Common-Law none can be burnt for Heresy but by Conviction at a Convocation Note The High Commission may punish Heresies and upon their Conviction a Writ de Haeretico cumburendo See 6 R. 2. by which the Commons disavowed their assent to the Act of the 5 R. 2. which was contrived by the Prelates in the Name of the Commons whereas they never assented Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Langdale's Case In Langdales Case this Term in a Prohibition to the High Commissioners two Points were moved 1. If a Feme Covert may sue for Alimony before the High-Commissioners 2. If the Court of Common Pleas may grant a Prohibition when there is no Plea pendant there This concerning the Jurisdiction of the Court was first debated and divers Objections were made against it 1. That this Court hath not Jurisdiction to hold Plea without an Original unless by Priviledge of an Attorney Officer or Clerk of the Court and unless it be in a special Case viz. when there is an Action there depending for the same Cause then it was agreed that a Prohibition ought to recite Quod cum tale Placitum pendet c. And it was said That F. N. B. 43. g. agrees with this But a man ought to have his Prohibition out of Chancery or the Kings Bench upon surmise that he is sued in Court Christian for a Temporal Cause and the 2 Ed. 4. 11. 6. was cited To this it was answered and Resolved by Coke chief Justice Warberton Daniell and Foster Justices That the Common Pleas may award a Prohibition though no Suit be there pendent for it is the principal Court of Common Law for Common Pleas Quia Communia Placita non sequantur Curiam nostram as it is Enacted by Magna Charta thirty times confirmed by Parliamâ—â—â— then if the Ecclesiastical Judges incroach upon the Jurisdiction of the Common Pleas there the Court shall Grant a Prohibition and that without Original Writ for divers Causes 1. Because no Original Writ issuing out of Chancery is retornable into the King Bench or Common Pleas but is directed to a Judge or Party or both and is not retornable And upon contempt of the Prohibition the Chancellor may award an Attachment retornable either in the Kings Bench or Common Pleas which in such case is but a Judicial Writ And if such Attachment be retornable in the Common Pleas c. the Plaintiff in the Declaration shall make mention of an Original in Chancery and of the contempt c. as appears in a notable President 2. There was great reason that no Original Writ of Prohibition shall be retornable for the Common-Law was a Prohibition in it self and incroachment upon it incurred a contempt and with this agrees our Books 9 H. 6. 56. And there 't is held That the Statute of the 45 Ed. 3. and the Common Law also was a Prohibition in it self and thus the Rule of the Book 19 H. 6. 54. so is it held in 8 R. 2. Title Attachment Sur Prohibition 15. Note By Clopton a Sergeant at the Common Pleas That if a Plea be held in Court-Christian which belongs to the Court of the King without a Prohibition in facto the Plaintiff shall have an Attachment upon a Prohibition Quod fuit concessum c. Register 77. Estrepement Praecipimus quod inhibeas c. F. N. B. 259. Register 112. A Consultation is as much an Original as a Prohibition And the Court hath granted a Consultation ergo Prohibitions Qui habet jurisdictionem absolvendi habet juris dictionem Ligandi There are several sorts of Prohibitions one sort with this word Probibemus vobis and Letters in nature thereof as Supersedeas And Injunction is a Prohibition and Prohibition of Wast out of Chancery c. Express Prohibition are in two manners the one founded upon a Suggestion the other upon Record Upon Suggestion where Plea is pendent and yet the Suggestion is the Foundation but it is founded upon Record where no Plea is pendent for Prohibitions founded upon Record Ne admittas ought to recite the Plea pendent So a Writ to the Bishop to admit a Clerk is a Judicial Latitat as Dyer defends it As to the pendency of a Plea or not pendency it is not material for divers causes 1. The pendency of the Plea may give a priviledge to the party but no Jurisdiction to the Court in a Collateral Suit between which there is great diversity 2. The Prohibition where Plea is pendent is no process Judicial upon Record for it is a Collateral Suit 3. If the Common-Pleas cannot grant a Prohibition without a Plea pendent then the Kings which onely holds Plea of Common-Pleas by second means cannot But inasmuch as the Common-Law is instead of an Original as hath been said both Courts may grant it 4. Infinite Presidents may be shewn of Prohibition out of the Common Pleas without recital of any Plea pendent And true it is That it ought to be if the Court hath not Jurisdiction to grant any without Plea-pendant every petty-Clerk of the Common-Pleas shall have by his Priviledge a Prohibition without Plea-pendent A fortiori the Common Law it self may prohibite any one 4 Ed. 4. 37. 37 H. 8. 4. 5. A President is in the 22 Ed. 4. where a Prohibition was granted for that the Plaintiff might have a Writ of false Judgment at the Common Law The Record and Report agree the words of the Record are 6. That Officers and Clerks as well in the Common-Pleas as in the Exchequer c. may have by Privileng of Court a Prohibition without Original a fortiori the Law it self shall have greater Priviledge than an Officer or Clerk and to enforce the party to bring an Action will be a means to multiply Suits to no end 4 Ed. 4. fol. 37. every Prohibition is as well at the Kings Suit as at the Parties 28 Ed. 3. 