shall be given to the King being Possessor for the quiet of his possession and the word Hereditament in the Statute 26 H. 8. are both sufficient and fit to carry such right in such Cases and no man will dispute but they are sufficient to save naked rights to the Lands of strangers therfore it is not for the count of words but because it is alleged it was not meant so it was said in Digbies Case and so hath Antiquity expounded it for the good of the Subject against the King and against the letter of the Law But can any man imagine that the Parliament that gave the Land to the King should leave a right in the Traytor in the same Land to defeaf him again of it since the Statute gives the right and the Land and this gives a forfeiture of all rights belonging to the Person attainted of Treason and their Heirs for the benefit of the Kings forfeiture is of so great importance that if it be not taken as large as I take it it is an avoiding of all the Statute even that 33 H. 8. cap. 20. for though they have the word Rights in both Statutes even that of 33. doth not include the right of Action to the Lands of Estrangers by an Equity against the Letter So for this time the Case was abruptly broken off by reason the King had sent for all the Iudges of every Bench. Springall against Tuttersbury IN Springall and Tuttersburies Case It was agreed by the Court If a verdict be given at a nisi prius and the Plaintiff or Defendant die after the beginning of the Term yet Iudgement shall be entred for that relates to the first day of the term Overalls Case ONe Overall was sued in London and for that that he was of the Common Bench a Writ of Privilege issued which is a Supersedeas and staid the Sute wholly and not removed the Cause And if the Plaintiff had cause of Action he ought to sue here And then by the course of the Court a Clark shall not put in bayl Foxes Case THe Lord Keeper in the Star-chamber cited one and Butchers Case to be adjudged 38 Eliz. An Vnder-Sheriff makes his Deputy for all matters except Executions and restrained him from medling with them And it was adjudged a void Exception So if it be agreed and covenanted between them that the Deputy should not meddle with matters of such a value It is a void Covenant And that was agreed by Richardson to be good Law Hil. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Overalls Case IT was agreed at another day in Overalls case by all the Clarks and Prothonotaries of the Court that the Course always was that if an Atturney or Clark be sued here by bill of Privilege he needs not put in bail But if he be sued by original and taken by a Capias as he may be if the Plaintiff wil Then he ought to put in bail quod nota MEmorandum that on Sunday morning in the next term ensuing which was the 24. day of Ianuary Sir Henry Yelverton puisne Iudge of the Common Bench dyed who before had been Attourney general to King Iames and afterwards incurring the displeasure of the King was displaced and censured in the Star-chamber and then he became afterwards a practicer again at the bar from whence he was advanced by King Charls to be a Iudge He was a man of profound knowledge and eloquence and for his life of great integrity and piety and his death was universally bewailed Termino Hill 5 Car. Com. Banc. Honora Cason against the Executor of her Husband HOnora Cason sues Edward Cason Executor of her Husband and declares by bill original in nature of debt pro rationabili parte bonorum in the Court of Mayor and Aldermen of London and alleges the custom of London to be That when the Citizens and Fréemen of London die their goods and chattels above the debts and necessary funeral expences ought to be divided into three parts and that the wife of the testator ought to have the one part and the Executors the second part to discharge Legacies and dispose at their discretion And the children of the Testator male or female which were not sufficiently provided for in the life of the Father to have notwithstanding the Legacies in the will the third part And the custom is that the Plaintiff in this action ought to bring into the Court an inventory and sue before the Mayor and Aldermen And that she had here brought an Inventory which amounted to 18000 l. so that her third part was 6000 l and demanded it of the Executor who unjustly detained c. And it was removed to the Common bench by writ of Privilege And now Hitcham Serjeant moved for a procedendo And the Court séemed to be of the opinion to grant it Because that the custom is that the sute ought to be before the Mayor and Aldermen and then if they retain the action here the custom would be overthrown But they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum may be remanded here and that they may proceed upon it in this Court And that there be divers presidents to this purpose And they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum is the original writ by the Common Law and not grounded upon the Statute of Magna Charta But that it does not lie but where such a custom is which custom they ought to extend to all the Province of York beyond Trent Richardson chief Iustice said that in the principal case The Plaintiff in London might have declared without alleging the custom As it is in 2 H. 4. Because that the custom is well known But otherwise Where custom ought to be shewed and where not where an action is upon the custom in a place where the custom does not extend There it ought to be shewn And afterwards at another
