Court 12 E. a. granted a Rent-charge of two shillings out therof to John Milleton and Walter Milleton In Replevin one makes Conusance derive his Estate from one as Cosin and Heir and shews not how John Milleton dies and Walter survived and died seised and this Rent descended to one John Milleton of P. as Cosin and Heir to the aforesaid Walter and he was seised in Fee and one John Dinham was seised in Fee of one house and twenty acres of Land in Pensons and by Deed shewn in Court exchanged them with the said John Milleton for the said Rent and Walter de la Therne being seised of the Land out of which the Rent issued attorned and gave Seisin of the Rent to John Dinham wherby he was seised in Fee of the Rent and conveyed the Rent by three discents to this John Dinham for whom the Defendant makes Conuzance for ten shillings for five years arrear And the Plaintiff demurs generally upon the Conuzance And the cause was that it is not shewn how John Milleton is Cosin and Heir to Walter upon the discent First if it be good as this Case is viz. That he claimes not as Cosin and Heir but makes Title under him by conveyance afterwards Also because the Defendant makes Conuzance and is a stranger Secondly if it be but forme And this Case was argued at Bench briefly in Trin. 16. And I was of opinion because that this is the Conuzance of a Bayliff and it is a discent in one blood to which Dinham is a stranger and because that a good Issue might be taken therupon as it is alledged And if it had been a case of Bastardy the Iury might have tryell it therfore it is good by the Common Law and differs from a Formedon for there he which brings it is privy vide 41 Eliz. 13 14 in a Scire facias good without shewing how 33 H. 6. 34. Sir T. C. Case 27 H. 6. 2. 4 E. 3. 43. vide 19 E. 3. Quare impedit 58. And if it were not good by the Common Law yet it was but form and aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz cap. 5. vide in Doctor Leifeilds Case lib 10. fol 94. And Iustice Winch agreed with me but Warburton to the contrary and argued strongly that it was substance and was very materiall and he relied upon the Book in the 38 H 6. 17. and he put the cases of 11 H 6. 43. 8 H 6. 22. 2 H 2. and Wimbish and Talbois case Plowden There is debate and argued two against two and no Iudgment given because that it is not shewn Comment Cosin vide 2 H 5. 7. a good Issue there is no such Ancestor a generall Demurrer confesse not the matter as in Debt upon a Bill he plead payment and the Plaintiff demur that Demurrer doth not confesse the payment Lord Hobart would not speak of the Common Law but it seemed good to him by the Statute The Title of the Act is An Act for furthering of Justice Definitive Iustice and Interlocutery The Statute takes not away form but the intrappings and snares of form No place where the Obligation is made cannot be tried by them affirmatively Hough and Bamfields case matter and no form and so Dyer 319. But the point of Cousinage which comes by videlicet is form And if the case of Wimbish and Talbois had been at this day it should bee aided and Iudgment for the Defendant Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds IT was argued by the Court that upon an Elegit the Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds and if it be so that the Conuzor be Ioynt-tenant or Tenant in Common then it ought to be so specially alledged and contained in the return Pasch 16 Jac. Drury versus Fitch Case DRury an Attorney of this Court brought an action upon the case against Fitch one of the Serjeants of London for saying I arrest thee for Felony and after not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff was Non-suited Costs upon Non-suit where the Plaintiff hath no cause of action And now it was moved that no costs should be given to the Defendant because that the words will not beare action and therfore Iudgment shall be given Quod nil capiat per billam And they vouched one President in Grewstons case in Ban. Reg. vide that now by the last Statute costs shall be given to the Defendant in all cases where the Plaintiff should have costs if he recover but in such case where the Plaintiff if he recover shall not have costs the Defendant upon the Non-suit of the Plaintiff shall not have costs But it seemed to Lord Hobart that in this case the costs are for vexation and this is more vexation if he had no cause of action vide 29 H 8. fol 32. It is there resolved that an action lies for the costs notwithstanding a Writ of Error brought And the last day of this Term the Court was of opinion that the action lies for the words for it is more then these I charge thee with Felony and if the Action lies not yet the Defendant shall have costs for it was such an Action in which the Plaintiff ought to have costs if he recover Vpon motion in Court by the direction of Iustice Warburton who had caused a Iury to be drawn by reason of the slendernesse of the matter and for avoiding the charge of a speciall Verdict the Case was A Copyholder was a Lunatick and the Lord committed the custody of his Land to one which brought an Action of Trespasse Action brought by the Committee of a Lunatick which is a Copyholder and whether it ought to be brought by him or by the Lunatick was the question And the opinion of the Court was that the Committee was but as Bayliff and hath no Interest but for the profit and benefit of the Lunatick and is as his Servant and it is contrary to the nature of his Authority to have an Action in his own name for the interest and the Estate and all power of Suits is remaining in the Lunatick And it was ruled in this Court that a Lunatick shall have a Quare impedit in his own name vide Beverlies case Coke lib 4. the diversity between a Lunatick and an Ideot and H 8. Dyer fol 25. And though when Guardian in Socage as it was adjudged makes a Lease for years his Lessee shall have an Ejectione firmae yet there the Guardian hath the Interest and is accountable therfore But in this case the Committee hath no Interest but is as a Servant appointed by the Lord to keep the possession for him who is not able to keep it for himself Lord Hobart and the Court also agreed that the Lord of a Mannor hath not power to commit or dispose of the Copyhold of a Lunatick without speciall Custom no more then a man shall be Tenant by the Curtesie c. of a Copyhold
c. but at the time of taking was so To this it was answered That the Count chargeth not the Defendant absolutely with all the time but Diversis diebus vicibus And also he justifie for two weeks which is the same Trespasse Then upon the matter the question is if he which hath Estrayes or Waifes if he seise an Estray qui est ferox whether he may fetter such Estray It was agreed by the Court that when an Estray comes within a Mannor and walk there this is a Trespasse and the party in whose Land the Estray is Damage-feasant may chase him out of his ground Also it was agreed that untill the Lord or his Bayliff or Tithing-man seise the Estray that shall not be said an Estray but when the Lord seise than he hath the Commencement of a property therby and he is chargable against all others for the Trespasse which this Estray doth and if this Estray within the year estray out of the Mannor the Lord may chase back the Estray untill he be seised by another Lord which hath Estrays But if he be seised by another Lord then the first hath lost all his possibility of gaining the property and the other Lord ought to proclaim it de novo It was moved that if a Lord of a Mannor which hath Estrayes and hath seised an Estray suffer that Estray by negligent keeping to stray away and never can be found again the Owner may have an action upon the case of Trover and Conversion against the Lord Quare vide 44 E 14. there the Lord seised an Asse for an Estray he to whom the property did belong came and challenged the Estray the Lord may detain him untill he tender sufficient recompence for the Pasture vide purc 20 H 7. 1. by Vavisor and 39 E 3. 3. That the Owner cannot take an Estray untill he tender recompence likewise the Lord after seisin of the Estray if he took him not Damage-seasant may have Replevin and he ought to make him amends The Lord cannot work the Estray but may keep him in his Stable And if the Sheriff upon a Fieri facias fetter the Colt and after the Defendant redeem him for money he shall not have trespasse vide 6 E 3. 8. it is not alledged that the fettering was to any damage of the Estray vide 22 Ass 56. Entred Pasch 18 Jac. Rot. 650. Treherne versus Cleybrooke Debt IOhn Treherne brought an action of Debt against Cleybrooke and count of a Lease made by John Treherne Grand-father to the Plaintiff of Lands in S. Olives in Surrey and intituled himself by the Will of the Grand-father by which he devised the Lands to the Plaintiff in tail Devise the remainder over to Leonard Vpon Nil debet pleaded the Iury found specially scilicet the Devise of the Reversion in tail the remainder over to A. in tail the remainder of one Moyety of the Land to one Daughter in tail and the other Moyety to another with Proviso that for the raising of a Stock for John Treherne the Grand-child when he come to the age of one and twenty years or if he dies for the raising of a Stock for Leonard in like manner he willed that Edward Griffin and Anne his Wife shall take the profits and shall receive all the rent of the Land devised to John Treherne to their own use untill he come to the age of one and twenty years upon Condition and so as the said Edward Griffin and Anne shall within three months after the death of the Testator become bound to his Overseers in an Obligation with such penalty as the said Overseers shall think fit to pay to the said John or if he dye without Issue to the said Leonard within three months after he come of age such a summ the Condition to be drawn and devised by his Overseers And if Edward Griffin and his Wife refuse then the Overseers should receive the Rent and Profits to their proper use But the Condition appoint not to whom the Overseers shall be bound And made Edward Griffing and William Iremonger his Executors and I. and others Supervisors and died and that within fourteen daies after the death of the Testator the Will was read to the said Overseers And that they did not devise or draw within the time appointed any Obligation nor tendred any within that time and that notice therof was given to the Defendant and that the Rent was demanded and the Reversion claimed by the Plaintiff sed utrum c. Vpon the Argument of Serjeant Harris which argued for the Plaintiff and vouched 21 H. 6. 6. That when one made Executors and also Coadjutors the Coadjutors are not Executors and that it is a Condition precedent vide 14 H 8. 22. Wheelers case 46 E 3. 5. Truels case Coke lib 5. 127. Palmers case 4 E 3. 39. 11 H 4. 18. And because that in this case the said Edward Griffin and his Wife are to have benefit they ought to require them to nominate the summ But because it appears to the Court that this Action is founded upon a Contract in Law therfore it ought to be brought in Surrey as it was agreed in Ungle and Glovers case An 36 Eliz vide Coke lib 3. fol 23. Nota that the Iudgment is speciall for this cause and no costs upon the Statute of 23 H 8. for the Defendant for the Statute saies that upon a Contract made by the Plaintiff the Defendant shall have costs and yet upon this Statute if the Executor be non-suited or Verdict given against him he shall not pay costs Where costs shall not be against Executors by common experience alwaies after the Statute and yet he shall have costs if he recover And in this case the Plaintiff shall have costs if he recover and yet it seems upon this Iudgment the Defendant shall not have costs against him and especially because that they are expresse words in the Statute that the Defendant shall have costs after Non-suit or lawfull tryall against the Plaintiff and here is neither Non-suit nor lawfull tryall vide Statute 4 Jac cap. 3. seems to be full in all cases where the Plaintiff shall have his costs upon Non-suit or when the Verdict passe against him the Defendant shall have costs yet it hath been taken that it shall be intended in actions of Debt upon the Contract of the Plaintiff himself for Executors neither upon Verdict nor upon Non-suit shall pay any costs because that their actions are brought upon Debts or Contracts not made between them and the Defendants vide the Statute of Glocester cap 1. that where a man recover damages there also he shall have costs Hickson versus Hickson HIckson Demandant in Dower against Hickson They are at issue the Tenant offer to be essoined upon the Venire facias and for want of the Adjornment therof by the Demandant Essoin shall not be allowed in Dower the Tenant had procured a Non-suit and yet the