97. false Latin shall not abate nor excommunication in the Plaint is no Plea 15 Ed. 3. Title Corrody 4. Note Though the Original cause was in the Kings Bench for Corrody Excommunication is no Plea in disability of the Plaintiff Vide 21 H. 7. 71 Kelway 6. quare non admissit 4 Ed. 4. 37. for not delivery of a Libel in the Common Pleas he shall have a Prohibition by all the Justices So upon 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. See 38 H. 6. 14. 22. Ed. 6. 20. 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition 11. 32 H. 6. 34. An Attorney in the Palace assaulted and menaced the Court shall take a Bill and inquire of it 4 Ed. 4. 36 37. Statham Prohibition 3. Prohibition super articulos title Prohibition pl. 5. gives a Prohibition before Scil. coram Justiciaâ—iis nostris apud Westm Vide F. N. P. fol. 69. b. in a Writ of Pone Register indic coram Justicia iis nost is apud Westm is the Common Pleas F. N. B. 64. d. 38 Ed. 3. 14. Statute 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. Hales Case in my Reports Many Prohibitions were granted in the
in the Star-Chamber upon the Proclamation against Building and that I had given Sentence against the said Proclamation To which I answered That Presidents were to be seen and Considerations to be had upon Conference with my Brethren for Melius est recurrere quam male currere and Indictments conclude contra leges statuta never contra regiam Proclamationem At last my motion was allowed and the Lords appointed the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham to consider of it Note the King by his Proclamation or otherwise cannot change any part of the Common-Law Statute-Law or Customs of the Realm 11 H. 4. 37. Fortescue in laudibus legum Ang. cap. 9. 18 Ed. 4. 35 36 c. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. ubi non est lex ubi non est transgressio ergo That which cannot be punished without Proclamation cannot be punished with it Vide le Stat. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. But if a man be indicted upon a Contempt against a Proclamation he shall be Fined anâ— imprisoned Vide Fortescue cap. 9. 18 34 36 37 c. In all Cases the King out of his Providence and to prevent dangers may prohibite them before which will aggravate the Offence if it be afterwards committed And as it is a Grand Prerogative of the King to make Proclamations 22 H. 8. Procl B. yet we find Presidents of Proclamations utterly against Law and Reason and therefore void For Quae contra rationem Juris introducta sunt non debent trahi in sequentiam An Act made to License Forreiners to Merchandize in London H. 4. by Proclamation prohibited the Execution of it usque ad prox Parliament which was against Law Vide doâ—s claus 8 H. 4. Proc. in London but 9 H. 4. An Act was made That all Irish should depart the Realm before the Feast of the Nativity this only was in terrorem being utterly against Law Hollingshead 772. Anno Dom. 1546. 37 H. 8. The Whorâ—-houses vulgo Stews were suppressed by Proclamation and found of Trumpet In the same Term Râ—solved by the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham upon Conference between the Lords of the Privy-Council and them That the King by his Proclamation cannot create any Offence which was not an Offence before for then he may alter the Law And the Law of England is divided into three parts 1. Common-Law 2. Statute-Law 3. Custom But the Kings Proclamation is none of them Resolved also That he hath no Prerogative but what the Law of the Land allows him but he mry by Proclamation admonish his Subjects that they keep the Laws upon pain to be inflicted by Law c. Lastly If the Offence be not punishable in the Star-Chamber Prohibition by Proclamation cannot make it punishable there And after this Resolution no Proclamation imposing Fine and Imprisonment was made c. Mich. 8 Jac. Regis Prohibitions It was Resolved in this Term That if a man be excommunicated by the Ordinary where he ought not as after a general Pardon c. and the Defendant being Negligent doth not sue a Prohibition but remains excommunicate by 40 dayes and upon Certificate in Canc is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo no Prohibition lies in this Case because he is taken by the Kings Writ Then it was moved what remedy the Party hath who is wrongfully excommunicate to which it was answered he hath three Remedies 1. He may have a Writ out of Chancery to absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. and with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2. When he is excommunicate against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cauâ—fone admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in sorma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra jus forman Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and Request him to assoyl him either because he was excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have an Action Sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. St. lib. 2. cap. 32. fol. 119. 