Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	case_n	plaintiff_n	2,023	5	10.6900	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88846	Deceptio intelectus & visus. Or the lawyers vviles unmasked Being the plain innocent mans path-way, for a speedy end at a cheap rate, in any perplexed or troublesome cause, without multitudes, or any bauling or wrangling lawyers to obscure the truth, by their jeering, and endeavouring to daunt all that shal speak either as partee, friend, witness or otherwise; which hath been too common. By Edm. Leach, of London, merchant.	Leach, Edmund, 17th century.	1652 (1652)	Wing L767A; ESTC R230379	17,520	64

More is voyd of all remedy in the premisses but in the Supream Court of Parliament The Iudges to make themselves innocent pretend that they thought they did Justice when they made those Orders and that now they do not remember upon what grounds they made them To this I say That so might the forty four Justices have said which appears in the 239 page of the Mirror of Iustice to be condemned by King Alfred for their misdemeanors but it seems that neither could nor would serve the turn for they did undergo the pains and penalties of the Law and those Judges Sir Iohn Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet had no more colour or ground for their judgment in their Orders then the old Judges for theirs But the long-winded daring and daunting Lawyer saith That sometimes Orders in Court are made upon Affidavits in writing which after be of late years filed in Court although anciently not so and that the Judges might have cause shewn which now they do not remember and that some things are beleeved and some not beleeved by some in Court To this I answer I wonder how any such ought to be beleeved who feign things which they know to be untrue and set a bold face upon them as though they were as true as the Gospel to run the other party upon a Lee shore And the Gentleman cavilleth at the filing of the Declaration although he did see it under the hand of Mr Hoddesdon who he said was accounted as honest a man as ever was Secondary of the Kings Bench Office that it had been examined and reported to be filed in Hillary Term and the Rules now in question and divers other Rules made in the Cause and the same was and can be made appear by Witnesses against which there neither is or was any exception taken And further to make it appear and manifest that the Judges might have been informed upon what grounds they made the first of these two Orders in question Mr Keeling who made and Sir Io. Lenthall who caused that first momotion to be made be yet living and well known to the Iudges and so is Mr Edward Harris who made the second of those motions By those and many Officers of the Court might the Iudges have been well informed of all circumstances in the business especially being the Iudges or at least one of them have been from year to year and from time to time called upon and desired to afford or help the Petitioner to relief in the premisses both while they were in Office or Iudicature and since but always hitherto delayed and refused and never stirred or went about to have the said Orders altered since they have been out of Office but suffered the Petitioner hitherto to groan under this sad oppression There is a strong presumption that there was some under-hand dealing between the Iudges and Sir I. L. for never the like act was known to be done or so much as heard of before during all the time that they sate as Iudges in that Court and therefore I think all that they have said cannot excuse them but they are as faulty in this as the old Iudges before mentioned of those things for which they were condemned And further they endeavor to excuse themselves because nothing is proved that they took for making those Orders and therefore they are not to be questioned To this I say Did the late Lord Chief Justice Richardson or late Justice Bartlet excuse themselves for taking insufficient Bayl though nothing were proved against them for so doing were they not compelled to pay the Debts themselves Or were the old Iudges before cited excused because that it was not proved that they gained any thing by what they did And were not some Iudges questioned and turned out of Office and fined and ordered to pay damage for adjudging the Ears of some persons to be cut off and sentenced to other miseries And the like for many other offences though nothing proved for so doing too long now to enumerate but much more may be said when opportunity serve And these Iudges Sir Iohn Bramston and Sir Tho Malet especially one of them had continued long enough in that place of Iudicature to have had more judgment then to be ignorant that they might make such Orders upon such Assidavits that he had not a copy of that Declaration in time for that he only deposeth in his Affidavit that he did not receive the Declaration until within Easter Term and if he had not had notice of the filing of it in Hillary Term before it is likely he would have deposed that as well as the other and therefore it cannot but be presumed but that he had notice of it in that Term in time although it were sufficient for the Petitioner to have his Declaration stand of Hillary Term without removing being a Rule was then given and entered that Term of which Sir I. L. ought and could not but to