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	defendant_n	plaintiff_n	3,071	5	10.8111	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46717	The Argument of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench concerning the great case of monopolies, between the East-India Company, plantiff, and Thomas Sandys, defendant wherein their patent for trading to the East-Indies, exclusive of all others, is adjudged good.	Jeffreys, George Jeffreys, Baron, 1644 or 5-1689.; Sandys, Thomas.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; East India Company.	1689 (1689)	Wing J526; ESTC R17792	37,073	36

the Bar. For the Writ in Fitz. N. B. 85. and the Register import no such thing and our Books say the Surmises mentioned in those Writs are not traversable so is Dyer 165. 296. for surely the King may restrain his Subjects from going beyond Sea and is not bound to give any reason for his so doing but that is not now in Question II. In the next place I do not conceive there is any difference tho much discourse hath been about Indians and Infidels whether the East-Indies were at the time of the Grant of this Patent inhabited by Christians or Infidels tho by the way in the debating of this Case I shall shew perhaps that matter may in some measure affect the Defendant but will not at all affect the Grant to the Plaintiffs So that I conceive that whether this Country or Place or any other be inhabited by Christians or Infidels that is not otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament will make but the same Question III. Whether every Clause and Article in these Letters Patents viz. Touching forfeiture of Ship and Goods Imprisonments or divers other clauses contained in the Charter be legal or not is not now in question For surely it would be hard to maintain them all and therefore the Plaintiffs Councel have avoided those Questions by bringing this Action and tho the Defendants Councel have mentioned them yet surely it was onely intended to fully the Cause and not that they thought them to affect the Question IV. Nor is it the Question Whether by this Grant to the Plaintiffs the King has fettered or confined his Prerogative by putting in a Covenant to exclude himself from granting Licences to others of his Subjects to trade within the limits of the Plaintiffs Charter tho Mr. William's always a friend to the Kings Prerogative in tenderness and care thereof seemed to be surprised by the inconsiderate extravagancy of the Grant and would have us believe that he was afflicted with the dismal Consequences that must necessarily ensue by the King 's parting with so great a Prerogative and that either by the advice consent or the inadvertency of his Attorney General and the rest of his Councel by having a greater regard to the East India Company for the sake of their Money than they had to the King in discharge of their duty To acquit them and us therefore of that Dilemma I am of opinion though it makes nothing to the question that is now before us The King may grant Licences to any of his Subjects to trade to the Indies notwithstanding the Charter or any Article Clause or Condition therein contained to the contrary and notwithstanding any Caution or advertisement that in his argument he gave to the King or his reflection that he made upon his Councel either for their ignorance or hasly inadvertency in the passing of that Grant and I am the rather induced to be of that persuasion for that the most learned of our Profession whose Opinions have been quoted by him and others that have argued on the Defendants side were then of the Kings Councel and were privy to and advised both these Letters Patents and all others of the like nature that have been granted for these hundred years last past I therefore think fit to say that I believe Mr. Attorney General and the rest of the King's Councel have discharged their Duty as well to the King by maintaining of this Grant as Mr. Williams has in this instance manifested his Loyalty by endeavouring to destroy it In short therefore as I said before every Clause in this Charter is not to be maintained and therefore is not to affect the Question now to be determined V. Whereas it has been objected that tho upon the Pleadings it is agreed that the Defendant never was a Member of the East-India Company nor had any Licence from them to trade to the Indies yet he might have a Licence from the King which as I conceive the King is not debarred to grant by any Clause in the Letters Patents yet I am of opinion that if the Defendant had any such License it ought to have been shewn on his part which not being done it ought to be taken by us as I believe the truth of the Fact is the Defendant never had any such Licence VI. It was observed that the Plaintiffs in their Declaration had alledged that this Trade could not be managed but per hujusmodi Corpus Corporatum and by this means they had excluded the King from Constituting any more Companies to trade within their Limits tho perhaps the advantage of this Kingdom might hereafter require it Nay tho the Indians might desire a further Treaty of Commerce or that the Trade of these places might require more Companies to be erected yet say they this Grant hath made the Plaintiffs a mere Republick and thereby has altered the Constitution of England in the management of Trade by Common-wealths by placing it in Companies who were they Independant upon the Crown are truly so called Yet in as much as I did before observe that the King is not by this Grant either excluded from making any new Treaties with the Indians or from making any Corporations or granting any other Licences to any of the rest of his Subjects notwithstanding any of the Clauses in the Charter So I am of opinion that that Objection also does not affect the Question now to be determined and for that reason amongst others I thought it not improper to mention that Clause in the Charter that was omitted at the Bar which the King has annexed as a Condition to his Grant that if it should hereafter appear to his Majesty or his Successors that that Grant or the continuance thereof in the whole or in any part should not be profitable to his Majesty his Heirs and his Successors or to this Realm that after three years warning by War under the Kings Seal or Sign Manual should be made utterly void So that it appearing that the King hath neither divested himself of the power nor at the time of the Grant did design to be prevented to shew his inclination for the promoting of the advantage of his Kingdom has given himself scope enough to obviate all those Emergencies Yet by the way I cannot but observe that Mr. Williams to shew his dislike to a Commonwealth declared it to be absolutely opposite to the interest of a Single Person but the Single Person he concerned himself for was not the King and his Prerogative but his Client the Defendant and his Trade who tho I cannot in propriety of Speech call a Commonwealth yet I cannot but think this opposition of his seems to proceed from a Republican Principle for he by his Interloping has been the first Subject that within this Kingdom for near an hundred years last past hath in Westminster-Hall publickly opposed himself against the King's undoubted Prerogative in the Grant now before us and I hope by this Example