in a Garden then minutae decimae And it was agreed by the Court that it might have been so found that it should be Majores decimae and prâ—â—diall as if all the Profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are minutae may become majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therin As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hops there they are great Tithes and so it may be of Wholl and Lambs Beddingfields Case Pasch 3 Jac. in the Kings Bench Beddingfeilds case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the small Tithes And a Feild was planted with Saffron which contain forty acres And it was adjudged that the Tithes therof belong to the Vicar Potmans case There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the question was for Hops in Kent and adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were resolved to belong to the Vicar as Minutae decimae There was a Case in this Court for tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produce Weild And that was a speciall Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Iudgment And if Tobacco he planted here yet the tithes therof are Minutae decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Wood c. if it doth not appear by materiall circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae decimae And so this case was adjudged for the Defendant Hil. 1 Car. Townley versus Steele FRancis Townley and three others the Executors of William Peacock brought a Writ of Ravishment of Ward against Richard Steele and Anne his Wife for the Ravishment of the body of Ralph Smith Cosin and Heir of Ralph Smith In Ravishment of Ward brought by Executors are Non-suited whether they shall pay costs and count of the Tenure by Knights-service in Ralph Smith of William Peacock and that Ralph Smith died the said Ralph his Cosin and Heir being within age and that William Peacock the Testator seised of the body and died possessed therof and made them his Executors and they being possessed of the said Ward the Marriage of whom belong to them the Defendants Rapuere illum abduxere And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury was at Bar and the Plaintiffs after Evidence were Non-suited And whether the Defendants shall have costs in this case was the question upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 15. or by the Statute of 4 Jac. cap. 3. And it being argued by Davenport and Attho the Court this Term the chief Iustice being absent gave their opinions And Iustice Crook argued that they should not have costs and put many cases when Executors bring actions they shall not pay costs and so is Common Experience after the Statutes which is the best Interpreter of the Law And if it should be otherwise Executors would be discouraged to bring actions for the debts of their Testator And Iustice Harvy was of the same opinion but Iustice Yelverton and Hutton to the contrary And they agreed that in all actions brought by Executors upon Contracts Obligations or other things made to the Testator there shall be no costs for that is not within the Statute viz. Contracts or Specialties made to the Plaintiff or if an action be De bonis asportatis in the life of the Testator or upon any Tort supposed to be done not immediatly to the Plaintiff there shall be no costs because that the Statute gives not costs in these cases 20 Mariae Debt upon a Demise for years if the Plaintiff shall be Non-suited there shall be costs for it is upon Contract though in some sort reall But in this case though the Plaintiffs are named Executors and their Title is derived from their Testator yet the action is brought upon an immediate Tort done to themselves and it is within the very words of the Statute and this Statute which is to prevent Vexatious Suits shall be taken favourably If Executors have a Lease for years and they demise it rendring rent and for Rent arrear they bring an action it shall be in the Debet and Detinet and they shall pay cost if they be Non-suited and yet their Title is as Executors but it is founded upon their own Contract so if they bring an action of Trespasse for the taking of Goods which came to their possession which Goods were in truth tortiously taken by the Testator and he died possessed therof and they being Non-suited they shall pay costs And Executors in actions brought against them shall pay costs and if they have no Goods of the Testator it shall be De bonis propriis And vide that upon Contracts made by them or Rent arrear in their time the action shall be in the Debet and Detinet vide Coke lib 5 Hergraves case But when Debt in brought by Executors and recovery had and after a recovery an escape and Debt upon this escape this shall be in the Deticet only according to the first cause of action And this Ravishment of Ward is an action within the Statute of 23 H 8. and the Statute of Westminster â— gives no Damages and therfore costs by the Statute of Glocester cap 1. and the Statute of 4 Jac. inlarge the actions and not the persons Hil. 1 Car. Beverley versus Power VPon an Assembly this Term of all the Iustices at Serjeants Inne by vertue of an Order of the Star-chamber made the last Term at reading the Case was Iames Beverley was Plaintiff against Robert Power Pardon and Mary Beverley and others which Bill was exhibited Hil 16 Iac. and the Bill was for scandalous matter not examinable in this Court and for other matter which was examinable and Witnesses examined and published And then the 19. of Febr. 21 Iac. the generall Pardon is made by Parliament by which all Offences Contempts and Misdemeanors del 20. Decemb. before except such Offences contempts c whereof or for which any Suite or Bill within eight years before was exhibited into the Star-chamber and there remaining to be prosecuted this last day of this present Parliament And afterwards viz. Mich. 1 Caroli the Cause came to hearing at the Suit of the Defendant and upon the hearing Power was fined two hundred pounds and for the abuse and contempt to the Court for exhibiting the scandalous matter the Plaintiff was fined five hundred pounds and for damage to the Defendant five hundred marks And yet because of the difficulty
happen as in Chudleys case Coke lib 1. fol 133. a Feoffment to the use of the Feoffor for life and after his death to his first Son which shall be afterwards born for his life and so to divers And afterwards to the use of I. D. in tail It is resolved that all the uses limited to-persons not in Esse are contingent but the uses to persons in Esse vest presently and yet these contingent uses when they happen vest by interposition if the first Estate for life which ought to support them be not disturbed And in this case it was a good Estate for life in Margaret And then gives the remane in the Feoffees for eighty years if Nicholas and Elizabeth Sanders so long should live and if Elizabeth survive Nicholas then to Elizabeth for her life and after her decease to Posthumus in tail and after his decease to the said three Daughters in tail so that there the Estate for years determines upon the death of Elizabeth and so also the Estate for life to Elizabeth which was contingent determines by his death And the Lord Darbies case a Feoffment to the use of Edward The Lord Derbies case late Earl of Derby in tail and then to the use of the two Feoffees for eighty years if Henry late Earl of Darby should so long live and after his decease to Ferdinand and to the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of William now Earl of Derby And it was adjudged that the remainders vest presently And this possibility that Henry might have over lived the eighty years will not make the remainders contingent And in a Suit which was at Lancaster between Farrington and another Farringtons case upon a speciall Verdict there found about 8 Jac. and many times argued at Serjeants Inn it was afterwards adjudged a good remainder and not contingent And the same case in this Court upon a Scire facias for two have executor of certain Land for debt recovered against the Earl of Derby which Land was intailed by the same Conveyance c. brought against the Earl of Bridgwater and his Wife one of the Co-heirs of Ferdinand Earl of Derby was adjudged in this Court vide Borastons case Coke lib 3. fol 20. 14 Eliz Dyer 314. Lovies case Coke lib 10. 27 H 8. 24. 38 E 3. 26. 5 E 3. 27. 30. E 3. Collthurst and Bemchins case was urged that the remainder limited to B. for life and after that C. hath married Ja. S. then to the use of C. in Fee this is contingent and is collaterall And this case is not like to that And after Argument at Bar this Term it being argued before that the Lord Richardson was there who was of the same opinion we all concurred and Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff Pasch 8 Car. Metcalfe versus Hodgson Case MEtcalfe brought an action upon the case against Hodgson and Wharton late Sheriffs of the City of York and count That wheras time out of memory c. there hath been a Court of Record holden before the Sheriffs of the said City upon the Bridge called Ousbridge An action of the case lies not against a Sheriff for taking of insufficient Bail being Iudges and that in this Court every one having cause of action arising within the said City had used to commence any action for debt there and that the Defendants being arrested by their bodies the Sheriffs had used to take Bayle of them and to let them to Bayle finding sufficient sureties and that the Sheriffs are also and time out of memory have been Keepers of the Gaol there And wheras the Plaintiff had brought an action against one Smith and recovered the now Defendants being Sheriffs had taken insufficient Bail of him c. And upon Not guilty pleaded it was tryed before the Lord chief Baron at York for the Bail are supposed to be taken at Wakefield but that was not alledged for any thing which appears to be out of their Iurisdiction And the Iury contrary to the direction of the Lord chief Baron gave Verdict for the Plaintiff And after many motions in Arrest and praying of Iudgment it was resolved that this act was done by them as Iudges and for this Iudiciall Act no action lay And though that the Bail by the event appear to be insufficient yet there is no remedy by action upon the case it being without fraud or corruption and not for reward And this Case differs nothing from the ordinary cases of all insufficient Bailes taken by any of the Kings-Bench Common Bench or Exchequer And that they having two Authorities in una persona it shall be taken to be done by that Authority by which they have power to vail and that is as Iudges of the Court and not as Gaolers for by this they have no power to Bail any and in this capacity they are only subject to an escape vide Dyer 163. Error cannot be assigned in that which the Court of Common Bench do as Iudges vide 12 E 4. 19. Conspiracy lies not for that which a Iustice doth as Iudge of Record Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Hickes versus Mounford Trin. 7 Car. Rot. 514. Replevin REplevin brought by Walter Hickes against Simon Mounford and others the Defendants make Conusance as Bayliffs to Sir John Elliot Executor of Richard Giddy And that the place contain twenty acres and was parcell of the Mannor of Trevelun And that Thomas Archbishop of York and Cardinall and three others were seised of the Mannor wherof c. in Fee Traverse of a day and the third of June 11 H 8. by Deed inrolled granted to King H. 8. a Rent-charge of fifty Marks per annum out therof in Fee with clause of Distresse and convey the Rent by discent to E. 6. Mary and Elizabeth who by her Letters Patents granted it to Richard Giddy for life who made the said Sir John Elliot his Executor and died and for such a summ arrear they Avow c. The Plaintiff pleaded in Bar to this Avowry and confessed the Seisin of the said Arch-bishop and the others and said that the said Arch-bishop and the others the fourth of June 11 H 8. enfeoffed Peter Edgecombe in Fee of the said Mannor who conveyed it to Richard Edgecombe Knight who entred and licensed the Plaintiff to put in his Beasts which he did and that they were there untill by the Defendants distrained absque hoc that the said Arch-bishop and the others the aforesaid 3. June 11 H 8. granted the said Rent to the said King and his Heirs Modo forma prout the Defendants alledged Et hoc paratus est verificare The Defendants say that the Arch-bishop and the others granted the Rent to the King modo forma as they had alledged and Issue therupon and the Iury found That the said Arch-bishop and the others 11 H 8. recovered this Land against Sir
