hath three great commodities that is to say Air for his Health Light for his profit prospect for his pleasure may not be taken away no more then a part of his House may be pulled down whereby to erect the next House adjoyning And with this resolution agreeth the Case of Eldred reported by Sir Edw. Cook in his Ninth Report fol. 58. where he sheweth the ancient form of the Action upon the case to be quod messuagium horrida tenebritate obscuratum fuit but if there be hinderance only of the prospect by the new erected House and not of the Air not of the light then an Action of the case will not lye insomuch that the prospect is only a matter of delight and not of necessity As to the second it was resolved by the opinion of the aforesaid Judges that the custome of London will not enable a man to erect a new House upon a void space of ground whereby the ancients lights of an old house are stopt up for first the owner of the old house having possession of a lawful easment and profit which hath been belonging unto the house by prescription time out of mind of man may not be prescribed out of it by another thwarting custome which hath been used time out of mind of man but the latter custome shall rather be adjudged to be void and Prescription against a Prescription will never be allowed by the Law 2. It may well be that before time of memory the owner of the said void piece of ground granted unto the owner of the House to have his Windows that way without any stopping of them the which being done and continued accordingly hath begotten a prescription the which may not be defeated by the Allegation of a general custome and with this resolution doth agree a case adjudged Trin. 29. Eliz. Rot. 253. in the Kings Bench whereupon an action upon the case brought by Thomas Bloond against Thomas Mosley for erecting of a House in the County of the City of York whereby the ancient lights of his House were stopped up The Desendant did plead a Custome for the City of York as there is here for the City of London and adjudged that the Custome was naught whereupon the Plaintiff had his Judgement But if the Houses had been new erected Houses or otherwise Windowes had been newly made Windows in that ancient House the erection of that new House upon that void space of Ground would have been lawful notwithstanding that the Windows and Lights be stopped up for it shall not lie in the power of the owner of the ancient House by setting out his new Windows to prevent him that hath the void peice of Ground from making the best benefit of it As to the third point it was conceived that if the new house be only erected upon the ancient foundation without any inlargement either in Longitude or Latitude howsoever it be made so high that it â—oppeth up the lights of the old house yet he is not subject unto any action because the law authorizeth a man to build as high as he may upon an ancient Foundation and it is no reason to foreclose a man from making his house convenient unto his estate and degree by building up higher when there is no other impediment but only some windowes which are built out over his house and agreeing to this seemeth the old book of 4. E. 3. 150. to be where an Assize of Nusans was brought for erecting his house so high that the light of the Plaintiff in the next adjoyning house was disturbed by it and the Plaintiff upon the opinion of Herl Chief Justice did not proceed in the Assize but let it fall to the ground but if the new builded house exceeded the ancient foundation whereby that excess is the cause of stopping up of lights then is he subject unto the action of him whose light is stopped up as it may appear by 22. H. 6. 25. And in the case at the Bar Judgement was given for the Plaintiff because he had brought his action for building of a new House upon a void piece of ground by which his Windows were stopt up And Keeme the Defendant only justifieth by the Custome the erection of the House upon an old Foundation and upon the void piece of ground the which is not any answer at all unto that which the Plaintiff layeth unto the charge of the Defendant Touching the Custome of Citizens leaving that Trade whereunto they have been Apprentices seven years and betaking themselves to other Trades IOhn Tolley having been an Apprentice in London by the space of seven years unto a Wool-Packer after the seven years expired is made a Freeman of London afterwards he leaveth the Trade of a Wool-Packer and betaketh himself to the Trade of an Vpholster and doth exercise that Trade by many years whereupon one Thomas Allen an Informer doth exhibit an Information in the Court of the Mayor of London as well for the King as for himself upon the branch of the Statute made in the fifth year of the late Queen Elizabeth cap. 4. whereby it is enacted That after the first day of May next ensuing it shall not be lawful unto any person or persons other than such as now do lawfully use or exercise any art Mystery or manual occupation to set up c. any such occupation now used or occupied within the Realm of England or Wales except he shall have been brought up seven years at the least as an Apprentice in manner and form aforesaid nor to set any person on work in such Mystery Art or Occupation being not a Workman at this day except he shall have been an Apprentice as aforesaid or else having served as an Apprentice as is aforesaid shall or will become a Iourney-man or hired by the year upon pain that every person willingly offending or doing the contrary shall forfeit and