3. If the Party be excommunicate for nonâ—e of the Causes mentioned in the Act 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is cited before the Dean of the Articles in cause of defamation for calling the Plaintiff Where out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. And the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is excommunicated and so continues 80 dayes And upon Certificate into the Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and imprisoned thereby that he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called de cautione admittenda when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo de parendo mandatis Ecclesiae and to assoyl and deliver the Defendant But in the Case at Bar it does not appear to us judicially without Information that the Citation is against the forme of the Statute And the Information comes too late in this Case after the Defendant hath persisted so long in his Contumacy and is taken by the Kings Writ and imprisoned Admiralty It was Resolved per totam Curiam That if One be sued in the Admiralty-Court for a thing alledged to be done upon the High-Sea within the Admirals Jurisdiction and the Defendant plead and confess the thing done and after Sentence the Court will be advised to Grant a Prohibition upon surmise That it was done infra corpus comitatus against their own confession unless it can be made appear to the Court by matter in Writing or other good matter that this was done upon the Land for otherwise every one will stay till after Sentence and then for vexation only sue out a Prohibition And admonition was given to them that sue out Prohibitions That they should not keep them long in their Hands or untill they perceive they cannot prevail in the Ecclesiastical Court then to cast in their Prohibition for if they abuse that liberty to the vexation of the Party we will take such order as in case of a Writ of Priviledge if the Defendant keep it till the Jurors are ready c. it shall not be allowed Hill 8 Jacob. Regis In this Term in Doctor Trevor's Case who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales It was Resolved That the Office of a Chancellor and Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts are within the Statute 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act being made for avoiding corruption of Officers c. and advancement of worthy Persons shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption And because the Law allows Ecclesiastical Courts to
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
all his Right Estate c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said sum of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradley above hath alleadged c. Upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law c. And in this Case these Points were Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices 1. If the Fine had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because it stands â—â—on the point of Forfeiture As if a man assures Lands to one and his Heirs upon condition to pay to the Bargainee and his Heirs 10 l. at such a place or that he and his heirs shall re-enter there because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargainee c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with this agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 244. So in the Case at the Bar the Copyholder is not bound to carry his Fine alwayes with him c. And though that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintift refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the Request is not lawful or reasonable And he that is to pay a great Fine as 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it always with him And the Copyholder was not bound to do it because the Fine was incertain and arbitrable as was Resolved in Hulbarts Case in the 4th Part of my Reports among the Copy-hold Cases 2. It was Resolved That though the Fine be uncertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri and it ought to be reasonable because Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur communi for the Common-Law forbids any excessive Distress as appears 41 Ed. 3. 26. And this doth appear to be the Common-Law for the Statute of Articuli super Chartas extends onely for a grievous Distress taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 147. a. and 27 Ass 51. 28 Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. And so if an excessive Amerciament be imposed in any Couâ—t-Baron or other Court not of Record the Party shall have Moderata mis ericordia And Magna Charta is but an Affirmance of the Common-Law in this Point See F. N. B. 75. And the Common-Law gives an Assize of Sovient Distress and multiplication of Distress found which is Excess And with this agrees 27 Ass 50 51. F. N. B. 178 b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Tenants at Will that are rich and makes them poor by excessive Tallages and Fines this is wast F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. Vide also the Register Judicial fol. 25. B. Waste lyeth in Exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeynes Quorum quilibet tenet unum messuagium unam Virgat terrae in Villenagio in Villa praed c. By all which it appears the Common-Law forbids excessive oppressing of Villains c. So in the Case at Bar though the Fine is uncertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appears by the Custome alleadged by the Defendant See Hubbard's Case before in the 4th Part of my Reports And when reasonableness concerning a Fine is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action depend 21 H. 6. 30. 22 Ed. 4 27. and 50 29 H. 8. 32. c. 3. It was Resolved That the Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable being for the admittance of a Copy-holder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made for this is not like a voluntary Grant c. for there Arbitrio Domini res estimari debet But when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Câ—stuy que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same 4. It was Resolved That the Surjoinder is no more than what the Law saith And for the Causes aforesaid Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke Chief Justice said in this Case That if the Court of Admiralty amerce the Defendant excessively at discretion as seems by 19 H. 6. 