Conversion was brought by Abraham Cartwright against Clement Underhill And upon Not guilty pleaded there was found a speciall Verdict to this effect Bankrupt Francis Bayle being a Merchant had made a fraudulent Deed to the Defendant of the Goods contained in the Count but afterwards he went abroad to Church to the Exchange and did Trade and Commerce And yet afterwards it is contained in the Indenture of Sale by the Commissioners to the Plaintiff that he had made this fraudulent Deed and that afterwards he had traded and served the Exchange untill a day after at which day he wholly absented himself And upon this speciall Verdict the Defendant had Judgment For every Deed to defraud other Creditors but those to whom such Deed is made is not sufficient to make one to be a Bankrupt But if he make any Deed after he begins to be a Bankrupt it shall not bind But upon the Statute of 1 Jacobi which makes him a Bankrupt which make fraudulent Deeds it ought not to be as this case was viz. so long before he became a Banrupt And there were many more imperfections in the speciall Verdict Hill 18. Jac. The Earl of Clanrickards Case THe Earl of Clanrikard and Frances his Wife Writ of Right brought a Writ of Right against the Earl of Leicester Essoin upon the return of an alias Summons And upon the Summons being returned but no return of proclamation made at the Church of the Parish where the Land lies upon the Lords day Post praedicationem sive Divinum Servitium there was an Essoin cast and that was adjourned in the Essoin Roll And the Demandauts perceiving the return to be insufficient they sue an alias Summons which having great returnes as all the Writs issuing out of this Court in a Writ of Right or other reall actions ought to have was returnable Oct Hil And the Tenant cast an Essoin upon the alias Summons And it was moved at the day of Essoin and now also at the first day of the Term by Serjeant Harris that an Essoin did not lye for he had an Essoin before And by the Statute de essonii calumniand 1â— E 2. Non faciant quia alias se essoviant And the Statute 31 Eliz cap 3. which gives the Proclamations hath prouided that no Grand Cape shall be awarded upon this default but only an alias Summons so that the Writ is good and stands and therfore he shall not be otherwise essoined But it seemed to the Court to be otherwise here for the first Essoin is as Nul and therfore vide Dyer 252. that when the Sheriff return tarde in a Formedon and the Tenant is essoined and that is adjourned it is of no effect but he shall be essoined upon the other Writ of alias c. vide 24 E. 3. Br Essoin 24. accord also vide 21 H. 6. That upon the resummons after the death of the King the Tenant shall be Essoined and yet the first Writ and all is revived And in this case though the party may appear to the first Writ â—ne note besoigne de ject un essoign for the nature of that is to save a default so that no Grand Cape shall be awarded and there no Grand Cape ought so be avwarded and therfore the Essoin before not avoidable Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 739. Bridgeland versus Post Dower Counter-plea to the View BRidgeland against Post and his Wife in a Writ of Dower the Tenants demand the View and the Demandant counter-pleads the View Quod le tenant n'ad entry nisi per le Baron And therupon the Tenant demur And it was adjudged a good Counter-plea and the Tenant ousted of his View Accord 9 E. 4. fol 6. vide 2 H 4. 24. Pasch 19 Jac. King versus Bowen Case Words KIng brought an action of the case against Bowen a Minister for saying Thou art a false forsworn Knave and didst take a false Oath against me at a Commission at Ecclesall innuendo a Commission sued out of the high Commission the Defendant justifie and after issue tryed and found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words were not actionable for it doth not appear in the Count what Commission nor out of what Court nor what matter he did depose but generally that he had taken a false Oath at a Commission The former words forsworn Knave will not maintain an action otherwise of Perjuted Knave for that shall be intended in a legall sence and no Innuendo will supply matter which give not cause of action nor the Iustification But the words ought to contain scandall in themselves without any supplement An action lies for saying one had forsworn himself in a Court Baron and to say he had forsworn himself in the Common place but to say that one hath forsworn himself at the Bar innuendo the Bar of the Common place will not maintain an action Querens nil capiat per breve Pasch 19 Jac. Tippin versus King Wast SIr George Tippin Plaintiff in an action of Wast against King and alledge Wast in severall Closes Sparsim Inquiry of damages And Iudgment by nihil dicit and an Inquiry awarded the Iury found but eight pence Damages And upon motion for a new Writ it was resolved that the Iury ought not now to enquire of the Wast And therfore the difference is when the Plaintiff upon the distresse recover upon the Statute there the Statute gives power to enquire of the Wast But in this case the Wast is confessed Per nient dedire Ewer and Moyle Dyer 204. a. accord And it was so adjudged between Ewer and Moyle upon demurrer in Wast there the Wast is confessed and the Writ shall be only to enquire of the Damages so if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have a Writ upon Iudgment of the place wasted Mich. 18 Jac. Rot. 2805. Pitt versus Chick MAtthew Pitt brought Replevin against Chick Replevin The Defendant avow for that the place contains five acres which lye between the Lands of Sir George Speck And that the said Sir George Speck and all his Ancestors Prescription to have Herbage de temps d'out c. have used to have Herbage and Pasture of the said five acres viz. if they were sowen then after the reaping untill re-sowing and if they were not sowen then for the whole year and convey Title to the said Herbage by Lease in writing to him and avow Damage feasant And it was urged that he which had all the profit for a time and the sole profit had the Free-hold and that is not a thing which lye in Prescription semble al Common or so pasture for a certain number of years And it was said that a Grant de vestura terrae or de herbag terrae for one and twenty years is a good Lease But it was adjudged that it is a good Avowry and he had only profit a
Demandant proceeds with the Issue And at the Nisi prius the Tenant relying upon the Non-suit it appeared not by whom the Petit Cape is awarded And now upon motion by Serjeant Henden who relyed upon the Non-suit and that the Essoin was allowable by the Statute of Westminster 2. post exitum habeat unicam Essoniam but it was ruled and the Prothonatories all said that it had been the constant use that no Essoins are allowed in Dower which is festinum remedium vide Stat. 12 E 2. cap 1. hath tolled the Essoin of the Service of the King in many cases and given to the Demandant in many cases power ad callumpniand Essoniam And the words of the Statute are Non jacet in breve de dote quia videtur deceptio prorogatio juris vide Dyer 324. There after the Issue joyned Essoin at the day of the Venire facias though no Venire facas be sued out but only awarded upon the Roll. Mich. 21 Jac. Linleys Case An Information against an under Sheriff for taking of 30 s for making of a Warrant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum AN Information was exhibited against Linley under Sheriff to Sir Gny Palmes Sheriff of York vpon the Statute 32 H 6 and it was shewn that he being under Sheriff a Capias ad satisfaciendum was delivered to him to Arrest one Francis Lancaster upon a Iudgment for a hundred and three pounds The Defendant Colore officii took of the Plaintiff thirty shillings for making of a Warrant upon this Writ against the form of the Statute wherby he hath forfeited forty pounds Vpon not guilty pleaded and Verdict against the Defendant it was alledged in arrest of Iudgment that the making of a Warrant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum which is for Execution is not within the Statute because the Statute speaks first of Fees to be taken upon the Arrest of the party when he is bailed viz. twenty pence to the Sheriff and four pence to the Baily then appoints that the Sheriff lets to Bail every one that is taken upon Bill or Plaint besides them which are taken for execution Outlawry c. and then comes the clause That nothing shall be taken for making of any Precept or Warrant but four pence and provision for the Obligation Condition and Fee and that all Obligations taken by any Sheriff Colore officii that these shall be void and that for every offence committed against the Statute he shall forfeit forty pounds The Lord Hobart inclined that this making of the Warrant upon the Capias ad satisfaciendum and the taking of thirty shillings is within this Statute and he resembled it to Dive and Maninghams case in Plowden where an Obligation taken of one in Execution is void by this Statute vide that the clause in this Statute for the Obligation is absolute without any restraint but that all obligations taken by colour of his Office with any other Conditions are made void This taking of thirty shillings for making of a Warrant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum is extortion at the Common Law for which he may be indited but whether it be within this Statute or no is doubtfull Another Exception was taken to this Information That it doth not appear by this that this Writ of Capias was directed to the Sheriff of York or to any other Sheriff And then admitting this to be a Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriff of Lincoln and it is delivered by an ignorant hand to the Sheriff of York to make a Precept therupon and he makes a Precept and takes thirty shillings this is not within the Statute also Colore officii will not serve for it is generall and it ought to be shewn that it was a Capias and to whom it was directed And although that all Processe should be generally directed to the Sheriff yet some may be to the Coroners or some by the mis-prision of the Clerks may be omitted as Jacobus Dei gratia c. tibi precipimus and say not Vice-Comiti Eboracensi salutem And an Information ought to be certain to all common intents and it is like to an Indictment And in an action upon the case against an Attorney because that he Corruptive and in deceit of the Plaintiff and in his name had acknowledged satisfaction to his damage and saies not wheras Revera non fuit satisfactus that is not good And the Court was of opinion for this cause that the Plaintiff should not have his Iudgment Bickner versus Wright AN action upon the case was brought by Richard Bickner against John Wright Case Prescription for the making of a Cony-borough in damage of his Common The Plaintiff prescribe to have Common omni tempore anni and saies not Quolibet anno And after Verdict adjudged good Trin. 22 Jac. Goldenham versus Some GGoldenham brought a Writ of Dower against John Some Dower Judgment in Dower upon Voucher who vouched the Heir of the Husband who entred into the Warranty and said that he had no Assets The Demandant had Iudgment for her Dower because nothing is said to the contrary against the Tenant with a Cesset executio untill the Warranty be determined And the Tenant which vouched when the tryall was at Assises made default but it was said that it should be the default of the Vouchee for he was dead before the Assises And now it was moved that the Demandant might have execution And by Henden it was said that the Voucher is not determined for he might vouch the Heir of the Vouchee But it seemed that the Voucher was determined and that he shall have the benefit of his Warranty by Scire facias out of the Iudgment but the Court doubted if the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment against the Vouchee conditionally if he had Assets if not against the Tenant or absolutely vide 3 H 6. 17. Dyer 202. there it is conditionall vide Dyer 256. there the Iudgment is against the Tenant upon Vouchee of the Heir in Ward to the King and that presently with a Cesset executio vide 46 E 3. 25. If the Vouchee be Counter-pleaded the Demandant shall have Iudgment presently vide 48 E 3. 5. Br Voucher 38. the Iudgment shall be against the Heir conditionally which is vouched in Dower vide 2 H 4. 8. there upon the Voucher of the Heir which makes default upon the Summons sequatur suo periculo the Iudgment is against the Heir conditionally if not against the Tenant and so Iudgment against one not party to the Suit and which never appeared And in this case the Iudgment against the Tenant with a Cesset executio may be good because that it doth not appear by any of their Pleas but that the Demandant is confessed to have her Dower none of them say that he is ready to render her Dower as the Heir ought when he enter into the Warranty This Term Serjeant Finch moved the case