lose for every default fourty shillings for every moneth And he sheweth that Iohn Tolly the now Defendant hath exercised the trade of an Upholster by the space of fourty moneths whereas he was never an Apprentice to that trade by the space of seven years contrary unto the aforesaid Statute whereby the said Thomas Allen doth demand the forfeiture of eighty pound unto the King and himself whereof he the said Allen doth require the one moyety according to the form of the said Statute And this Information being removed out of the Court of the Mayor of London by Certiorari into the Kings Bench the said Iohn Tolley doth plead a special Plea in Bar shewing that there is a custome of London which hath been used time out of mind of man That every Citizen and Freeman of London which hath been an Appretice in London unto any trade by the space of seven years may lawfully and well relinquish that trade and exercise any other trade at his will and pleasure And sheweth further That all the Customes
It was agreed and resolved That it may and doth well enough hold For howsoever that none was charge able at the Common Law by the name of an Administrator inasmuch as by the Statute of 31. Ed. 3. cap. No accusation lay against an Administrator by that name And that A custome may not commence since the making of that Statute yet inasmuch as he was chargable at the Common Law as an Executor for his Administration so that the name of the charge is only changed and yet in substance is all one For every Executor is an Administrator and the pleading is upon an action brought against an Executor that he never was Executor nor ever administred as an Executor And an Administrator hath the quality and office of an Executor Therefore the custom of Forreign Attachments will hold against an Administrator as well as against an Executor As to the third Question which is Whether the Forreign Attachment for the debt due unto the Intestate after the promise broken be such a dispensation with the promise that no Action now lieth for the Administrator upon the breach of the promise It was agreed and resolved that the promise was dispensed with and no action lay upon the breach of it for the debt due by Tenant unto the Intestate which was the ground and cause of the promise made unto Spink the Plaintiff is taken away by the judgement had in London upon the custome of Forreign Attachments Et sublato fundamento fallit opus And therefore if after the promise broken there had been a Recovery had of the principal debt by the Plaintiff as Administrator or otherwise there had been a Release made unto the Defendant Now the Action upon the Case upon the promise would have failed inasmuch as the debt which was the consideration and ground of the promise is gone and so the dampnification which he should have had by not performance of the promise faileth And agreeing to this resolution was the Case of one Bardeston and Humfry cited to be adjudged whereupon an accompt he that was found in Arrearges upon a consideration of forbearance by one moneth promiseth payment of them And those Arrerages thus due being attached in the hands of the Accomptant after the promise broken It was held that no Action might afterwards be maintained upon the breach of promise The Case concerning the Prisage of Wine KIng Edward the third in the first year of his Reign doth by his Letters Patents bearing date the same time grant unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London that no prisage shall be of any of the Wines of the Citizens of London But they shall be free and discharged from the payment of all manner of Prisage George Hanger being a Citizen and Freeman of London and Resient within the City fraughteth four several Ships with Merchandize to be transported beyond the Seas the which four Ships being disburdened of the said Merchandize are laden with Wines Two of the Ships came up the Thames at London and before any unbulking of them George Hanger maketh Frances Hanger being his wife his Executrix and dieth Afterwards the other two Ships came up to London Sir Thomas Waller being cheif Butler of the King by virtue of Letters Patents made unto him Demandeth the payment of Prisage of the said Frances Hanger for the Wines in the said four Ships that is to say To have of every of the Ships one Tun before the Mast and one other Tun behind the Mast She denieth the payment of it whereupon the said Sir Thomas Waller as chief Butler exhibiteth his Information into the Kings Bench against the said Frances Hanger Whereunto the said Frances pleadeth a special Plea in Barre shewing the whole matter as abovesaid opon which Sir Thomas Waller demurreth in Law The Questions of this case are two The first is whether for the Wines which came up the Thames in the two Ships before the death of George Hanger any Prisage ought to be paid unto the King or not The second is whether any Prisage ought to be paid for the Wines which were upon the Sea in the Ships before the death of the said George Hanger but came not up the Thames until after the death of George Hanger The case was argued at several times by Sir Henry Mountague Knight then Recorder of London now Lord chief Justice of the Kings Bench Thomas Coventry then Utter Barister now Solicitor General unto his Majesty and Francis Mingay an Utter Barister of the Inner Temple on the behalf of Frances Hanger and by Henry Yelverton then an Apprentice of the Law of Graies-Inn and now Attorney General unto his Majesty and Thomas Crew of the same Inn likewise