7. the same shall not bind the Party and be it excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court where the Action shall be brought And a Writ of Account against a Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat â—i rationabilem compâ—tum c. for the Law requires Reason and no excuse or extremity in any thing Mich. 6 Jac. Regis in the Common-Pleas Porter and Rochester's Case This Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tythes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the B. of Canterbury in London And the Case was The Archbishop of Canterbury â—ath a peculiar Jurisdiction of 14 Parishes called a Deanry exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of St. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And the Court is called the Arches because it is holden there And a great Question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tythes growing in Essex or if he be prohibited by the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. which after Debate at Bar by Councel and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices of the Common-Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were Resolved by the Court. 1. That â—â—l Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civillians Cannonist although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London caused onâ— to be imprisoned because the Plaintiff said he ought not to pay his Tythes to his Curate And the imprisoned Party brought his Action of false Imprisonment against those that arrested him by the Bishops Command and there the Matter is well argued what words are within the Statute and what words are not So upon the same Statute was Resolved in 5 Ed. 4. in Keysar's Case in the Kings Bench which see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regiâ De Circuâ— spâ—cte agitis of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. c. have alwayes been expounded by the Judges of the Common-Law as was adjudged in Wood's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. So 21 H. 8. cap. 13. See 7 Eliz. Dyâ—r 233. 15 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyâ—r 327. 18 Eliz. Dyer 352 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. 2. Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warbâ—â—ton Daniel and
you the said Thomas Edwards are no Graduate 4. That you knowing the Premisses notwithstanding you the said Edwards c. of purpose to disgrace the said Dr. Walton c. did against the Rules of Charity write and send to the said Dr. Walton a leud and uncharitable Letter taxing him therein of want of Skill and Judgment in his Profession c. And so far you exceeded in your said uncivil Letter that you told him therein in plain terms He may be crowned for an Ass c. 5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Dr. Walton in the said University did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney and others and in your Letter was contained Sipsâ—lam lichenen mentegram Take that for your Inheritance and thank God you have a good Father And did you not covertly imply thereby that the said Dr. Waltons Father late Bishop of Exeter was subject to the French Pox and Leprosie c. 6. That in another Letter you sent to Dr. Maders Dr. in Physick also you named Dr. Walton and made a Hoâ—n in your Letter Whether you meant not thereby that they were both Cuckolds or what other meaning you had 7. You knowing Dr. Walton to be one of the High-Commission in the Diocess of Exeter and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber for contriving and publishing a Libel did triumphingly say You had gotten on the Hip a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiastical c. which you did to disgrace him and in him the whole Commission in those Parts 8. That after the Letter Missive sent to you you said arrogantly That you cared not for any thing this Court can do for that you can remove this Matter at your pleasure And this Term it was moved to have a Prohibition in this Case and the matter was well argued And at last it was Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices That the first six Articles were meerly Temporal and in truth is in the nature of an Action upon the Case for Scandal of Dr. Walton in his Profession of Physick and therefore for them a Prohibition doth lye for divers Causes 1. Because the Persons and Matters are Temporal 2. Because it is for Defamation which if any such shall be for the same it ought to begin before the Ordinary because it is not such an enormous Offence which is to be determined by the High-Commissioners nor doth Suit lye before them for calling the Doctor Cuckold as in the seventh Article And 't was said the Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Praemunire 2. It was Resolved That the Ecclesiastical Judge cannot examine any man upon his Oath upon the Intention and Thought of his Heart for cogitationis poenam nemo â—moret for the Proverb saith Thought is free And therefore for the 6th and 7th were Resolved as well for the Matter as for the Form to be such to which the Defendant was not compelled to answer And that to the 7th he might justifie the same because it appears upon his own shewing that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star Chamber Also the Libel is meer Temporal and if it were Spiritual such a Defamation is not examinable before the High-Commissioners As to the last Article it appeareth now by the Judgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said Words Also the Commissioners shall not have any Conuzance of Scandal to themselves they being Parties and such Scandal punishable by the Common-Law as was resolved in Hales Case in Dyer and in my Book of Presidents Hales Indictment c. The Bishop of Winchester being Visitor of Winchester-School and other his Collegues Anno 5 Car. cited the Usher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them c. for which they incurred the danger of Praemunire So did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Collegues for citing one Humphry Frank Master of Arts and School-Master of Sevennock School c. and proceeding c. Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Taylor and Shoyl's Case Taylor informed upon the Statute 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Dom. Râ—ge quaâ— prose in the Exchequer That the Defendant had used the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averred That Shoyl the Defendant did not exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of making the Act nor had been Apprentice 7 years c. The Defendant demurred in Law upon the Informaâ—â—on and Judgment was given against him by the Barons And now in this Term upon a Writ of Errour the Matter was argued at Sergeants Inne before the two Chief Justices And two matters were moved 1. One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act for the words are That it shall not be lawful to any Persons other than such as now use lawfully any Art Mystery or Manual Occupation to set up or use any Art Mistery or Manual Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein 7 years at least as an Apprentice And 't was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Air Mistery or Manual Occupation within the said Branch because it is easily and presently learned and needs not 7 years Apprenticeship to learn the samâ— it being every Country Housewifes Work And the Act of H. 8. is That a Brewer is not a Handicraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for it ought to be as general as the Exception in the Statute is 1. To the first it was Resolved That the Trade of a Brewer viz. To hold a Common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of it it is Enacted That no Person shall be retained for less time than a whole year in any the Services Grafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. Upon which words in the said Branch the Information is grounded Also because every Housewife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth meat yet none can hold a Common Bakehouse or Cooks Shop to sell to others unless he hath been an Apprentice c. And the Act 22 H. 8. c. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener are not Handicrafts mentioned in certain penal Laws but the same doth not prove but they are Arts or Mysteries 2. As to the second it was Resolved That the Intention of the Act was that none should take upon him any Art but he who hath Skill or knowledg in the same for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And so the first Judgment was affirmed Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas The Case of Modus Decimandi Sherly Sergeant moved to have a Prohibition because a Parson sued to have Tythes of Sylva Coedua under 20 years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custom no Tythes were ever paid of any Wood And if
THE RESOLUTIONS Of the JVDGES upon the several STATUTES Of Bankrupts As also The like Resolutions Upon 13 Eliz. and 27 Eliz Touching Fraudulent CONVEYANCES By T. B. Esq LONDON Printed for T. Twyford and are to be sold by Hen. Twyford and other Booksellers 1670. Pasch 4. Jacobi Regis Ford and Sheldon's Case upon Information in the Exchequer for the King THomas Ford a known Recusant bâ—fore the 23 of Eliz. for money lent to Sheldon some before and some after the said 23 Eliz. took Recognizance in the Names of others and also a Rent-charge to them in Fee with a Clause of Redemption by Deed the Condition of the Recognizance being for performance of the Covenanss in the Deeds and afterward was made the Statute of the 28 Eliz. which was That as often as any Failer was made in the payment of 20 l. a Month that so often the Queen by Process out of the Exchequer might take and enjoy all the Goods and two Parts c. And after the said Act Ford lent the several Sums of Money and took the Securities as aforesaid amounting in all to 21000 l. which being to Ford's use were all forfeited Afterwards 41 Eliz. was Convict of Recusancy and did not pay the 20 l. a Month If the King should have the Bâ—nefit of these Recognizances and Securities was the Qâ—estion 1. Upon Debate it was objected by Ford's Councel That the Recognizances had not been Forfeited though they had been made in Ford's Name the Statute speaking onely of Goods which doth not include Debts As if the King grant all the Goods of J. S. coming to him by Attainder the Patentee shall not have Debts And a Penal Law shall not be extended by Equity Obj. 2. That three Recognizances are not within the Intention of the Act being Savers of the Realty and acknowledged to perform Covenants as to the Rent-charge Ob. 3. No Fraud was in the Case And then no Statute being in this Case the Common-Law gives no benefit to the King As if Cestuy que use had been Attaint of Treason the Use being but a Trust could not be forfeited to the King And it not a Use A multo fortiori a meer Trust Ob. 4. What Forfeiture accrues to the King in this Case must be by force of the words