Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	court_n	defendant_n	1,397	5	10.0062	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49528	A defence of the rights and priviledges of the University of Oxford containing, 1. An answer to the petition of the city of Oxford. 1649. : 2. The case of the University of Oxford, presented to the Honourable House of Commons, Jan. 24. 1689/90.	University of Oxford.; Harrington, James, 1664-1693. Case of the University of Oxford.; Langbaine, Gerard, 1609-1658. Answer to the petition of the city of Oxford.	1690 (1690)	Wing L366; ESTC R9958	36,771	63

upon Bond and though his debt and Bond were well proved or ready to be proved by sufficient witnesses and no defect in his Councel or Atturney nor any disability in the Defendants yet could he not get his mony in that Court after a long and tedious suit neer two years and much expence Yet is not the Court to be blamed but the dilatorie cunning of the Defendants and we cannot think it reasonable to charge the faylings of men or other intervening casualties upon the Law or the Court either theirs or ours the due proceedings of which later are in themselves as compendious as of any other ordinary Court whatsoever To the Fourth and last Reason We answer 1. That such Courts as ours have been found by long experience to consist very well with the most flourishing Commonwealths that ever were or are in the world and with the liberty of those people who had or have no other order or manner of proceedings in their Courts then such as is objected to ours 2. That as we humbly conceive the wisdom of this State in former ages thought it fit that our Ancestors should use the practise of the Civil Laws in our Court the better to train up young Students in the knowledge of them that they might thereby be made more serviceable to the Commonwealth in affairs at home and abroad 3. That our University Court is of such antiquity that the Common Law-Books and some very ancient take frequent notice of it the proceedings thereof being always allowed by the Common-Law And the Lord Chief Justice Cook in his Book Of the Iurisdiction of Courts in England lately published by authority of the Honourable House of Commons makes honourable mention of the Courts in both the Universities 4. That if the Citizens be Plaintiffes as most commonly they are besides the expedition which they may find there they may have the benefit of the Defendants Oath to ease them in their proof They may have good sureties put into Court not only to bring in the Defendants but also to pay the Iudgment and Costs of Suit they may arrest not only the Body of any Priviledged person but also his goods debts and things in Action 5. That though this particular if it were a grievance does not only concern the Citizens of Oxon but all others who shall have any commerce or dealing with Scholars or Priviledged persons yet have no others complained of our Court and the Petitioners of all others have least cause 6. That we do not challenge or exercise any other jurisdiction over the Petitioners or others in the University Court than the Citizens of Oxon themselves and all or most other Cities and Boroughs in England do claim and daily practice without contradiction over all other free-born people of the Land to wit to Arrest and compel them to answer in their respective Courts if they can be there legally attached to Answer 7. That we do not claim or exercise any greater or other Priviledge in this particular than as we conceive is granted to and used by other Universities in Europe as well as ours to wit to sue and be sued before their own Judge a Priviledge indulged to them and us in favor of Learning that Scholars may not be called abroad to answer Suits to the great neglect of their studies and expence of their time and mony 8. That in mixt Suits where one party is of the Priviledge of the University and the other of the City since it cannot be otherwise but such Causes must be heard and determined either in our Court or the Town Court or both must be subject to a forreign jurisdiction which would be equally repugnant to the Priviledges of both Bodies no way advantagious unto them and extreamly inconvenient for us we cannot but conceive it more consonant to justice and withal more convenient that the Priviledge of the Vniversity should herein take place of theirs 1. Because this Priviledge has been anciently granted to us and we have been many hundred years in possession of it and it is also confirmed unto us by Act of Parliament 2. Because the Judges in the University Court having no interest in the particular Suits brought before them cannot be thought other then indifferent Whereas if Scholars should be Sued in the Town Court where the Maior and Bayliffs Judges and Jury are all Tradesmen it is very much to be feared it would go hard with the poor Scholars 3. Because as we humbly conceive the University is still as it has alwaies been reputed the more noble Corporation more Serviceable in the publick and in which the whole Nation has a greater interest than in the City or Citizens who for the most part are beholding to the University for much of their livelyhood and subsistence as themselves in the fifth Article do imply whereas we have no dependence upon them but only wares for our mony at dear rates 4. Lastly Because as we likewise conceive if the Petitioners should prove so unfortunately successful in their desires to obtain the liberty of Suing Scholars in their Town-Court it would prove in the end very prejudical to themselves for besides that it would minister occasions of discontent and continual quarrels betwixt the Bodies it would deter Scholars from having any dealing or commerce with their new Judges the Citizens II. To the Reasons of their second Grievance made up with divers specious instances to cast aspersions upon the Universities Right and Priviledge of the Night-walk We answer 1. That the Right and Custome is so ancient so strengthned by confirmation of Parliament and the benefit thereof so great to all inhabitants by the careful practice and exercise of it and the continuance of it so absolutely necessary for the good government of the University especially for securing younger Scholars against the many temptations to lewdness and loosness which they ordinarily are exposed to by means of such Townsmen as make their own advantage out of the others luxury and deboystness that no man of any civil conversation Stranger Sojourner Citizen or other hath ever expressed the least reluctancy against it As for such disorderly walkers who are of a contrary disposition it is used only to reduce them to civility and the Proctors exercise the like power over them which the Constables and Magistrates in other places are allowed by the Laws of the Land to preserve the quiet of the place and to punish the misdemeanors of such as are disorderly 2. We do not know that any Proctors ever exercised such power over the Publick Magistrates of the City in the due execution of their offices as is charged in this Article Or if any did the parties grieved might have their remedy against them the University does not claim any such power 3. We answer and deny that the City have any such ancient Charters concerning five Aldermen and eight assistants of the City as is pretended in this Article 4. We likewise deny that in the