an Apprentice of the Law on the part of Sir Thomas Waller Likewise it was argued at several times by the Judges of the Kings Bench that is to say first by Sir Thomas Fleming Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Crook and afterwards by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Iohn Crook Sir Iohn Dodridge and Sir Robert Houghton And Sir Edward Crook Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Dodridge were of opinion that judgement ought to be given for Frances Hanger against Sir Thomas Waller for they conceived upon the reasons following that no Prisage ought to be paid neither for the Ships that came in after the death of George Hanger nor for the Ships that came in before the death of George Hanger but they all were to be discharged of the payment of Prisage by vertue of the said Charter made by Edward the third unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London First in regard thath these Wines thus in each of the four Ships aforesaid remained notwithstanding the death of George Hanger to be still the Wines of George Hanger for if Frances Hanger the Executrix were to bring an Action for the recovery of them she should bring an Action as for the Wines of George Hanger if Frances Hanger should be wained or attainted of Felony or Treason those Wines should not be forfeited insomuch as they are not the Wines of Frances Hanger but of George Hanger If a Judgement in Debt or other Action should be had against Frances Hanger as Executrix of George Hanger these Wines should be taken in execution as the Wines of George Hanger and so these Wines thus brought in before and after the death of George Hanger continuing as yet the Wines of George Hanger to be recovered as his Wines to be taken in execution as his Wines and to prevent a Forfeiture because these Wines shall be said to be the Wines of George Hanger whereby they may be protected and priviledged from the payment of Prisage within the words intent meaning of the before recited Charter made by King Edward the third which pointeth rather at the Wines then at the person of George Hanger
Commonalty for payment of the said sum at a certain day and thereupon is enlarged The four hundred Marks are not paid at the day whereupon the Mayor and Commonalty affirm a Plaint against him in London for the said Debt The Defendant obtaineth a Habeas Corpus to remove the body and the cause into the Kings Bench upon a supposition that he was to have the Priviledge by reason of a Priority of Suit in the Kings Bench and upon returne of the Habeas Corpus all this matter appeared unto the Court and it was moved by Sir Henry Mountague now Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench then one of the Serjeants of the King and Recorder of London that a Procedendo might be granted whereby the Major and Commonalty might proceed against him in the Court at London It being a customary Suit meerly grounded upon the custome of London But that was denied by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice and the whole Court because by the Law Chamberlain having cause of Priviledge by reason of the Priority of Suit against him in the Kings Bench might not be re-manded but he was to answer in that Court Whereupon the Major and Commonalty did declare against him upon the said Obligation in the Kings Bench. Secondly it was moved that the action upon this obligation might be laid in some indifferent County and not in London forasmuch as the Trial there must be had by those that were Parties unto the Action it being brought by the Mayor and Commonalty But Sir Edward Cook and the Court would not upon this surmise take away the benefit which the Law giveth to every Plaintiff upon a transitory action wich is to lay it in whatsoever County he will And if there be any such cause as is surmised then after Plea pleaded he may make an allegation That the City of London is a County in it self and that all the Citizens there are Parties to the Action which is brought whereby there may not be an indifferent Trial. And upon this surmise the Court shall order the Trial to be in a Forreign County The which was done accordingly and so the matter proceeded The Case of the Merchant-Adventurers KIng Edward the third in the year of his reign by Letters Patents doth incorporate certain persons by the name of the Merchants-Adventurers of England and doth give power unto them to transport white Clothes into divers parts beyond the Seas restrayning them from carrying over Woolls The Merchants-Adventurers do trade beyond the Seas and continue the transposing of Clothes white until the 29. of August in the tenth year of his Majesties Reign that now is At which time the King by his Letters Pattents doth encorporate the Earl of Sussex late Lord Treasurer of England Sir Thomas Vavasour Sir Stephen Soam William Cockayn and others by the name of The Merchants Adventerers of the new trade of London with full power authority to transport dyed and dressed Cloths into divers parts beyond the Seas with a restraint prohibiting all the Old Merchants-Adventurers which did not joyn themselves unto this new Company to tranport any under the forfeiture of them and also inhibiting the New Merchants from transporting any Clothes but such as are died and dressed And after three years passed they having power during that time to transport 36000 white Clothes And there being a refusal of the Old Merchants Adventurers to surrender up their Patent The King bringeth a Quo Warranto against divers of the