take notice and yet if he should have had no notice before the Declaration was given to him the Iudges could at the most but have given him imparlance until the next Term after that he had notice without any alteration of the Declaration And the Iudges might as well as make the Orders aforesaid order any Declaration filed within the time in the Statute of Limitation to be filed when the time is out and past when the Plaintiff should not have the benefit of his Action And they may as well when a Declaration shall be filed for mony due upon a Bond order that the Declaration shall be filed at a time before the date of the Bond when there is no cause of Action And so in all Cases by such means the Plaintiffs may lose their Actions and totally their debts and demands therein lawfully due and owing to them 1. This I thought good for several causes to publish First That I could not get any body who could to sort my papers readily out as the Iudges had and did and also to promp their Councel and no body to help me at all nor appear without compulsion nor speak any thing but what was drawn from them by questions 2. For that it may clearly appear to all unbyassed persons who shall read the same how much the Petitioner hath been and is dampnified by those Orders for if Sir Iohn Lenthall had not suffered Wright to escape the Petitioner had had 2000 l. down above eleven years since and security for the rest which he offered while he was a Prisoner and after he had escaped flew off and said he had compounded with Sir I. L. better cheap and therefore Sir I. L. was the cause of the loss of the debt of Wright and the Iudges for the obtaining the same of Sir I. L. by reason of the Orders 3. To the end that a good cause may not be thrown into the dirt by any decretal Order grounded upon untruths and would not abide the light when it was

Term after and that the said Order and Alteration was contrary to Law Anth. Rous. Then were the Petitioners proofs made good that is to say That the Declaration was filed in Hillary Term 1641. the Order made by the late Judges Sir John Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet and that that Order for altering the filing of the Declaration from one Term to another to be contrary to Law by these Statutes following 1. Viz. Anno 9 Hen. Tertii Cap. 29. in these words We shall sel to no man we shall deny nor defer to no man either Justice or Right c. 2. Anno 2 Edw. Tertii Cap. 8. It shall not be commanded by the great Seal nor the little Seal to disturb or destroy common Right and although such Commandment do come the Justices shall not cease to do Justice in any point c. 3. Anno 15 Edw. Tertii Cap. 1. They shall do even and execution of Right to all rich and poor without having regard to any person And a Gentleman Councel for the Petitioner related truly the course of the Court of the Kings Bench as it was Whereupon a Gentleman replyed and at first began with smooth language but in the end injuriously fell foul on the Petitioners Counsel calling him a Gentleman of the Long Robe although he himself of the same Profession taxing him with not knowing the Law nor the course of that Court of Kings Bench where the Declaration was so filed alledging untruly that a Copy of it according to the course of that Court should have first been delivered to Sir Jo. Lenthall whereas in truth there was no such course nor custom in that Court when the Declaration was so filed nor many years before nor since as ever I could hear of nor is the Law so nor can or will he in writing aver the same so to be but I have heard the contrary affirmed by Practizers in that Court since the matter was in some debate in the Painted Chamber at Westminster before that honorable Committee of Parliament for Petitions and for any such Order to be made since there is none to be found neither if any were they of any force as concerning that Declaration being filed before But the Judges brought one Witness who only said as far as I remember that he conceived it to be the practise of the Court to deliver Declarations or Copies thereof to priviledged persons the same Term that they were filed And another Gentleman being a Practizer in the same Court also being called in and sworn on the Judges behalf was demanded the same or some of the questions as the first Gentleman was who did not say so much as the first but contrary as I have been since informed I having so many to oppose me and none who did or would at all help me or any to testifie or reveal any thing to me in this Cause because against such powerful persons but what they were strictly examined unto and brought to answer by command and the Judges having many coming willingly at the first call or without any sending for at all some of which being present at that Debate were called to testifie But as I have been informed by some standing near them since after some whispering of some of the Judges party the taking of their oaths was spared And I have been informed by many since the matter in agitation before the said honorable Committee that many if they should be called in upon their oaths can and must testifie that the course of that Court of Kings Bench when the said Declaration was so filed was and yet is that any man who hath cause of Action against any priviledged person in that Court may in his own proper person being the