not To the Eleventh The University claims Felons Goods and Deodands by an ancient Charter confirmed by Act of Parliament and we deny that the City has any right to them at all To the Thirteenth The University does license Taverns in Oxford according to the true intent of the Statute 7 o Edw. 6 ●i and the persons so licensed are and may be Townsmen as well as Priviledged Persons And the City hath no right to set up any To the Fourteenth The University by ancient Custome and several Charters confirmed by Act of Parliament and special Compositions with the City doth Claim that Priviledg'd persons may exercise Trades according to the Law as far forth as any Townsmen But against the Law as not having served as an Apprentice in such Trades where the Law requires it we neither challenge nor exercise any more power then the Citizens themselves To the Second Tenth Twelfth and Fifteenth and part of the Fourth we have forborn to answer in regard the Petitioners have omitted them in their last paper of Grievances of the 10 th of April and by their Councel in the Audience of this Committee upon the 21. of Iune did openly declare they would not insist upon them To the Paper of Reasons exhibited by the Petitioners April 30. 1649. 1. To the Reasons of their first Grievance 1. TO the first Reason of their first Grievance We answer and deny it to be true that they have any such Charter allowed in Eyre or any such Custome as is pretended viz. Not to be sued out of their own Court Nor ought to have for the reasons following 1. For that the University Court and the jurisdiction thereof is of a higher antiquity then any Charter of the Citizens legally confirmed concerning their Court. 2. For that in the most and principal Charters of the City as also in such Acts of Parliament as tend to the confirmation of them there is an express saving of all the Rights and Priviledges of the University 3. For that it appears by common Practice that the Citizens mutually sue one another in the Courts at Westminster and elsewhere both by original Suits commenced in those Courts and by removing their Suits out of their own Courts by Writs of Habeas Corpus Certiorari and Writs of Error 4. For that they are ordinarily sued by Strangers both in the Courts at Westminster and other Courts and we cannot find that ever they pleaded any such Charter of Exemption or if they did that any such Plea was ever allowed to them Whereas the Universities Priviledge hath been frequently pleaded and in all ages allowed 2. Whereas the Petitioners claim by their Charters the same Liberties and Customs with London We answer 1. The Petitioners have not made it appear nor so much as asserted that London has any such Liberty or custome whereby They may not sue and be sued out of their own Courts 2. That supposing They have such a Liberty or Custome at present yet the Petitioners have not made it appear or so much as asserted that London had any such Liberty at or before the time of the Grant of those surmised Charters to the City of Oxford 3. That divers other Cities and Boroughs in England have by their respective Charters like Grants of the same Liberties with London and Oxon who yet are not exempted from suing and being sued out of their own Courts 4. That it will appear that the most ancient Charter which the City of Oxon can pretend to in relation to the liberties of London is utterly repugnant to it self as to the principal of those Liberties 5. That Custome is the work of time and grows without Charter and therefore can not be granted by Charter 6. That the Customs of London are of great variety to some of which notwithstanding their Charter be general for all the Citizens of Oxon do not pretend and to other some when they have laid claim by suits at common Law by petition to the Lord Maior and Aldermen of London by petition in Parliament and by pleadings in Eyre their claim has not been allowed 3. Whereas the Petitioners suggest that their Fee-Farm would be either lost or lessened in case their suits and trials should be in the Chancellors Court We answer 1. That ever since the Borough of Oxon was first rented out to that Corporation in Fee-Farm they have continually faln in their Rent but enhaunced their Revenues by Challenging and taking several particulars as belonging to their Fee-Farm which in truth are no part of it 2. That granting the perquisites of their Court from the proper Suiters to be part of their Fee-Farm yet their suing and being sued in the University Court where a Scholar or priviledged person is one party would nothing impair the just perquisites of their Court or Fee-Farm in regard it was never otherwise since they had either Court or Fee-Farm in Oxon. 4. Whereas the Petitioners conceive there are at this present near about a third part of the housholders within the City Priviledged by the University We answer 1. That we conceive a tenth part of the Housholders within the City and Suburbs are not priviledged persons And that as the benefit of their priviledge by the daily growing oppressions and vexation of the Petitioners is in a manner wholy destroyed so the number of priviledged persons is much less than ever it was heretofore within the memory of man 2. That if it were true which the Petitioners suggest it thence follows that the Petitioners by desiring as they do in their Article to restrain all Priviledged persons from exercising any Trade within the City do thereby desire to expose a third part of the Housholders within the City as being priviledged as they say to want and beggery To the second reason We answer That it proceeds wholly upon mistakes of the manner and rules of proceeding in the University Court which we conceive we have sufficiently cleared in our former Answer to their First Article of Grievances To the third Reason We answer That there is as quick expedition in our Court as in any other Courts and they may as well object That divers persons commenced several Suits in the Courts at Westminster for just debts due unto them by bond and for injuries committed against them and yet it may be for want of good proof by witness or otherwise as for want of able Councel or careful Atturnies to look well to their pleadings and executions or for want of abilitie in the parties sued after long and tedious suits and much expence have been destitute of any redress and therefore this manner of reasoning is not at all concludent being an argument drawn à non causa ut causa which if it were of any force we might easily turn the edge of it upon the Petitioners by giving instance in a Priviledged person who has a Cause now or lately depending in the Town Court wherein he sues divers Citizens for a just debt