and prayed Iudgment for he said the ancient Books were many for Iudgment conditionally but some to the contrary viz. when the Heir is vouched within the same County and is within age there Iudgment presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And when the Heir enter into the Warranty and is taken to render the Dower there is Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace But he said that Mich Ashburnham against Skinner 38 39 Eliz. Rot. 1208. Mary Ashburnham brought Dower against Skinner who vouched the Heir of the Husband in the same County who presently entred en le garranty and said that he had no Assets there the Iudgment was given presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And after the Issue was tryed and found that the Heir had not Assets and the Wife had Execution but it was said that Error was brought therupon yet the Feme continued the Possession Henden said that the Tenant otherwise shall lose the benefit of his Warranty vide 13 H 4. Judgment 241. The Court adjudged this case for the Demandant upon view of the said President of 38 39 Eliz. And as this case is the Demandant upon necessity ought to have Execution because that the Tenant which ought to have the benefit of the Warranty made default And if it was so that the Vouchee was dead the Tenant shall not have any other Voucher for the Dower ought not to suffer delay And likewise when Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio all is one as a conditionall Iudgment against the Tenant for if Assets be found then Quia compertum est c. with Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace It was objected that Iudgment ought to be conditionally at first and not to give one Iudgment against the Tenant and afterwards if Assets be found another Iudgment against the Heir but that is no inconvenience Some say that when such Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio there if Assets be found the Demandant shall not have execution against the Heir but against the Tenant and he shall have ad valentiam Quaere Potter versus Browne Case Words NIcholas Potter brought an action upon the case against Browne for these words spoken of the Plaintiff He is as arrant a Theef as any is in England and he broke up the Plummers Chest with other mens Tools which stood in my Lord of Suffolks house and took money out of it The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and Verdict for the Plaintiff And upon the motion of Henden to Arrest and Richardson to have Iudgment The Court resolved that the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment The first reason is because that there is not any affirmative directly that he is a Theef but as arrant a Theef as any is in England And avers not that there is any Theef in England And the Law will not presume any thing that is evill Iniquum in lege non presumitur And as Lacies case was He is as great a Theef as any is in Warwick Goal He ought to aver that there was a Theef there at the time of the speaking of the words And it is the same reason in this case Then the latter words are ambiguous and admit of a double interpretation and the better shall be taken Querens nil capiat per breve Mich. 22 Jac. Methell versus Peck MEthell brought an action upon the Case against Peck and count Case that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had paid to one Playford forty pounds to the use of the Defendant Where the request of a collaterall thing shall be alledged and by his appointment he assured upon request to deliver an Obligation in which he and another should be obliged to the Plaintiff in a hundred pounds And that the Defendant Licet saepius postea requisitus did not deliver the said Obligation upon Non assumpsit pleaded Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Hitcharn that the Plaintiff had not alledged any sufficient request by shewing such a day and such a place which is issuable And being collaterall matter the request is part of the substance of the action But where it is upon Debt or Contract and not severed from the duty then a Licet saepius requisitus is sufficient But the Court were of opinion that the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment and yet they agreed the diversity when a Request shall be alledged as part of the thing to be performed and when it is but implyed in the Debt For when it is collaterall there it ought to be alledged and for the time it is sufficient viz. Postea but the place of the Request is omitted And if Issue had been tendred therupon it might be supplyed afterwards where it shall be tryed where the action was brought And Non assumpsit allowes the request as if the Defendant had pleaded concord and satisfaction the Request is not to be proved in Evidence vide 10 H 7. 16. But it is said that this Judgment was reversed in the Kings Bench because that the Request being upon Collaterall matter which was the cause of the Action it is materiall Mich. 22 Jac. Ejectione firmae AN Ejectione firmae brought and counted upon a Lease at Haylesam of Tenements there The Defendant pleads that Haylesam ubi tenementa praedicta jacent is within the Cinque-Ports Ubi breve Domini Regis non currit and plead to the Iurisdiction The Plaintiff reply Town shall be intended al the Town that the Tenements are in the County of Lancaster absque hoc that the Town of Haylesam is within the Cinque-Ports wherupon the Defendant demur and adjudged no cause of demurrer For Haylesam is all Haylesam and the Court will not intend any Fractions in the Town viz. that part shall be in the Cinque-Ports and part without as it was affirmed the truth was but that ought to come upon the shewing of the Defendant an his Bar vide 50 E 3. 5. Sir William Ellinghams case Defend respond oust THE FIRST YEAR OF KING CHARLES Termino Pasch Hitcham versus Brook SIR Robert Hitcham Serjeant at Law and to the King Case brought an action upon the case against one Brook a Iustice of the Peace and which had been Sheriff of Suffolk and count that he for divers years last past had been one of the Kings Serjeants and had demeaned himself well and loyally in the discharge of his duty and had gained good opinion and had acquired by his practice a good Estate for the maintenance of him and his Family The Defendant said Words I doubt not but to prove that the Plaintiff hath spoken Treason Innuendo Treason against the King Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words are not actionable First because no time is alledged
latter Lease taken by him which was void did nâ—t surrender his former Lease which was good Sir Rowland Heywards Case the Lessee had Election to take as a Lease or as a Bargain and Sale and that it is not by way of Estoppell because it was contracted out of the Reversion Trin. 14 Jac. Rot. 3308 Thompson against Green Thompson and Green Mills and Whitewood adjudged that when one grants Proximam Advocationem to mother this is meerly void 13 Eliz. Rot. 1428. Ejectione firmae brought by Mills against Whitewood adjudged that where Lessee for years takes a new Lease after the death of his Lessor of the Gardian in Socage this is no surrender of his Lease 42 Eliz. Rot. 105. In Sir Arthur Capels Case adjudged _____ Rud who was Lessee for sixty years of an Advowson when the Church was void took a Presentation to himself of the Lessor and is admitten and inducted this was a Surrender of his Lease Mich. 5 Car. Baker versus Johnson A Iury was at the Bar in an Ejectione firmae brought by Henry Baker against Bartholomew Johnson upon a Lease made by James Baker which was seised of two Marshes among others called Knightswick and Southwick In a recovery if the Town be omitted the Land do nor pass which lye in an Island called Camby in the Parish there called North-Benfleet And he being Tenant in tail and intending to dock it and to make himself seised in Fee by Indenture the 10. of Eliz. Covenanted to suffer a recovery of these two Marshes by name and of many other Lands and that it should be to the use of himself in Fee and the recovery was had and therin South-Benfleet and many other Parishes named and Camby but the Parish of North-Benfleet was omitted And if the Lands in North-Benfleet passed or no was the Question And it was strongly argued by Crew and Henden to have it found specially it being in a Common Recovery which is but a Common Conveyance But all the Court agreed that the Town and Parish being omitted although that Camby was a place known but it appeared that that extends in and to ten Towns yet being in a Town that the Recovery extends not therto no more then if one had a Mannor in the Town of Dale which Mannor is called Bradford and within the said Mannor is a place known which is called Braisty Wood and he omit the Mannor and the Town and say the hundred acres of Land in Braisty Wood that is not good And the Court agreed that a Common Recovery is good in a Town Parish or Hamlet and peradventure in a place known out of the Town Parish or Hamlet as in the Forrest of Inglewood in Insula de Thamete c. But if it should be admitted that a Common Recovery shall be good in a place known in a Town or Hamlet that shall be absurd for there is no Town in which there are not twenty places known and it had been adjudged that a Venire facias de viceneto of a place known in a Town without making the Visne of the Town is not good Mich. 5 Car. Bill versus Lake London Case FRancis Bill brought an action upon the Case against Sir Aurthur Lake and counted that wheras at the speciall instance of Lettice Wife of the Defendant Where the request is the cause of action he had provided for the said Lettice a Tasfety Roll the Defendant did assume to pay as much as it was worth upon request And so in like manner for providing of Linnen stuff c. and making of severall Garments for the Wife and aver that the severall things bought amount to such a summ and the making therof was worth such a summ which in toto c. and alledge the request And aver that they were necessary Vestments and convenient for the degree of the Wife and after the making of them he had delivered them to the Wife The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 21 of King James for Limitation and said that the Plaintiff within six years after the promise supposed nor within three years after the end of the Parliament had not prosecuted any Originall or any Action upon this promise and Assumpsion wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And upon Argument at Bar by Serjeant Brampton for the Plaintiff and Davenport for the Defendant the matter was reduced to this Question Whether the cause of Action shall be said upon the request Quest or upon the promise Brampton agreed that where it is found upon an Assumpsit in Law and that the request is but for increase of Damages and not issuable there the Assumpsit is the cause of the Action But this cannot be founded upon an Assumpsion in Law because that it is not certain but to be made certain first by the Plaintiffs buying and providing of the Stuff Secondly by the Plaintiffs termining and making therof and then the matter of promise is for the payment of so much money as it should be reasonably worth and therfore the request is there collaterall and then it is the cause of the action and so within the Statute if it be an action which is founded upon an Assumpsit in Law then it doth not charge the Husband see the difference when request is materiall and shall be alledged and when not in Mecholl and Pecks Case before and a Feme Covert is not capable to make any Contract because she is Sub potestate viri And though it be for necessaries of Diet and Apparrell that shall not charge the Husband Sir William Alephs Case But an Infant is capable to make Contract for Diet and Apparrel necessary An 25 Eliz Sir William Alephs case was adjudged that where an Infant had taken so much for his necessary Apparrell and Diet which amounted to fifty pounds which was paid by Sir William Aleph And he took an Obligation with a penalty adjudged that it did not bind him in regard of the forfeiture And Dyer 234. Sir Michael Penits case the Wife took Sattin and Stuff to make her a Gown and Sir Michael paid the Taylor for the making therof And yet upon an action of Debt brought against the Husband it was resolved that it did not charge him And that the request to the cause of the action he vouched Dyer 31. 18 E 4. 4. solvend sur request and 9 H 7. fol 22. Replevin and Tenure for plowing the Land when he shall be required he ought to alledge the request and he concluded with a Case adjudged Hil 4 Car Rot. 710. Banco Regis between Shuesouth and Fernell an action upon the Case and count that the Defendant An 1618. had kept a Dog which he know had used to woory Sheep and that the Dog had wooried and killed divers Sheep of the Plaintiffs And the Defendant in consideration therof promised to satisfie the Plaintiff what he was damnified when he should be required therto and the promise was An 18 Jac. and the request and