Goods in the Statute which cannot be Ford having no Goods but a meer Trust Also one Recognizance was taken in the Names of others before the Stature and therefore cannot be thought to defeat the King of a Forfeiture which was not then in use Resolved 1. By all the Barons and Popham Chief Justice of England and divers other Justices that Personal Actions are as well included within this Word Goods in an Act of Parliament as Goods in Possession But because by Law things in Action cannot be granted over therefore by General Grant without special words can never pass And where the Statute saith Shall take seize and enjoy all the Goods and two parts c. the King may well enjoy a Debt due to a Recusant and by Process out of the Exchequer Levy it and so take and seize refers to Goods and two Parts of Lands in Possession Resolved 2. That it was Originally for the Loan of Money and both the Recognizance and Annuity were to secure the said Money And Recognizances fotfeited are but Chattels Personal Resolved 3. There was Covin apparent for he being a Recusant always as aforesaid and so chargeable to the King his taking the Recognizances in the Name of others shall be Construed with an Intent to prevent the King of his Forfeiture And so shall all Recognizances taken in others Names after the said Act be presumed to be taken As to Ceâ—â—uy que use who neither hath Jus in Re nor Jus ad Rem true it is he cannot Forfeit but an Act done to defraud the King of his lawful Duty the King shall not be barred thereof per obliquum if the Act was made de directo And for this If a man outlawed buy Goods in the Names of others the King shall have them notwithstanding So if an Accountant to the King purchase Lands in others Names yet the King shall sâ—ze those Lands for Money due to him And this appears by Walter Cherton's Case Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Rot. 4. in Scaccario for Reâ— fallere non vult falli autem non potest See another President Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Pot. 11. Resolved 4. Noâ—resert Whether the Duty do accâ—ue to the King by the Common-Law or by the Statute And though one of the Recognizances was taken before the Statute of the 28 of Eliz. yet that was to his use And though Ford was not Convict till the 41 of Eliz. that is not material for he was subject to a Forfeiture before Pasch 4 Jac. In Chancery 27 Junii 29 Eliz. The Case between the Lord St. John of Bletso and the Dean of Gloucester The Lord St. John brought a Quare Impedit in the Common-Pleas against the Defendant for the Church of Penmark in the County of Glamorgan which Suit was staid by Aid prayer and the Record removed into the Chancery The Plaintiff moved for a Procedendo and upon Oyer of Cause before Sir Thomas Bromley Lord Chancellor in the presence of Sir Gilbert Gerrard Master of he Rolls and Shute and Windham Justices and Popham Attorney and Egerton Sollicitor of the Queen the Plaintifâ— shewed a Gift in Tail of the said Advowson made to his Anc stor in 18 R. 2. and a Verdict for the same in 12 H. 8. and a presentation by his Grandfather to the said Church of a Clerk that was admitted instituted inducted and had possession divers years with other matters to prove the Plaintiffs Tâ—tle yet for that the Defendant and those from whom he claimes had time out of mind possessed the said Parsonage as Impropriate And for that it will be a dangerous President to all Owners of Impropriations It was Resolved by the Court of Chancery by the advice of the Justices and Councel Learned by the Queen aforesaid That no Procedendo in loquela be granted Vide Ridley fol. 153 154. the beginning of Appropriations and Annuities to be discharged of Tythes Vide ibid. 155. That the Saxon Kings appropriated eight Churches to the Monastery of Croyland Trin. 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber Crimes and Smith The Abbot of Sulby held the Parsonage of Iubbenhâ—m in Leicestershire to his proper use which as impropriate came to H. 8. by the dissolution of Monasteries 31 H. 8. who in the 37th year of his Reign granted it in Fee-Farm under which Grant the Plaintiff claimed The Defendant obtained a Presentation of the Queen and to destroy the said Impropriation shewed the Original Instrument of it 22 Ed. 4. with Condition in it That a Vicaridge should be competently endowed which was alledged never to be done But for that the Rectory was reputed and taken to be appropriate and a Vicar presented admitted instituted and inducted as a Vicar
of the Perjury by all the Lords in the Star-Chamber and it was Resolved by all That it was by the Common-Law punishable before any Statute Hayes Case in Cur-Wardorum By Inquisition in the County of Middlesex Anno 6 Jac. by vertue of a diem clausit extremum after the death of Humphry Willward it was found that the said Humphry died seized of a Messuage and 26 Acres of Land in Stepney and that John Willward was his Heir being 14 years and 9 days old and that the Land was held of the King in capite by Knights Service John Willward died within age and by Inquisition in Middlesex 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by vertue of a Writ of Deveneront after the said John's death it was found that John dyed seized in Ward to the King and that the said Messuage and Lands at the time of the said John's death were holden of the Dean of Pauls as of his Mannor of Shadwel All the mean Rates incurred in John's life-time are paid to the King 1. The Questions are 1. Whether by John's death and finding of the mean Tenure in the Deveneront the fiâ—st Office granted to Points be determined 2. Whether the Tenure found by the first Office may be traversed And as to these Questions it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That where the said John dyed the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum after Humphries death whereby the King was entituled to the Guardianship of John hath taken its effect and is executed and does remain as Evidence for the King after Johns death but yet is not traversable for it is traversable during the time it remains in force onely and the Jurors upon the Deveneront after the death of the said John are at liberty to find the certainty of the Tenure and they are not concluded by the first Inquisition and with this agrees 1 H. 4. 