Merchants of the old Company by particular names to know by what Warrant they do without Licence of the King transport Clothes white undied and undressed beyond the Seas The Merchants upon the return of the Quo Warranto do make their appearance And an Information being exhibited gainst them by Sir Fr. Bacon Knight now Lord Chancellour of England and then Attorney General unto his Majesty cometh into the Kings Bench and moveth the Court that the old Merchants Adventurers might have a short day the next ensuing Term to answer unto the Information exhibited against them Insomuch that the new Company of Merchants Adventurers standing at a gaze as being uncertain of what validity the old Patent would be did slack to transplant the Diers and other Tradesmen out of the Low-Countries into England being necessary Instruments for the puting in Execution of this design because there were not here in England those that were able to Die and Dress in that manner that the Low-Country men did And so there was in the interim a stop of the current of Merchandizing with our Cloth the which being the principal Commodity that we had here in England the Fleece that causeth it may well and aptly have the term of The Golden Fleece and there being a stop made of the traffiquing and trading with these clothes it is as dangerous unto the Politique Body of the Commonwealth as the stop of a Vein could be to the natural Body for as by the stop of a Vein the Blood is debarred of his free passage and so of necessity there must be a Consumption by the continuance of it follow unto the body natural So traffique being the Blood which runneth in the Veins of the Commonwealth it cannot be but that the hinderance of it by any long continuance must breed a Consumption unto the State of the Commonwealth Wherefore to open this Vein which was as yet somewhat stopped and to give a more free passage unto the Blood he was a Suitor unto the Court on the behalf of the Company of the New Merchant-Adventurers that the Court would give expedition in this Case for they conceived that if this new design might take its full effect as it was intended it could not be but of necessity there must a great benefit redound to the Commonwealth For first Whereas our State groweth sick by reason of the many idle Persons which have not means to be set on work this Dying and Dressing of Cloths within our Kingdome would give sufficient imployment unto them all whereby there should be a cure to the lazy Leprosie which now overspreadeth our Commonwealth Secondly Whereas now we send out clothes White and the Low-Country-men receive them of us and Dye them and Dress them and afterwards transport them unto forreign parts making a wonderful benefit to themselves both in point of profit and likewise in respect of maintaining their Navy whereas if the Clothes were Died and Dressed by our selves we might reap that matter of gain and also be Masters of the Sea by strengthening our selves in our Shipping Thirdly Whereas there happeneth often a confiscation of all our Clothes and much disgrace and discredit lighteth upon our Nation and our Clothes by the abuse of the Low-Country-men in stretching them a greater length than they will well bear when they Dye and Dress them now it should be prevented when they should never have the fingering of them to put that abuse in practice Wherefore this Patent made by
Custome for the payment of a thousand pound according unto the time limited by the Will and according to the Will aforesaid The Executor denieth to find Sureties whereupon he was committed to prison and a Habeas Corpus being awarded out of the Court of Kings Bench to have the Body of the Executor together with the cause all this matter appeareth upon the return And now it was moved by Richard Martin late Recorder of London then an Apprentice of the Law that the return was insufficient and so the Executor ought to be enlarged First in regard that the ground of the imprisonment was the Custome of London and the custome is against the Law and void insomuch that it enforceth an Executor to find Sureties for the payment of a Legacy according unto the Will where the law requireth that debts be paid before such time as Legacies be performed and the Law giveth an election unto the Executor to pay which of the Legacies he will in case there be not sufficient to pay all the debts and legacies of the Testator but this exception was disallowed by the said Court insomuch that the custome of London appeareth by the return to be that he shall find Sureties for the performance of the Legacies according unto the Law of the Realm and the Will of the Testator So as if the Executor had not sufficient to pay debts and legacies he hath the same power and liberty after such time as he hath found Sureties as he had before Secondly except on was taken because it appeared by the return that the Devisor was a woman and also only the Wife of a Freeman and not a Free-woman and she is not within the custom of London which only speaketh of a Freeman But this exception was over-ruled for a woman being a Free-woman within the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 29. which enacteth that no Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned c. but by the lawful judgement of his Peers So that she being a Barroness or Countess shall be tried by her Peers upon an Indictment preferred against her she shall also be reputed a Freeman within this custome Secondly the Wife of a Freeman having the liberty and priviledge to Trade