most ancient usage or by his Attorney file or cause to be filed a Declaration against such priviledged person within any Term and as some of them say any time before the continuance day being about three or four days next after such Term and that the giving to him or to his usual Attorney or Agent in that Court a Copy or notice of the filing of such Declaration any time before the essoyn day being about three or four days before the next subsequent Term is sufficient to compel such person priviledged as aforesaid to answer to the same that subsequent Term or else to enter Judgment against him And most Practizers with whom I have confer'd about these businesses have informed me that the like may be done to enforce an Answer or obtain Judgment to be entered if such Declaration should be filed and no Copy thereof delivered or any notice given until another Term although a year or divers years after or the essoyn day of the then subsequent Term in which the Plaintiff shall call for and obtain Rules to answer to be entered And the major part of ancient Practizers say that it is but in courtesie so that a Declaration be filed to give any copy or so much as notice thereof to any that have appeared in that Court but that in Law they being intended to be under custody of the Marshal or some for them ought to take notice of and answer to what Declarations be or shall be in the same Court filed against them or otherwise Judgment to be entered at the prayer of the Plaintiff or his Attorney hath been accustomed and by Law and of right ought to be entered against such Defendant for such Plaintiff and in Justice not denyed or delayed And the same custom hath been and is and the Law is so against such Marshal upon and for the same reason and much more stronger being always while the Court is open there present in person or so intended and some of his Agents or Officers are never missing who are to and do attend upon all his occasions there And some Ancient Clerks are of opinion that after a Declaration filed against a priviledged person in that Court the course and custome hath been and the Law is as I am advised by Council and doubt not but to make good he ought to answer from day to day or Judgement to be entred against him at the prayer of the Plaintiff And some of those that were called on the behalf of the Judges and not sworn and other practizers standing amongst them if they had been sworn and strictly examined on the behalf of the Petitioner could and must have testified some of them all and the others of them the greatest part as I have here set forth on the behalf of the Petitioner And after the Gent. Council for the Judges thought he had given me a check saying He himself had sat in such places as did the honorable Committee and in a frowning manner that he did not use to hear such language from such a fellow as I was as I conceive to dash me out of countenance and cause the Honorable Committee and the company standing by to have an ill opinion of me spining out time

was taken from him by force or as he hath often said robbed of it And an Issue of per minus being entered and thereupon Wright being informed that he was in danger notwithstanding the Bond was taken from Mr More he caused the Lord Keeper several times to have the decretal Order signed that he might have a Decree made and enrolled thereupon But his Lordship being informed as it is proved in another Suit in that Court concerning the same matter that the subornation and perjury of the Viva Voce Witnesses was publique and that Wright had boasted much of the said Order and told it about that he had now accomplished his end although it cost him dear near about two thousand pounds and that one of the Witnesses were run away * and that the other was sound a common Cheat and Swearer for mony and otherwise a haynous Offender the Lord Keeper never did but refused to sign the decretal Order so highly esteemed of But let the Gentleman consider of these lines and say what more he please and he shall hear surther from me And after the death of the L. Keeper C. it was several times moved before the Lord Littleton to be done besides other things inconvenient But Wright and his Councel were denyed after they had put Mr More to great charges long attendance trouble labour and travel In Hillary Term 16 Car. Rex after a verdict before the Lord Chief Justice Bramston Mr More obtained a Judgment in the Court of Kings Bench upon the Issue before mentioned being for 7000 l. upon the Bond with damages and costs And in Michaelmas 17 Car. Rex Wright was charged in execution for it in the custody of Sir J. L. then Marshal c. And Wright being so in execution offered to Mr More 2000 l. and security for the residue of the Debt all the same appearing to be due by the proceedings in Chancery under the great Seal of England But before any part thereof was satisfied Sir J. L. suffered Wright to escape out of execution Mr More in Hillary Term 17 Car. Rex ten days before the end of the Term caused an Action of Debt to be brought for the Debt and Damages and then filed a Declaration against the said Sir J. L. for the same and he to deprive Mr More of his Debt and remedy for the same in Trinity Term 18 Car. Rex only by Affidavit deposing that he had not a copy of the Declaration delivered until Easter Term and that he had retaken Wright in the Vacation before Easter Term then next before notwithstanding that Mr More had several Rules against Sir J. L. for Iudgment upon the said Declaration so filed he the said Sir I. L. in Trinity Term 18. although he had before promised to bring in his Plea and failed having taken warning for tryal procured an Order to be made by Sir Jo. Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet in open Court the first and confirmed the second day that the Declaration filed in Hill Term 17. Car. Rex should stand filed as of Easter Term 18 Car. Rex upon the motion of Mr More by his Councel against it by which motion cause was shewed to the contrary And for that Mr More being advised that that Order if it should stand would deprive him of his Debt several times moved in Court and otherwise and moved those Iudges to alter the same but could not prevail and that notwithstanding the earnest solicitation of Mr More for his judgment of the Court above four years to his great expences travel and trouble after about 15 Orders made in the Cause the said Order was confirmed And the said Sir J. L. made a great bussle in the Chancery exhihiting his Bill there and setting forth all the lyes and scandals in the said Bill of old Wright mentioned which were forged and feigned as aforesaid And notwithstanding Mr More denyed the same in his Answer and made it appear in the proceedings and proofs in the Cause of the Widow Wright Administratrix of the said Thomas Wright concerning the matter in question which was dismissed and by his proofs in the Suit wherein he obtained a Decree in Chancery against her Sir J. L. obtained an Injunction at the Rolls before his Brother which after before the Lords Commissioners was ordered to stand dissolved unless Sir I. Lenthall would confess a Judgment of 7007 l. and 1 s. at the Suit of Mr More and to reserve what Equity would afford which was principally ordered upon the pressing of Mr William Okeham Soliciter for Mr More for the dissolution of the Injunction after Councel had given it almost over but after the Injunction was so moved to be dissolved and pronounced by the Lords Commissioners Mr Newdicate one of the Councel for Mr More moved further for a release of Errors which was also assented to by the Court and ordered or otherwise the Injunction to stand dissolved And before or after Sir I. L. had obtained the Injunction to be granted or continued by the Speaker which was after damped by the Lords Commissioners unless c. Sir I. L. never to this day confessed any Judgment to or at the Suit of the said Mr More nor gave unto him any release of Errors and therefore from that time to this the Injunction standeth and remaineth dissolved Yet notwithstanding the Judges layd that as a stumbling block in the Petitioners way and before * Sir J. L. to disable Mr More of prosecution for the escape arrested him upon an Action of 1000 l. in London and having no cause of Action against him neither did nor durst declare nor proceed after he had forced him unto and perceived that he could and did put in good bayl And Sir J. L. threatened the like also to Mr Okeham Solicitor for Mr More and had Officers employed for that purpose who told Mr Okeham if he would not leave being Solicitor in that Cause he would be undone But after Sir J. L. being taxed for it in the Court of Kings Bench he denyed it although Mr Okeham proved it and made Sir J. L. sware that he had no action or cause of action against him the said Mr Okeham And that also Sir I. L. conceiving the Friends of Mr More who would bayl him to be out of London caused him to be arrested upon an attachment of priviledg * at the Suit or him the said Sir I. L. being difficult to put in or find bayl to and required and demanded bayl thereupon for 2000 l. which Mr More was constrained unto and by chance did provide and put in bayl I my self being one and provided the other And after that Sir I. L. declared against Mr More for words that is to say that he had a Judgment against him for above 7000 l. and after surceased proceedings thereupon because it appeared that Mr More had such a Iudgment against him the said Sir I. L. and therefore Mr

questioned but was dampned long since upon solemn debate by many learned Councel on both sides before divers Lords and other Commissioners of the Supream Court of Parliament and the justness of the Causes of Mr More against Wright made good and the Bond questioned to be entered into and delivered upon good ground and really and not as in the scandalous decretal Order all which is manifested by the inrollments of a Decree in the Court of Chancery in one Cause concerning the said Bond for Mr More against the widow Wright Administratrix of the said Thomas Wright and of a dismission in another Cause wherein she was Plaintiff against Mr More 4. Because the common report is in the City of London that the matter in the decretal Order standeth as truth in many places by reason Mr More hath had such multitudes of adversaries which have divulged those falshoods abroad and few of his friends or others yet know the truth of the carriages in these Causes or take notice of the clearing of the scandals and manifestation of the lawfulness and justness of the Petitioner his Cause in all Courts I thought good to publish this short Abstract thereof hoping that after I have throughly taken advice about