the Award of Costs were in full force and effect But that afterwards viz. such a time as well the said Iudgment de non pros as the said Iudgment of thirty pounds Debt against the now Plaintiff were evacuated wherupon the Defendant demurred And it having been often debated by Hitcham for the Defendant and Henden for the Plaintiff And now upon Oyer of the Record and of the Iudgment the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff And the Lord Finch said that this action upon the case is grounded upon two misdemeanours 1. The procurement of the said Iudgment for Edw. L. after a Non pros entred for the Defendant And though the Iudgment was erroneous yet the now Plaintiff was vexed and imprisoned therby which indeed is the cause of this action 2. The taking therof unlawfully when the first Iudgment de non pros was in force and the Plea of Nil tiel Record go only to one of the Causes And admitting that there was never a Iudgment de non pros but that the Defendant had unlawfully procured a Iudgment and taken Execution therupon and procured the Plaintiff to be taken in Execution and Imprisoned this is cause of action And to that he hath not answered and therfore he ought to have pleaded Not guilty to that which he takes by protestation Iudgment pro quaerente Pasch 11 Car. Baker versus Hucking Adjudged B. Rs. Tenant in tail and he in Reversion make a I. case Pro ut aut vic TEnant in tail and he in Reversion joyn by Deed in a Lease for life he in Reversion devise the Land by his Will to one in Fee and dieth Tenant in tail dies without Issue and the Heir of him in Reversion and the Devises claim the Land And the sole question is if this Lease be a Discontinuance and it was adjudged a Discontinuance and then the Devise void for he had not a Reversion And the difference was taken when Tenant for life and he in Reversion joyn in a Lease by Deed for without Deed it is first a Surrender Discontinuance and then the Lease or Feoffment of him in Reversion it shall be the Lease of Tenant for life so long as he live and after the Lease of him in Reversion and yet they shall joyn in a Writ of Wast And in this case there is no question but if the Lease had been made solely by Tenant in tail that then it were a Discontinuance and the joyning of him in Reversion alters it not for that amounts to nothing but as a Confirmation and is not like to Bredons case Coke lib 1. fol 76. Where Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail levy a Fine for every one there passeth that which lawfully he may And upon Argument it was adjudged that it was a Discontinuance and not the Lease of him in Reversion but his Confirmation Iustice Crooke differed in opinion Mich. 11 Car. Lashbrookes Case Somerset LEwes Lashbrook an Attorney of this Court brought an action of Trespasse against I. S. for entring into his house and breaking his Close And in the new Assignment he alledged the Trespasse to be in a house called the Entry and in a house called the Kitchin and in his Garden and in one Close called the Court. The Defendant as to the force c. and to all besides the Entry plead Not guilty And as to his entry into the Court and Kitchin A Warrant to four and two of them execute it and the Tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment he plead that he had brought an action against a woman for Trespasse and had so proceeded that he recovered and had execution directed to the Sheriff of Somersetshire and therupon a Warrant directed to four speciall Bayliffs to arrest the said Woman and two of them at Minehead in the County of Somersetshire arrested her and carried her to the house of the Plaintiff in Minehead being a Common Inn and the Defendant entred into the said houses called the Entry and Kitchin and the Tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment to speak to the Bayliffs and to warn them to keep her safe And as soon as he could he returned wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And now Henden took two Exceptions the first was 1. That the Defendant had not pleaded to all the Closes but that was over-ruled for he justified in the tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment 2. The second was that the Warrant to the Bayliffs was to all and not Conjunctim and Divisim and therfore it should be by all and not by two only To that it was answered and resolved that when a Sheriff makes such a Warrant which is for the Execution of Iustice that may be by any of them for it is Pro bono publico And the very Case was adjudged 45 Eliz between King Hebbs Coke Littleton 181. b. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Hil. 11 Car. Davies Case Hereford DAvies an Attorney of this Court brought an action upon the case for these words If I list I can prove him Perjured Words And the opinion of the Court was that they were not actionable for there is not any Affirmative that he was perjured but a thing which is Arbitrary and saies not that he would do it Iudgment pro Defend Mich. 7 Car. Rot. 1097. Alston versus Andrew Suff. Pâ—ter Alston Executor of Peter Alston brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation of a hundred and twenty pounds against William Andrew The Obligor and the Obligee make the same person Executor and Edward Andrew and count That the Defendants and one Francis A. became obliged to the Testator c. and that they did not pay it is the said Testator in his life nor to the now Plaintiff and one Francis Andrew Co-executor with the Plaintiff who is summoned and the Plaintiff admits to prosecute alone without the same Francis c. The Defendants demand Oyer of the Obligation which is entred in haec verba and plead that Francis A. in the said Writing named after the making therof made the said Francis Andrew and Barb. A. his Executors and died And that the said Francis A. accepted the Burthen of the Testament And after the said Peter Alston the Testator made his will and Constituted the Plaintiff and the said Francis his Executors and died Et hoc paratus est verificare unde c. wherupon the Plaintiff demur Trugeon and Meron Mich 2 Jac. Rot. 2663. Garret Trugeon Plaintiff against one Anthony Meron and others the Administrators of Benjamin Scrivin upon a single Bill The Defendants demand Oyer of the Bill wherby it appears that one John Simcocks was obliged to the said Trugeon joyntly and severally with the said Scrivin Quibus lectis auditis the Defendants sayd that the said Simcocks died intestate and that the Administration of his Goods was granted to the now Plaintiff who accepted the Burthen of the Administration and Administred the Plaintiff demurred
as Servant to the Bishop of Durham Absque hoc that he was guilty at the Castle of York or any where else c. And this Case was long depending and the first point was if the Defendant had confessed any conversion for that is the ground of the action and ought to be traversed or else confessed and avoided It was agreed that the Conversion is the ground of the Action Brook 1 Mar. Trespass 121. and the Inducement ought to be such as contain sufficient matter with the Trespasse vide 9 E. 4 5. 19 H 6.30.22 Then it was agreed H. 6. 35. 8. that when one takes a Distresse and such an action is brought that is no plea for that is not any conversion vide 27 H. 8.22 Coke lib. 10. fol 46 47. Request and refusall to deliver is good evidence to prove conversion but if it be found specially it shall not be adjudged Conversion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant did not claim any property and did not answer to the point of the Action for a Distresse is no Conversion Hil. 15 Jac. Coble versus Allen. Norf. Trespasse COble brought an action of Trespasse against Allen for breaking his Close at Barningham and by the new Assignment divers parcels were assigned the Defendant as to part pleads that he was seised of an House and thirty acres of Land in Colby and prescribe to have a way over them to his Common in Barningham Prescription for a Way and no place to which c. Issue joyned upon the Prescription and for the other parcels prescribe that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said house in Colby used to have for themselves and their Families one way for Pack-horses over the said other parcels of Land in Barningham unto the Kings high way leading to the City of Norwich And Issue was joyned upon these two Prescriptions and found for the Plaintiff But it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Venue was from Barningham and Colby and that in the Plea there is not mention of any place where the Common lies and therefore there is not any tryall but it was adjudged that the tryall was good for though that the proper use of a way is to some end and that ought to be shewn yet if it be only that he had a way over the Closes of the new Assignment and no place or end therof is pleaded for what cause or to what other place and Issue is taken upon the Prescription and found the Prescription is good And another reason was there by Implication it is indifferent whether the way lies in B. or in another Town and by intendment rather it may be taken to lye in B. and then if by one intendment the tryall may be good it shall so be intended But when it appears that the tryall shall be in three Towns and the Ven fac is but in two this is not aided for it is a Mis-triall and there must be a Venire facias de novo but in this case no new Venice can be awarded and then it is but a Jeofaile for not pleading in which Town the way lies and then it is aloâ—â— and also unto the Kings high way may be taken that this Kings high way is contigue adjacent to these Closes where the way is by Prescription And for these reasons and causes Iudgment given for the Plaintiff Harding versus Bodman RObert Harding Plaintiff against Bodman Defendant Case in an action upon the Case recites that wheras the Plaintiff brought an action upon the Case against one Lenning for calling of him c. the Defendant upon the tryall being produced for the Defendant as a Witnesse gave evidence upon his Oath to the Iury Action upon the Case against one foâ—giving evidence that the Plaintiff was a common lyar and so recorded in the Star Chamber by reason of which Evidence though the Iury found for the Plaintiff yet by reason hereof they gave but small Damages to the Plaintiff And upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was adjudged that this is a new invention and that no action lies for it First because that it is impossible to be known whether the Iury gave greater or lesse Damages for that or not Also by this means every man which is produced as a Witnesse by one way or other may be subject to an action upon the Case and also by any thing which appears to the Court the Evidence was true for it was not averred that Revera that the Plaintiff was not a common lyar that he was not recorded for a common lyar in the Star Chamber And for these reasons the Plaintiff Nil capiat per breve c. Trin. 15 Jac. Rot. 1968. Speake versus Richards South HUgh Speake brought an action of Debt against Edward Richards Debt for 523 l 17 s 8 d and declare that Anthony Hall and Henry Paramour 22. June 13 Jac. became obliged to the Plaintiff by Recognizance in the Chancery in 2000 l and that they did not pay it wherupon the Plaintiff had two Sci. fac.'s to the Sheriff of Middlesex Debt for money returned levied by the Sheriff who returned Nihil wherupon Iudgment for the Plaintiff and a Levari facias awarded to the Sheriff of Southampton returnable 15 Mich. which Writ was delivered to the Defendant being then Sheriff to be executed The Defendant before the Return levied by vertue of the said Writ the said 523 l 17 s 8 d of the Lands and Chattels of the said Henry Paramour parcell of the said Debt and at 15 Mich. returned that he had levied the said 523 l 17 â— 8 d parcell c. which summ he had ready at the day to deliver to the Plaintiff in part of satisfaction c. And that the Defendant although often required therto refused to pay the said 523 l 17 s 8 d by cause wherof this action accrued nor brought it into Chancery and to have the parties c. The Defendant as to three hundred and eight pounds part therof pleaded Nil debet to two hundred and fifteen pounds seventeen shillings eight pence residue therof Actio non For he said that after the Writ directed and before the return viz. 31 Augusti 14 Jacobi the Defendant at Westminster paid it to the Plaintiff upon the receit wherof the same day the Plaintiff gave an Acquittance for the same which he pleads and therby acquitted and discharged the Defendant and demands Iudgment if against his own Deed of acquittance he shall be received to demand the said money wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And it was argued by Serjeant Richardson for the Plaintiff and by John Moore for the Defendant An exception was taken that he could not plead Nil debet because that it is a Debt upon Record for he is charged by the return He is not estoppled to plead payment