in the City and so able to take benefit by it she shall also be bound by the customes of it Thirdly howsoever she was dwelling out of London at the time of the Will made she is a Freeman within the compass of the custome Fourthly it was objected that this custome of London concerning Orphans was an antiquated custome and had not been put in use by many years and therefore ought not now to be put in ure to take away the liberty of a man and especially also because the life of a custome is the usage but this exception was over-ruled for this custome is dayly put in Ure The custome in not removing body and cause upon Habeas Corpus A Petition being affirmed in London by one Hill a Citizen and Freeman of London against another Citizen and Freeman of London upon a Bond of a hundred pound a Summons is awarded against the said obliged and the pretext being returned that he hath nothing whereby he may be summoned within the City upon a Surmize made by Hill the Obligee that one Harrington a Citizen and Freeman of London is indebted in a hundred pound unto the first Obligor a Summons is awarded according to the custome of London of Forreign Attachments for the warning of Harrington who is warned accordingly whereupon Harrington procureth a Habeas Corpus for the removing of his body together with the cause into the Kings Bench upon which Writ a return is made in this manner that is to say That London is an ancient City and that time out of mind of man the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of London have had Conusans of all manner of Pleas both real and personal to be holden before the Mayor Altermen and Sheriffs of London in London and that in no action whatsoever they ought to remove the cause out of London into any other Court and do moreover shew a confirmation made by R. 2. in the seventh year of his Reign of all their customes and so for this cause they had not the body here nor the cause And exception being taken to the insufficiency of this return it was agreed and resolved by the whole Court of Kings Bench that this return made was ill for common experience teacheth that the usual course is and alwayes hath been that upon Habeas Corpus the body together with the cause have been removed out of London into the Kings Bench and likewise upon Certioraries awarded out of the Kings Bench. Records have been certified out of London into that Court for Justice being to be done unto the Citizens of London as well in that Court as in the 〈…〉 proper Court the Court of London being an inferiour Court unto the Court of Kings Bench where the King is supposed to sit in person ought to yeild bedience unto the Writs awarded out of that Court as the Supetiour Court but if the cause should be such that there should be a failer of Justice in the Kings Bench upon the removing of the cause because it is only an action grounded meerly upon the custome of London then a return made of the special matter will be warrantable or otherwise if the return be made that the custome of London is that no cause which is a meer customary cause wherein no remedy can be had but only in London according unto the custome of London may well be allowed so as the cause specially be returned into the Court whereby it may appear unto the Court that it is such a cause which will not bear action at the Common Law for it is usual in the Kings Bench that if the cause returned unto the Court upon the Habeas Corpus appear to be such a cause as will bear an action only by the custome and not at the Common Law the Court will grant a Procedendo and send it back again to London as if the cause returned appear to be an action of Debt brought upon concesit se solvere or to be an aaction of Covenant brought upon a Covenant by word without any specialty for these be meer Customary actions which cannot be maintained but by the custome of London and therefore that shall be remanded for if the Kings Bench should retain these causes after such time as they are removed and should not remand them there would be failing of Justice and the Judges of the Kings Bench in the person of the King do say Nulli negabimus nulli vendemus nulli differemus justitiam and the reteining of these causes would be a denying of Justice wherefore they do grant a Procedendo and remand it The case concerning payment of Tythes in London RIchard Burrel being seized in his Demesne as of Fee of a House called Green Acre a Shop and Ware-house in
after the delivery of the Bill shall make Summons to the Tenants demand by witness of two Free holders men of the City that they be at the Guild Hall the Saturday next following to see the Recogniâ—ance if they will against which Saturday the Defendant may sue the next Friday before together and summon the Jury and so afterwards against the Saturdayes from fourteen dayes to fourteen dayes at his will and so may the Tenants sue if they will for their celiverance and the gathering of the Pannels of such Juries shall be done by the Sheriffs and their Ministers or by the Mayor and Aldermen if any of the parties will require it upon any reasonable cause in such sort as is used in Assize of Fresh-force and in such Assizes of Mort d'ancest the parties may be assigned as at the Common Law and the Tenant may vouch to warrant within the City and also in Forreign County if the Vouchee have no Lands within the City and if the Tenants plead release bearing date in Forreign County or other Forreign matter that cannot be tryed within the City or that the Vouch to warrant in Forreign