68. And this appears by the diversity between the Writ of Diem clausit extremum and the Deveneront which is but in one Point to wit the Diem clausit extremum is general And the Deveneront is not general but does restrain onely the Lands and Tenements quod deveneront c. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi in the Court of Wards in the Case of Dune Lewis Award of Capias Uâ—lagatum by Justices of the Peace In this same Term the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was That if one be out-lawed before Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace upon an Indictment of Felony that they may award a Capias Utlagatum and so was the Opinion of Pâ—riam Chief Baron and all the Court of Exchequer as to Justices of Peace for they that have power to award process of Outlawry have also power to award a Capias utlagatum See 34 H. 8. c. 14. See Lamb. Justice of Peace fol. 503. contra But see 1 Ed. 6. cap. 1. Justices of Peace in case of Profanation of the Sacrament shall award a Capias Utlagatum throughout all England Hersey's Case Star-Chamber John Hersey Gent exhibited his Bill in the Star-chamber against Anthony Barker Knight Thomas Barker Councellor at Law Robert Wright Doctor of Divinity Ravenscroft Clerk and John Hai is and thereby charged the Defendants with forging the Will of one Margery Pain and the Cause came to Hearing ad requisitionem defendentium and upon hearing the Plaintiffs Councel there appeared no Presumption against any of the Defendants but that the Testament was duly proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and upon an Appeal was also affirmed before Commissioners Delegates and Decreed also in Chancery So that it appeared to the Court that the said Bill was preferred of meer malice to slander the Defendants Now because the Defendants had no Remedy at Law for the said Slander and if it should pass unpunished it may encourage men It was Resolved by the Court That by the course of the Court and according to former Presidents the Court may give Damages to the Defendants and so it was done viz. 200 l. to the Doctor of Divinity 200 Marks to the Knight 40 l. to the Clerk 120 l. to the Woman And it was said that Creare ex ihilo quando bonum est est divinum sed creare aliquid ex nihilo quando est malum est diabolicum et plus Maledicite nocâ—nt quam Benedicite docent Hill 2 Jac. Regis Theodore Tomlinson brought an Action of account for Goods against one Philips in the Common Pleas and thereupon Philips sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty supposing the Goods to have been received in Forraign Parts beyond Sea and Tomlinson being committed for refusing to answer upon his Oath to some Interrogatories brought his Habeas Corpus Upon which it was resolved by the Court of Common plea in thrâ—e Points viz. 1. That the Court of Admiralty hath no Cognizance of things done beyond Sea and this appears plainly by the Statute 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and the 19 H 6. fol. 7. 2. That the Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty are according to the Civil Law and therefore the Court is not of Record and so cannot assess a Fine as the Judges of a Court of Record may 3. It doth appear that the Interrogatories were of such things as were within their Jurisdiction and the Parry ought by Law to answer This Case was intended by my Lord Coke to be inserted into his 7th Report but that the King commanded it should not be Printed but the Judges resolved ut supra Corven's Case Right to Sâ—ats in the Church Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Dâ—vonshire And Pym by Sergeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason that himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estates he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court that if a Lord of a Mannor or other Person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their Charges that if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of the Church iâ— a Question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed that the Ordinary who hath Cure of Soules will take Order in such Cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Dame Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in the Kings-Bench against a Parson Quare Tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it is there