be after the title devolved unto the Metropolitan And it seems also reason that he ought to admit though that the Title by Laps be accrued to the King for he claims it as supream Ordinary vide Dyer 277. quaere But in this case the Bishop which is the Defendant is bound by the Iudgement and the Writ is notwithstanding the claim of the Bishop that he admit the Clerk and the Bishop is but Servant and ought to execute the processe of the Court It was urged by Serjeant Henden one Canon Linwood fol. That if the Church be vacant when the Writ comes to the Bishop that he is bound to execute the Writ but if it be full then he certifies the Iustices And the Arch-bishop is sworn to the Canons and he vouched 22 H 6. 45. Coke lib 6. 49. and 52 Dyer 260. F.N.B. 47. Dyer 364. 14 H 7. 22. 34. H 6. 41. 9 E 3. Quare non admisit 18 E 4. 7. Trin. 16 Jac. Rot. 1999. Eire versus Bannester JOhn Eire brought an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir Edward Kinaston against Andrew Bannester and Thomas Wenlock for Land in Norwood Challenge and after Not guilty the Plaintiff made surmiss of Kindred to the Sheriff Sir Thomas Owen to the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads that the Sheriff Non est de consanguinitate of the Plaintiff as he by his challenge supposed And because the Defendant denied the said Challenge John Eire calumnia illa non obstant prec est quod ven fac c. And at the Nisi prius the Defendants challenge the Array for consanguinity between the Sheriff and the Lessor viz. Sir Edward Kinaston and make this Averment that the Sheriff had Issue by Susan which was the Daughter of Judith the Wife of Sir Edward Kinaston and conclude it is a principall Challenge and therupon the Plaintiff demurred And it was returned upon the Postea and it seems that the Sheriff being admitted and allowed to be indifferent by the Defendants in the same Plea they which allow cannot have a Challenge to the Sheriff for the Defendants might by confession of the surmise of the Plaintiff to be true have had a Writ directed to the Coroners and although the entry is Calumnia illa non obstant that is the form of the Award and if he should be allowed otherwise afterwards to challenge the Array then it would be infinite As a man ought to alledge but one principall Challenge though he hath many so it shall be peremptory to the Defendant and when he allows the Sheriff indifferent that shall be taken to be for all causes precedent unlesse it be of latter time And so is the opinion of 20 E 4. 2. And if there be many Defendants if one challenge the Array that shall be peremptory for the others as it seems for the others ought when they challenge the Tales to shew cause presently of the Challenge for if it be quashed that shall also be against them vide Dyer 201. in Attaint vide 36 H. 6. 21. that where one challenge the Array which is affirmed the other Defendants after may challenge the Array of the Tales The second point is if it be a principall challenge or no by reason that the Lessor is not party to the Action vide 10 E 4. 12. 15 E. 4. 18. and 21 E. 4. 61. there it seems that where the Defendant justifies as Servant to I.S. and that the Land is his Free-hold it is a principall challenge that a Iuror is within the Distresse of John S. for the Title is to be tryed And now it was found by common experience that the Lessâ—e is but Servant common recoveries at this day are but as other common Conveyances But it seems that the Law is contrary and it is not averred that this is a Lease for trying the Title and as Iudges we take no notice therof but vide 3 H 7. 2. contrary to the 10 and 15 E 4. where the Challenge is to the Array because that the Sheriff was of Kindred to him whose Free-hold was in Issue and vide 9 H 7. 22. Cognizance as Bayliff to the Abbot of Ramsey Challenge to the Array because the Sheriff was within the Distresse of the Abbot and that was not a principall Challenge by Fineux Brian and Vavasor because that he was not party to the Writ vide this very Case Dyer 300. And upon argument at the Bar the Court was of opinion that it was no principall Challenge but ought to have concluded with the favour All agreed that a Surmise which is for prevention of delay ought to contain matter which is a principall Challenge for no triall shal be of such suggestion but by the deniall of the Defendant or Confession And by the opinion of Lord Hobart and Iustice Winch cest dedire n'est peremptory to the Defendant for his time of challenge is not till the Iury come to be sworn but I hold the contrary because that he might have confessed the Surmise and so have had time And I rely upon 20 E 4. 2. there in the end of the Case it is said that the Defendant by his deniall where he saies that the Sheriff is not favourable but indifferent there he shall never have a challenge for favour unlesse he shews cause of later time As to the second Point it is no principall Challenge because it might be that the Lessor had granted over the Reversion or that the Defendant might be found Not guilty And a principall Challenge ought to contain such matter which being so the Law adjudge favourable and in this very case two Presidents scil Iudgments more strong then this case Bedforne and Dandy Hil 44 Eliz Rot 1208. Bedforne against Dandy in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir John Digby after Not guilty pleaded a Surmise made of consanguinity between the Lessor and the Sheriff c. confessed and therupon a Venire facias to the Coroners and after the Challenge was adjudged insufficient and a Venire facias likewise to the Sheriff was ruled Craddock and Wenlock Trin 14 Jac. Rot. 2284. Craddock against Wenlock in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir Robert Cotton such Challenge and Award to the Coroners and tryed and adjudged a mis-tryall and a Venire facias awarded to the Sheriff and the mis-tryall is not aided by the Statute vide Coke lib 5. Bainhams case And so by the Iudgment of the Court this Challenge was insufficient and Warburton being then sick was of the same opinion as he told me vide 8 Eliz Dyer 281. Austen and Baker in Attaint vide 33 H. 6. 21. 3. Defendants one challenge the Array of the Principall and that being affirmed the other Defendants challenge the Tales Mich. 16 Jac. Easington versus Boucher Debt Severall Defendants in Debt upon a joynt Contract may plead severall pleaâ— EAsington brought an action of Debt upon a joynt Contract against Sir John
and art used by Bakers of Bread in private mens houses as by common Bakers And every â—ooman which bake in private if she be a good Housewife use the art and mystery of a Baker And if a man had said generally that he had gained his living by buying and selling and not shewn what Trade he had used it is not good Therfore the Trade ought to be alledged and so sufficiently that the Court may judge him such a person as is within the Statute of Bankrupts Also Winch said that it is not alledged that he gained his living by buying and selling any thing which concerne his Trade And I was of the same opinion and relyed upon the case of 11 H. 4. 45. An nation upon the case against an Inn. keeper and shewed that he was lodged there and his Horse was stoln And the Defendant pleaded a plea that he delivered to him the Key of the Stable c. And by the Court the Writ shall abate because he did not shew that he was a common Hostler And therfore Iudgment arrested And the Court agreed that if the Count were good the words would maintain an action for a Baker is a Trade mentioned in the Statute 5 Eliz. but it ought to be a Common Baker Trin. 20 Jac. Whiteguift versus Eldersham Second deliverance JOhn Whiteguift brought a Writ of second deliverance against Richard Eldersham for taking of his Cattle at Clanding in quodam loco vocat Corles Paud. The Defendant makes Conuzance as Bayliff to Sir Francis Barrington because that the place c. was parcell of the Mannor of Curles and that John Curles was seised before the time Avowry c. therof and held it of Sir Francis Berrington as of his Mannor of Clanding by Knights servies viz. by Homage Fealty survitium scuti and by the Rent of ten pounds payable yearly at two Feasts of which Rent the said Sir Francis was seised by the hands of the said John Whiteguift as by the hands of his very Tenant in his Demsn as of sea and Avow put Homage infect wherupon the Plaintiff demur And shew for cause that the Defendant had not shewn any Title to have Homage of the said John and that the Cognizance is repugnant and no sufficient Seisin alledged of the Services and that the shewing of the Seisin is not formall vide Bevils case Coke lib 4. fol 6. Seisin of Rent is the Seisin of the Services and he might have traversed the Tenure and the other party ought to shew whether he had done Homage before vide 44 E. 3. 41. when an Avowry is upon the Baron for the Homage of the Feme it is sufficient Avowry without shewing that he had Issue by her and yet if he had not Issue he could not avow upon the Baron but that ought to come on the other party vide 5 E. 2. Fitz. Avowry 209. A man avow for Homage and alledge Seisin of Esenage without Homage and good And after upon motion this Term Iudgment was entred for the Defendant Trin. 20 Jac. Sherwells Case MAry Sherwell brought a Writ of Dower Dower and in But therto it was pleaded that the Father of the Husband of the Demandant was seised of one house and sixty acres of Land in Fire and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of the Husband and the said Mary for their lives Joynture which bars Dower for the Ioynture of the said Mary the remainder to their Heirs And that afterward the Father died in the life of the Husband and aftre the Husband died And adjudged that this is no Ioynture to bar Dower according to the opinion in Varnons Case because that the Estate of the Wife at the Commencement take not effect immediatly after the death of the Husband Et quod abinitio non valet tractu temporis non convalefeit And if a Feoffment to the use of the Baron for life the remainder to I. S. for years remainder to the Feme for her Ioynture this is not a Ioynture he bar Dower Trin. 20 Jac. Francis Curle versus James Cookes AN action of the case was brought and Count Case that the King by his Letters Patents An 12 Jac. reciting the Statute of 31 H. 8. for erecting of the Court of Wards and the Officers therof and that two persons shall be named by the King and his Successors who shall be Auditors of the Land of the Kings Wards And reciting the Statute of 33 H. 8. for the making of the Master of the Wards and Liveries and his power had made him the Plaintiff one of his Auditors and granted to him the Fees due and accustomed to be had and 40. Marks fee and gave power to him as one of his Auditors according to the said Statute and to exercise it with the Fees in as ample a manner as others had used And averred that at the time of the Patent made and at all times after the erection of the said Court the Auditors had engrossed all the Accounts of the Feodaries and that they had taken therfore two shillings and shewed that he was sworn and exercised that Office and shewed the Oath specially and that he had by vertue therof ingrossed divers Accounts of the Feddaries and had taken therfore two shillings and that the Defendant having conference with the Plaintiff concerning his Office and his bone gesture therin said to him You have received money for ingrosement of Feodaries innuendo the said Fees for ingrosement of the Accounts of the Receivers Feodaries and other Officers aforesaid which I will prove is Cousenage And then and there spoke further You are a Couseâ—er innuendo the said Francis decepisse Dominum Regem 8. subditor in executione officii praedicti and you live by Cousenage deceptionem dicti Domini Regis subditorum shorum in executione officii ful Non Culp verdict pro Plaintiff and Damages thirty three pounds It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Attho that first it is alledged that the Fee of two shillings is lawfull and that he said You have received monies for ingrossement of Feodaries which I will prove is Cousenage innuendo the Fees aforesaid which are lawfull and then by his own shewing it is not Cousenage 2. It is insensible Ingrossements of Feodaries for they cannot be ingrossed but their Accounts 3. That Ad tunc ibidem for the other words are for other words spoken at another time of the same day and they are not actionable for they do not relate to his Office Also the words will not maintain action for the word Cousenage is generall and of an ambiguous interpretation and therfore no action lies for that And he resembled it to Sir Edmund Stanhops case He hath but one Mannor and hath got it by swearing and forswearing Midlemore and Warlow And to the Case of Midlemore and Warlow An. 30 Eliz. Thou art a cousening Knave and hast cousened me