by subtile and false means thou hast been the death of 100 men For before verdict against them and the words were that he was their death by false verdict As to the Bar. That is naught it appears by the Bar that the Defendant was not called to answer the Articles aforesaid For he said the Plaintiff would not proceed upon them Then the Plaintiff might be Iudge witness and party and not oppress me c. And it is not Iustice for one Iustice of Peace to refuse to proceed As here If Articles be given to him the Witnesses perhaps are not ready and although he request the Plaintiff to proceed it is not the Office of a Iustice of peace to promote a Cause For the words continue he justifies scribi fecit And that is no justification to contrive which is a word well known and apt to signifie the framing or inventing of Articles c. And the words are in the Declaration and did then oppress me And there is nothing answered to then or justified to it Pasc 24 Kings Bench Actions for words in London and the Defendant justifies the words in S. the Plaintiff demurred and had Iudgement M. 27 Eliz. Kings Bench. An Action for calling the Plaintiff Thief The Defendant pleads the Plaintiff guilty in 3 several Felonies And issue was taken de injuria sua propria absque aliqua tali causa And the Plaintiff was found guilty of two Felonies but not of the third And it was adjudged for the Plaintiff because he failed of his tali causa upon which he concludes c. Bramston at an other day on the contrary And said that the Declaration is not good First it must appear plainly that the Plaintiff was a Iustice of Peace at the time of the speaking of the words and implication will not serve I agree that necessary intendment shall be sufficient And if there might be other intendment it is not sufficient 13 Eliz. Dyer 304. Mich. 20 Jac. Kings Bench. Arundel Plaintiff Mead and Harvey Defendants in an Ejectione firmae brought upon a Lease made for 5 years if a Woman should so long live And after verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved that the Declaration is not good Because that it was not averred that the Woman was living at the time of the Ejectment But it was adjudged that the words virtute cujus he was possessed and termino nondam finito he was ejected supplies that Dyer 254. Debt upon a Lease for years rendring rent the Plaintiff declars upon the lease by him made to A. who devises it to the Defendant and he enters And it was objected that the Declaration was naught because that he does not shew the assent of the Executors and it is not said virtute Legationum c. But that he entred and that may be by any other Title and for that naught And in our Case that he was a Iustice of Peace many years before and at the time of the speaking And the words premisor non ignorant the Defendant intending to remove him c. does not aid it For it might be meant when he was not a Iustice of Peace It is not but by argument that he was then a Iustice of Peace Secondly The second Objection The second words are not laid to be spoken of Roberti Hitcham aforesaid It is to be observed that the words And he did then c. be distinguished in time For it is postea ad tunc et ibidem By which it ought to be meant spoken at another time of the same day and then all the subsequent words not actionable And it is not sufficient as it was objected that he was a Iustice of Peace when the Injuries were supposed to be done There are two reasons why a Iustice of Peace shall have his Action for words First That if the words be true they expose him to punishment or pain and either of them is sufficient cause to make the words actionable And when the words are such that they do not expose the party to punishment but only discredit him in his profession and make him subject to be removed they are not actionable unless spoken at the time that he is a Iustice of Peace And here the words are of such nature But words which expose him to punishment for a misdemeanour when he was a Iustice of Peace are actionable although spoken after he was removed Secondly If the Declaration was defective in substance for want of a precise shewing that he was a Iustice of Peace at the time Nothing in the Bar will help it But defect in circumstance may be so aided scil by the Bar as time or place failing in the Bar may be supplied by the Bar. 6 E. 4.16.6 E. 4.2.7 Rep. 24. Buts Case Mi. 37.38 Eliz. Badcop against Atkins Thy Father hath stollen six sheep It was moved in arrest of Iudgement Because it was not shewn in the Declaration that the words were spoken to the Son or in his presence of his Father the Plaintiff And as to that it ought to be intended For it is not sense to say thy Father to any but the Son Secondly the Defendant admitted it in his Bar. But resolved by the whole Court it is not necessarily implyed that they were spoken to the Son And then it was agréed by all that the Declaration was defective in substance and is not aided by any admittance in the Bar. Thirdly The third Exception here is there wants an Innuendo to make the Declaration good where the place is necessary to make the words actionable there ought to be an Innuendo for the place c. Barham did burn by Barn there no Innuendo will make the words actionable But if there be a Communication of the Plaintiffs Barn and that it was full of Corn there with an Innuendo horreum praedict will serve H. 37 Eliz. Banc. Roy rot 334. Thou art a Thief thou hast stollen half an acre of my Corn Innuendo half an acre of Corn severed Adjudged that the Innuendo does not serve So for Slander of title Entties fol. 36. A. was seised of the Mannor of S. and there was a Communication of that Mannor of S. And the Defendant said I have enough in my Study to make I. S. Heir to the Mannor of I. S. Innuendo manet praedict de S. It is sufficient Secondly The words are not actionable Witnesse Iudge and party is not a scandal without a violent construction of the words To say he did oppresse me That of a Iustice of Peace without more is hard to maintain an action for it does not appear that he was damnified And words of themselves which are actionable joyned with others are not sometimes actionable If one says of a Lawyer he did reveal the secrets of my Case that is not actionable for he might reveal it to a Iudge But if he said Goe not to such a one he did reveal the secrets of my case that is actionable Suegos case in the book