the business I shall procure another Petition to be drawn with enlargements and amendments against the aforesaid Judges So at present I shall cease to write further of these things until the said Petition shall be prepared unless I shall hear of something from any of the adverse party which if they please and can write any thing to purpose against what I have here published and then they shall soon hear from me again 5. That those who be have been or may be in danger to be perplexed in the like kind may find out and seek the same remedy not doubting but some will joyn with me in a Petition to be presented to the Supream Authority for a Law to be made That in every perplexed or troublesom Cause before any Court be pussled with lying or wrangling Lawyers which hath been too frequent of late years they having been usually fined for such things in ancient times after a Petition or Complaint exhibited admitted into any Court the Defendants may answer and the Complainants or Petitioners reanswer or reply the one after the other as long as any new matter be or shall be introduced and that to be without wilful untruths or impertinency under a penalty until the matters therein to be in issue shall be stated and that such writings may be read in Court and no person constrained to hire many Lawyers to con the matter without Book as is now used few or no single Lawyer being either able or willing to carry so much in memory and many times by misrepeating or opening and omissions of proceedings in writing by Councel many people have been undone and others received much damage And that according to the good and equitable Order which the honorable Committee for Petitions have made for Petitioners for setting of the proofs in the margin of Petitions that the like may be done by the Defendants or other parties of all which they shall contend for or endeavor to prove hoping that the Lord will give a blessing to the endeavors of our noble Legislators speedily to do and perform the necessary work of this Nation The principal matters concerning the Cause aforesaid are 1. THat Thomas Wright became bound to Henry More in a Bond of 7000 l. in the year 1629. and the Bond being put in Suit the said Tho. Wright pleaded per minus at Common Law then immediately fled to the Chancery where he put in a Bill stuffed full of lyes and scandals one whereof being that he was forced to seal the Bond but proved nothing at all which had any colour of any such practise 2. That Henry More did by three Witnesses prove the Bond sealed freely and willingly all being present at the execution thereof and also by three more which several days afterwards did hear Tho. Wright acknowledg that he had sealed and delivered such a Bond and if it were to do again he would do it and that he did it upon good consideration 3. That Tho. Wright did hire two Witnesses to swear Viva Voce which were accepted of by the Lord Keeper Coventry contrary to the course of the Court of Chancery at which time he made an Order That H. More should immediately deliver up his Bond to be cancelled which being refused some of the standers by were commanded to take it away who readily and violently performed the same 4. That Tho. Wright several times after moved the said Lord Keeper to have the said decretal Order signed which was refused because it suddenly came to his Lordships ear that the two Witnesses were found out to be such as aforesaid the one confessing and run away and the other standing convicted at Newgate for a common Cheat and Swearer for mony and that T. Wright had made his brags of the said Order but said that it cost him near 2000 li. 5. That when H. More had spent much mony at Common Law and in Chancery in the prosecution of his Suit for the space of about eleven or twelve years he obtained after a Verdict before the Lord Chief Justice Bramston a Iudgment for 7007 l. and 12 d. 6. That Tho. Wright was charged in Execution in the custody of Sir J. Lenthall and then proffered H. More 2000 l. or more in mony and security for the rest but before the mony payd or the security given T. Wright met H. More in London where he jeered him and said that he had made his composition with Sir J. L. upon better terms 7. That H. More then brought his Action against Sir J. L. for the escape and filed his Declaration in Hillary Term 1641. ten days before the end thereof and Rules were given and out that Term and no Plea put in so that Judgment was due and that a Copy of the Declaration was given to his usual Attorney and notice also to him the said Sir J. L. himself within the said Term which was more then H. More need to have done the filing of a Declaration against an Officer of the Court chiefly a Marshal being sufficient without any notice and warranted by the Law of this Nation 8. That Sir J. L. took the best course he could to disable H. More besides his prosecution of unjust feigned Indictments which cost at least 100 l. to defend and clear Sir J. L. attested him at one time in an Action of 1000 l. then upon an attachment of priviledg for 2000 l. by which he thought to have layd him up safe 9. That Sir J. L. endeavored to have H. More brought into his own custody and at his own Suit 10. That Sir J. L. perceiving that as he ought to have done he was in danger of paying the said 7007 l. and 12 d. procured Sir Io. Bramston and Sir Tho. Malet