3 H 6. 14. 32. there it is well argued and the better opinion that it is only by argument And a man outlawed may make an Executor and this Executor may have a Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry And therupon and upon the view of the Record in Woolleys case the Court gave Iudgment that it is no plea. Lightfoot versus Brightman Covenant LIghtfoot brought on action of Covenant against Brightman and count that the Defendant being possessed of an Advowson in grosse for tearm of years covenanted that he would not grant nor assign his Interest to any Grant of an Advowson pleaded without alledging to be by deed good if the issue be taken upon collaterall matter without offer therof first to the Plaintiff and that he should have it fifty pounds better cheap then any other and alledge breach of the Covenant that he granted the said Advowson and his tearm therin over without offering it to the Plaintiff and Issue joyned upon non concessit and found by Verdict quod concessit and damages fifty pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is not alledged that the Grant upon which the Issue is joyned was by Deed and then no breach assigned I at the first was of opinion that the Iudgment should stay but after upon advisement I concurred with Serjeant Hobart and Iustice Winch that it was averred by the Verdict for now it being a perfect Grant it shall be intended that upon the Evidence a Deed was shewn as upon Issue joyned upon Grant of a Reversion where it is not alledged that it was by Deed or that the Tenant atturned yet if it be found it shall be good And so in Avowry for a Rent-charge where the Grant therof is pleaded not by Deed and Issue is joyned fur concessit and found quod concessit that is good by the Verdict like to Nichols case Coke lib 5. Debt upon a Bill payment pleaded and Issue found for the Plaintiff he had Iudgment But it seems if it had been found for the Defendant the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for the Bar confesse the action as in the 9 H. 6. Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant plead that he delivered it to the Plaintiff to be his Deed when certain Conditions were performed And he pleaded that the Conditions were not performed if it be found accordingly yet the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Coke lib 2. fol 61. Wiscots case a Lease by Baron and Feme which ought to be by Deed pleaded generally and found the Plaintiff had Iudgment vide Smith and Stâ—plâ—tons case Mich. 20 Jac. Chittle versus Sammon CHittle against Sammon in Replevin Replevin Avowry for Rent granted to the Father in see without alledging that it was arreare after the death of the Father Counsance for Rent as Bayliff to Sir John Reves upon a Grant out of the Land wherof the place in which c. was parcell upon a Grant made to the Father of Sir John and for Rent arrear c. Issue was joyned upon this point if the place was parcell of the Land out of which the Rent was granted and found by Verdict that it was And now moved by Attho in Arrest of Iudgment that it is not alledged that this Rent was arrear after the death of the Father as it ought to be and therfore it may be intended that this Rent was arrear in the life of the Father But the Court agreed and resolved that it was good after Verdict for now it is pleaded that it was arrear and not paid to him Ergo it was due to him and though it might have been more fully pleaded yet after Verdict it is sufficient Fletcher versus Harcot AN action upon the case was brought by Fletcher of Otely against Harcot and count Case that wheras the Defendant had arrested one Batersby by a Commission of rebellion Assumpsit in consideration that the plaintiff being an Hostler would keep a Prisoner to save him harmlesse issuing out of the Court of the Lord President and Councell of the North as he affirmed And wheras the Plaintiff keeps a common Inne in Otely and had kept it by the space of five years and had entertained men The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to keep the said Batersby in his Inne at Otely by the space of one night as a Prisoner and that he would keep and save him harmlesse and shew that he had kept him for that night as a Prisoner And Batersby afterward brought an action of false Imprisonment against him for the said keeping of him in his house and that he had expended and laid out in defence thereof ten pounds And that he had required him to save him harmlesse and he refused Non assumpsit found for the Plaintiff and moved by Harvey in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no sufficient consideration because it doth not appear that he had lawfully arrested the said Batersby for it is not affirmatively alledged but as he said Also it doth not appear that the recovery in the action of false Imprisonment was for the same cause but in that he had misinformed for it was in the Record Pro custodia praedicta ex causa praedicta And for the other matter the Lord Hobart seemed at first to doubt if it did not appear that it was a lawfull Arrest then there was no consideration But because the diversity when the consideration appears to be for doing of a thing which is unlawfull As if one at the request of I. S. promise to better I. D. and he promise to save him harmlesse this is a void Consideration But if one request I. S. to enter into the Mannor of Dale and drive out Cattle and that he will save him harmlesse if he doth so and after Trespasse be brought against him and recovery had he shall have his action So if a Sheriff pretending to have a Writ where he hath none arrest one and request an Inne-keeper to entertain him in his house or hire one to conduct the Prisoner to the Gaol and promise to keep him without Damage if an Action be brought and recovery had therupon the party shall have an action of the case against the Sheriff upon this promise for he which doth a thing which may be lawfull and the illegallity therof appear not to him he which imploys the party and assume to save him harmlesse shall be charged And Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff Mich. 20 Jac. Parkers Case Debt Hue and Cry AN action of Debt was brought against the Hundred of _____ in the County of Stafford by William Parker upon the Statute of Winchester cap 1 2. reciting the Statute That forasmuch as Robberies do daily encrease Murthers and burning of houses and Theft be more often used then they have been heretofore Amendment of a false Abreviation and Felons cannot be attainted by the Oathes of the Iurors which had rather suffer strangers to be robbed and
proceed by fiue to enforce him to lay it open yet these Affirmative Customs do not toll the Negative And to prove that the Lord had an Inheritance therin he vouched 14 E 2. Fitz. Grant 92. A Rent granted to one and his Heirs out of the Mannor of Dale which he hold of the Mannor of D. this is an Inheritance And if this shall not be a forfeiture then this Customary Inheritance which the Lord had in the feild-course might be tolled at the will and pleasure of the Copyholder Serjeant Hitcham argued strongly to the contrary First That it is no Inclosure because that all is not inclosed Secondly The forfeiture of a Copyhold is alwaies by some thing done to the Copyhold land it self but this is done as it is supposed to the feild-course of the Lord which is not Copyhold and it is better for the Copyhold and makes the land better and also the Feild-course is therby made better and more beneficiall to the Lord and therfore the Copyhold land is not altered but is meliorated and it is like so the case in Dyer 361. Althams case after no Wast done the Evidence was that a Trench was made in a Meadow by which the Meadow was Meliorated and adjudged no wast which might be given in evidence But he said that in Brooks case at the first comming of Popham to be chief Iustice it was adjudged that if a Copyholder build a new house it is a forfeiture for that altoreth the nature of the thing and put the Lord to more charge So if Tenant for yeare makes a Hay-yard in the land that is wast He said that this Custom is qualified by taking a Fine if he would or by imposing a pain in the Court to enforce the Defendant to lay it open And all the Court were of opinion that this is no forfeiture for the reasons before and that this Feild-course is a thing which commence by agreement and is but a Covenant and not of common right And Forfeitures which are odious in Law shall be taken strickly Trin. 5 Car. Starkey versus Tayler Case STarkey an Atterney of this Court brought an action upon the case against one Mr. Tayler of Lincolns Inn for saying of these words to him Words Thou art a common Barretor and a Judas and a Promoter And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words maintain not action for the generality and uncertainty that he shall be called a common Barretor And the chief Iustice seemed to be of opinion that those words are not more then if he had said That he was a common Brabler or Quarreller But it was urged by Serjeant Hicham that the action lies and that it is a generall Rule Quod sermo relatur ad personam As in Birchley's Case He is a corrupt man And in Mores Case it was said of an Attorney That he was a cousening Knave And if these words were spoken of a common person he doubted if they were actionable but being spoken of an Attorney action lies And if these words were spoken of Iudge without doubt they were actionable And in this case being spoken of an Attorney who is a Minister of Iustice and who hath the Causes of his Clients in his hands to gain them or to lose them The Statute of Westminster saies the Sheriffs are charged to expell all Barretors out of their Countries And in the Statute of 34 E. 3. is the description of a common Barretor and his punishment who is a stirrer of false and unjust Suits and that he shall be imprisoned during the pleasure of the King bound to his good behaviour and fined And Littleton in his Chapter of Warranties faith they are hired to keep Possessions and therfore an action lies But to say of another man That he is a common Barretor is not actionable unlesse he saith that he is convicted Hil. 3 Car Rot. 1302. Watt versus Maydewell Leicest WIlliam Watt brought an Ejectione firmae against Laurence Maydewell Where acceptance of a new Lease for years makes a surrender of the former upon a Lease made by Robert Rome upon Not guilty and a speciall Verdict found the Case was thus Francis Griffith seised of Land in Fee by Indenture bearing date the fourteen of November and 14 Iac. demised the said Land wherof c. for one and forty years to Robert Rome rendring two shillings Rent to commence from the Annunciation which shall be An 1619. and after the same year by another Indenture bearing date the third of December 15 Iac. to commence from the Annunciation last demised the same Lands for ninety nine years to Dame Frances Perroint who entred and was therof possessed And after that the said Francis Griffith by another Indenture the same year bearing date the fourteen day of November 16 Iac. to commence from the seventeenth of November An. 1619. devise it to the said Robert Rome for one and forty years who accepted it and afterwards entred and being possessed made his Will and appointed Executors and died the Executors administred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who was possessed untill he was ousted by the Defendant And the only question of this Case was if the acceptance of the second Lease by Robert Rome had determined discharged or extinguished the former Lease And after Argument it was adjudged for the Plaintiff the reason was because that by the Lease made to the Lady Perpoint for ninety nine years and her Entry Francis Griffith had but a Reversion and could not by his Contract made afterwards with Robert Rome give any Interest to Robert Rome This Lease made to Robert Rome viz. his former Lease was good in Interest being to commence at a day to come and is grantable over and may be surrendred or determined by matter in Law before the Commencement therof as if he take a new Lease to commence presently which see in 37 H. 6. 29. 22 E. 4. for it tuures in Contract And in this case it had been without question that the taking of the new Lease had been a surrender of the former if it were not by reason of the Lease for ninety nine years which is for so great a number of years that disables him to contract for one and forty years 37 H. 6. 17. 18. 14 H. 7. 3. Dyer 140. Vide Smith and Stapletons case in Plowden If a man makes a Lease for one and twenty years and after makes a Lease for one and twenty yeares by Paroll that is meerly void but if the second Lease had beene by Deed and hee had procured the former Lease to Attorn he shall have the Reversion vide Ive's Case Coke lib 5. fol 11. there it is adjudged that the acceptance of a Leese for years to Commence at a day to come is a present surrender of a former Lease These Cases were vouched in this Case Baker and Willoughby Serjeant Bakers Case in the Court of Wards with the Lady Willoughby that a