found by Office as appears by the Books 11 H. 4. 52. Ass 31. 30. Ass 28. 46 Ed. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. 1 As to the first it was Resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with Proclamations was not a Bar to her and yet it was Resolved That the Act 4 H. 7. c. 24. shall barre a Woman of her Dower by such a Fine if the Woman bring not her Writ of Dower within five years after the Husbands death as was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common-Pleas and 5 Eliz Dyer 224. For by the Act the Title of Feâ—e-Covert iâ— saved by taking Action in 5 years after she is uncovert c. But it was Râ—solved That the Wife was not to be aâ—dâ—d by that saving for in respect of her Husbands Attainder she had not any Right of Dower at his death nor could sue for the same after his death But it was Resolved That the Wife was to be aided by another former saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons viz. who were not Parties to the Fine such Action Right c. as shall first grow or come c. to them after the Fine ingrossed and Proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or other Cause or Matter before the Fine levyed so that they take their Action and pursue their Title within 5 years after such Right come to them c. And in this Case the Action and Right of Dower accrewed to the Wife after the Reversal of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the Seizin in Fee had and Marriage made before the Fine levyed according to the meaning of the said Act. And as to the Point of Relation it was Resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some not for relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same Parties to advance a Right but not to advance a Wrong which the Law hates or to defeat Collateral Acts which are lawful and chiefly if they concern Strangers for true it is as hath been said that as to the mean profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law till the time of the first Judgment given and that is to favour Justice and advance his Right that hath Wrong by the Erroneous Judgment But if a Stranger hath done a Trespass upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversal shall have an Action of Trespass against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleads there is to such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the Special Matter and maintain his Action And for the better apprehending the Law on this Point it is to know That when any man recovers any Possession or Seizin of Land in any Action by Erroneous Judgment and afterwards the Judgment is reversed as is said before and thereupon the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ reciâ—es the first recovery and the Reversal of it in the Writ of Errour is That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall be restored to his Possession and Seizin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Judgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod cadem A. ad plenariam seizinam tenementor praed c. restitui facias per Sacramentum proborum c. diligâ—nter inquiras ad quantum exitus proficua tenementor illor c. a tempore falsi Judicii c. usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die Judicium illu c. revocat fuit c. et quâ—liter hoc praecept c. in Octâ—b c. By which it appears that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have Restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Erâ—our cannot have Remedy against a Stranger and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to inquire of the Issues and Profits generally c. And therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Justice 4 H 7. 12. a. See Butler and Baker's Case in the third Part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was Resolved in the Case at Bar though to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by fiction of Law by the Fâ—ne with Proclamations and five years past after the Husbands death when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any Title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do a Wrong by a fiction in Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and could have no Relief till the Attainder was reversed As to the other Objection That the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for hâ—r It was Resolved That it needed not in this Case because the Title of Dower stood with the Queens Title and affirmed it Also in this Case the Queen was not intitled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it for then she ought to have had an Office But in case of Dower though that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the Title of Dower in such Case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office See Sâ—dlers Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports And the Case put on the other side was utterly denied by the Court for it was Resolved That if a man seized of Lands in Fâ—e take a Wife of eight years of Age and alien his Lands and after the Wife attains to the Age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that she shall be endowed because the Title of Dower being not consummate till the death of the Husband and there being Marriage Seizin in Fee age of 9 years and the Husbands death for that cause she shall be endowed it being sufficient that the Marriage Seizin and Age happen during the Coverture So if a man seized of Lands in Fee take a Wife and after she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the elopement the Husband alien and after the Wife is reconciled she is Dowable So if a man hath Issue by his Wife and the Issue dyeth and afterwards Land discends to the Wife or she purchase Lands in Fee and dyes without other Issue the Husband for the Issue which he had before the Discent or Purchase shall be Tenant by the Courtesie But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he aliens his Lands and after that she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was not by her Birth capable of Dower but by her Denization it began But