Counties he that hath nothing within the City then at the Suit of the party shall cause the Record to come into the Kings County by Writ directed to the Sheriff and Coroner and there shall such Forreign Pleas and Forreign Vouchers be tryed and determined and sent back again to the said Sheriffs and Coroners to go forward and proceed according to the custome of the City and continuance shall be made in such Assizes upon the causes proceeding and upon other causes reasonable and when the Assizes shall be determined and Judgement given then the same Assizes shall be ingrossed and entred upon Record by the said Sheriffs and Coroners and afterward sent to the Guild-Hall to remain there of Record according to the Order of Assize of Fresh-force hereafter following Assizes of Novel Disseizen called Fresh-force in London THe Assizes of Novel Desseizen called Fresh force of London and Tenements and Rents within the City of London of Disseizins made within 40. weeks are holden and determinable before the two Sheriffs and the Coroner of the said City in common every Saturday in the Guild-Hall except certain times wherein the Assize cannot be holden for reasonable cause and the process thereof is such viz. when any man is grieved and that he be disseized of his Free-hold within the said City or the Suburbs of the same he shall come to any Hust holden at the Guild-Hall or for default of Hust in the Chamber of the Guild-Hall in the Assembly of the Mayor and Aldermen any Munday and shall make there a Bill and the Bill shall be such viz. A de B. queritur versus ss C. de D. de libero tenemento suo in parochia de E. in Suburb London And the same Bill shall be inrolled and upon that shall be made another Bill containing all the matter of the first Bill by the common Clark of the City making mention of the title of Hust or of the day of the Assembly of the Mayor and Aldermen and then the Bill shall be sent to the Sheriffs or to either of them to do process and right unto the parties and then although the Bill be served the Wednesday then next following that is to say the Minister of the Sheriffs to whom the Bill is delivered shall summon the Tenant or Tenants named in the said Bill of Assize by the view of two Freemen of the City and that of the Tenants from whom the rent is supposed to be issuing and then it shall be said to the Tenants that they keep their day at the Guild-Hall the Saturday then following at their peril and the names of those which are summoned shall be endorsed upon the backside of the Bill and then may the Plaintiff sue to have the Assize gathered and the Jury summoned against such Saturday or against other Saturday after at his pleasure and so may the Tenants sue for their deliverance if they will and such summons shall be made the Friday before the said Saturday and the Array of the Pannels of the Juries shall be made by the Sheriffs or their Ministers or by the Mayor and Aldermen if any of the parties upon reasonable cause shall require it Also the same Assizes shall be pleaded and recorded for the greater party also as elsewhere at the Common Law and if release bearing date in Forreign County bastardy or other forreign matters which cannot be tryed within the said City be alledged in such Assizes then the Plaintiff may sue and cause to come the Record in the Kings Court that the matter may be tryed as the cause requireth and when the matter is there determined the process shall be sent back to the said Sheriffs and Coroners or to their Successors to proceed forward before them according to the custome c. And you must note that there is no discontinuance in such Assizes neither is any mention made in the Record of the dayes betwen the Assizes taken and the day that the Assize shall be taken or Judgement given if it be not by necessary cause or that such Assizes be adjourned for special causes and when the Assizes are taken before the Sheriffs and Coroners as before is said and Judgement be given then shall such Assizes determined be entred of Record and afterwards shall be carried into the Chamber of the Guild-Hall to remain there in the treasury upon Record And note that no man may enter into any Tenements within the said City by force nor any Tenants hold by sorce and armes in disturbance of the peace De Curia Majoris London Custumis Civitatis ejusdem Diversis Casibus terminalibus in eadem Curia Curia Majoris of the said City of London is holden by the custome of the same City before the Mayor and Aldermen for the time being in the Chamber of the Guild-Hall or in Hust and that from day to day and there are treated determined and discussed the Pleas and matters touching Orphans Apprentices and other businesses of the same City And there are redressed and corrected the faults and contempts of those which do against the custome and ordinance of the City as well at the suit of the parties as by Enquest of Office and in other sort by suggestion according as the causes require and there they use to justifie Bakers Victuallers and Trades-men and and to treat and ordain for the Government of the City and for keeping the Kings peace and other necessary points of the City and according as the time requireth Item the Officers and Ministers of the said City being found faulty are to be cleared before the Mayor and Aldermen as well at the Suit of the parties by Process made as otherwise according to the discretion of the said Mayor and Aldermen Item the said Mayor and Aldermen use there to hold and determine Pleas of Debt and other