refusall was within the time of six years and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that the request is the cause of the Action for without it he could not have his action And the sole matter upon which Davenport insisted was that this was a Contract by the Husband wherupon the Plaintiff might have an action of Debt against him and then it is but an Assumpsit in Law and the request is not cause of action And therfore he said as well as Debt lies upon the delivery of Cloath to a Taylor for the making Garments therof so an action of Debt lies for the summ accompanying the speciall matter viz. for the payment of so much as the making shall be reasonably worth vide Coke lib 4. fol 147. so Debt lies as well against the said Sir Arthur upon this promise being made then and there he vouched 34 E 1. Fitz Debt 167. vet N. B. fol 62. 30 E 3. 18. 19. 27 H 8. Tatams case But the Court inclined that no action of Debt lay against Sir Arthur upon this Assumpsit but only an action of the case upon the request Mich. 4 Car. Treford versus Holmes Case Assumpsit in consideration of forbearance TReford brought an action upon the Case against Holmes as Executor and counted that wheras the Testator was indebted to the Plaintiff the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the said Debt for a reasonable time assumed to pay it And this promise was made in December and he shew forbearance untill March next And upon Non assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Thinn moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no sufficient consideration for the incertainty of the time if it had been for a little time it had not been good But the Court adjudged it good for the Court ought to judge of the time whether it be reasonable vide Isaac Sidleys case before Then he moved another Exception which was that he had not shewn and averred in the Count that the Defendant had Assets at the time of the promise vide Coke lib 9. fol 93. 94. Baines Case that ought to come on the other part or otherwise it shall be upon Evidence if it be necessary And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Mich. 5 Car. A strange increase of Water in Westminster-Hall MEmorand That on Friday the twenty third day of October by reason of the greatnesse of the Spring-tyde and a great Flood the Hall of Westminster was so full of water that neither the Serjeants could come to the Bar nor any stand in the Hall for there was a Boat that rowed up and down there and therfore all that was done my Brother Harvey went to the Stairs which came out of the Exchequer and rode to the Treasury and by this way went and set in the Court and Adjourned all the Iuries for it was the fourth day del tres Mich. And after that we were in the Exchequer Chamber and heard four or five motions of the Prothonatories there This comming into Court was not of necessity unlesse it had been the Essoin day or that the Court should be Adjourned as Craft Animar The Chancery and Kings Bench sate for they came by the Court of Wards Freeman versus Stacy Mich. 5 Car. BEtween Freeman and Stacy upon a speciall Verdict the Case was y The Plaintiff count upon a Lease by Indenture for one and twenty years rendring Rent and in debt for the arrearages of this Rent it appears that the arrearages of the Rent for which the action was brought were due six years and more before the action brought And the Lord Richardson was of opinion Arrearages of Rent reserved by Indenture is not within the act of 21 Jac. of Limitations that Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff because the Statute of the 21. of King James cap. 16. extends to Debts for arrearages of Rent expresly But I and my Brother Harvey and Brother Yelverton concurred that this action of Debt being upon a Lease by Indenture is not limited to any time by this Statute but is out of it and shall be brought as before the making of this Statute The words are All actions of debt grounded upon any lending or Contract without specialty All actions of Debt for arrearages of Rent c. And this is an action upon a Contract by specialty 4 H 6. 31. he ought to declare upon the Indenture and it is a Contract viz. a Lease And there is cause of using the Indenture every half year And it was resembled to the case upon the Statute of 32 H 8. of Limitation a Rent-charge which is founded upon a Deed or a Reservation of a Rent upon a Fee-â—â—mple by Deed are not within the Statute of Limitation And nothing in this Statute was intended to be limited which was founded upon a Deed And the words Debt for arrearages of Rent are supplyed and satisfied by the arrearages of Rent upon a Demise without Deed. And as to the Obligation that he proof of payment might be wanting when the occasion is brought so long after the Rent became due that might be objected to Debt upon an Obligation where the day of payment is for a long time past And afterward the Lord Richardson mutata opinione agreed with us And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 6 Car. Shervin versus Cartwright SHervin brought a Writ De rationabile parte bonorum against Cartwright and counted of Custom in the County of Nottingham Rationabl pars bonorum is not within the â— Statute of 21â— Jac. of Limitations and shew all specially and the conclusion was that he detaineth particular Goods of the party Plaintiff which appertained to him as his part and portion And upon Non detinet pleaded it was found that the Plaintiff was intituled to this Action many years before the Statute of 21 Jac. and that he had not brought his action within the time limited by the said Statute And upon the speciall Verdict the Case being argued by Serjeant Ward for the Plaintiff it was adjudged for the Plaintiff First because that this Action is an Originall Writ in the Register and is not mentioned in the said Act and though that the Issue is Non detinet yet this is no action of Detinue for a Writ of Detinue lies not for money unlesse it be in bags but a Rationabile parte bonorum lies for money in Pecuniis numeratis vide the Book of Entries Rationabile parte bonorum And this action lies not before the Debts be paid And the Account was that therby it might be known for what it should be brought and that in many cases requires longer time then the Statute gives Another reason was that Statutes are not made to extend to those cases which seldom or never happen as this case is but to those that frequently happen Also this Statute tolls the Common Law and shall not be extended to equity And upon all these
the said Francis was seised in Fee and before the time of the Trespasse supposed viz. 8 Jac in consideration of a Marriage to be between the said Francis his Son and the Plaintiff for her Ioynture made a Feoffment therof to the use of the said Francis and Rachel the Plaintiff and to the Heirs of the said Francis upon the body of the Plaintiff begotten the remainder to the Heirs of Francis in Fee and shewed the marriage and that by force of the Statute of 27 H 8. they were seised ut supra is limited Absque hoc that the aforesaid Francis Tayler the Father of the aforesaid Francis the Son died seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances de nova assignat in his Demesn as of Fee Modo forma prout praedictus defendens superius allegavit hoc paratus est verificare c. unde c. wherupon the Defendant demurred Vide 3 H 6 Brook Traverse 30 H 6 7. Brook Traverse 359. In Trespasse the Defendant plead his Freehold the Plaintiff plead the dying seised of his Father and that he is Heir and entred and that the Defendant disseised him the Defendant traversed the Disseisin and not the dying seised of his Father and good vide the said Book of 30 H 6. 7. by Prisot if I in Assise plead that my Father died seised in Fee that I entred as Son and Heir to him and was seised untill by R. disseised who enfeoffed the Plaintiff upon whom I entred here the Disseisin is not traversable but the dying seised vide 33 H 6. 59. Wangford put this case In Assise if the Defendant plead that his Father was seised and died seised and give colour to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff ought to traverse the dying seised and not the possession of the Father which is the cause of the dying seised Vide 30 H. 6. fol 4. Entry in nature of an Assise the Defendant plead that W. was seised in Fee and enfeoffed him and give colour the Plaintiff replies that W. was seised in jure Uxoris and that he had Issue and his Wife died and he was Tenant by the Curtesie and made a Feoffment sans ceo that W. was seised modo forma and Issue taken and there it is said that the Issue is well taken This case was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that no dying seised is pleaded so that it might be traversed but with a Sic scisitus obijt Also the matter only traversable here is the seisin in Fee modo forma for by the Replication Seisin joyntly with the Plaintiff and to the Heirs of the body of the said Francis with a Fee-simple in him is confessed and that is good with the Traverse Memorand That this Case was moved by Serjeant Hitcham Trin. 10 Car. And Serjeant Hedley moved for the Defendant and vouched 5 H 7. 7. and the Record was read and all the Court agreed that it was a good Traverse And that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff Pasch 10 Car. Dawe versus Palmer Case JOhn Dawe Plaintiff against William Palmer in an action upon the Case and count that wheras he was a Fuller and had used the Trade of Falling and therby acquired his livelyhood and was of good Credit Words c. The Defendant said of him Trust him not for he owes me a hundred pound and is not worth one Groat And at another day he said He is a Bankrupt Rogue And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iurors found for the Plaintiff and gave entire Damages And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the first words were not actionable and then the Iury having given entire Damages the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for any part vide Osbornes case Coke lib 10. But in this case after many debates it was resolved by the Court that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment For the first words are actionable at Common Law before the Statute Trust him not he is not worth one Groat Go not to buy of I.S. a Merchant for he will deceive you Of an Inne-keeper Go not to such an Inne for he is so poor that you can have no good entertainment Of an Atturney Use him not for â—e will cousen you All these words are actionable He will be a Bankrupt within seven daies And for the other words That he is a Bankrupt Rogue that is resolved Coke lib. 4. to be actionable And it was a Case Pasch 10 Car. in a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber upon Iudgment given in the Kings Bench between Dunkin and Laycroft Dunkin and Laycroft for words spoken of a Merchant who had been at Hamborow in partibus transmarinis and there hâ—d used the Trade of a Merchant and Factor Thou innuendo the Plaintiff camest over from Hamborow a broken Merchant And adjudged actionable and so affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber And upon all these Authorities the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Mich. 10 Car. Deanes Case DEane being robbed in an Hundred in Kent brought an action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry and a speciall Verdict being found tâ—â— Dourt intended was If one be assaulted to be robbed in one Hundred Hue and Cry and he escape and flye into another Hundred and the Theeves instantly pursue him rob him there if the Hund. in which he was robbed should be solely charged And the opinion of the Court was that it should but upon reading the Record this appeared not to be the Case And the Court was informed that the Sheriffs had taken the Goods of one in execution who was not inhabiting within the Hundred at the time of the Robbery committed but came afterwards And the Court was of opinion that he was not chargable Mich. 10 Car. Knight versus Copping RObert Knight brought an action upon the case against Valentine Copping one of the Attorneys of this Court count Case That wheras one Edw. Loft had brought an action of debt for 30 l. against him And therupon such processe was that a non pros was entred costs of 30 s. assessed for the now Plaintiff An action of the case for â— entring Judgment after non pros the now Defendant being Attorney for the said Ed. Loft having notice therof unduly and maliciously procured a judgment to be entred for the said Ed. Loft against the now Plaintiff sued execution against him wherby he was taken and imprisoned untill he was delivered by a writ of Supersedeas The Defendant Protestando that there was no such Iudgment for the said Edward Loft against the said now Plaintiff nor that he was taken in Execution therupon for plea saith that there is not any Record of the said Non pros The Plaintiff replies that at the time of the said Iudgment entred for the said Edward Loft And when the now Plaintiff was taken in Execution and imprisoned therupon the said Iudgment of Non pros against the said Edw. L. and