hath well observed Vide Dyer 298. vide le Stat. 27 Eliz. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Sir William Chancâ—ys Case In this Term Sir William Chancy having the priviledg of this Court and being a Prisoner in the Fleet was brought to â—he Bar by Habeas Corpus by the Guardian of the Fleet who returned That the said Sir William was committed to the Fleet by Warrant from the High-Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes which Warrant follows in these words viz. These are to Will and Require you in his Majesties Name by Vertue of his Hâ—gh-Commission c. to Us and others directed c. That herewithal you take and receive into your Custody the Body of Sir William Chancy Knight whom we will that you keep c. untill further Order c. letting you know the cause of his Committment to be for that being at the Suit of his Lady convented bâ—fore c. for Adultery and expelling her from his Company and Co-habiting with another Woman without allowing her any competent Maintenance and by his own Confession convict thereof he was thereupon enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance c. and to perform such Submission and other order for his Adultery as by Law should be enjoyned him which he expresly refused to do in contempt c. Given at London 19 Martii 1611. subscribed Henry Mountague George Overall Thomas Morton Zach. Paâ—field And it was moved by Nicholas Serjeant a Councel with Sir William that this return was insufficient 1. Because Adultery ought to be punished by the Ordinary and not by the High-Commâ—ssioners on which the Offender is remediless and can have no appeal Quod fuit concessum per Coke Warberton and Foster but Walmesly doubted of Adultery 2. That by force of the Act of the 1. of Eliz. the High-Commissioners cannot imprison Sir William for Adultery nor for denying Alimony to his Wife And Doderidge the Kings Sâ—rjeant of Council on the other side did not defend the Imprisonment to be lawful And it was clearly agreed by Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster That the Commissioners had not power to imprison in this Case And Walmâ—sly said That though they have used this Power for twenty years without any exception yet when it comes before them judicially they ought to Judge according to Law and upon this Sir William Chancy was Bailed And it was resolved per totam Curiam That when it appears upon the Return that the Imprisonment is not lawful the Court may discharge him of Imprisonment Also it was Resolved That the Return was insufficient in form 1. It is not shewn when the Adultery was committed 2. He was enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance without any certainty and to perform such submission c. as by Law shall be enjoyned which is all infuturo and uncertain Vide in my Treatise at large the Reasons and Causes why the High-Commissioners may sue and imprison Vide Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 1209. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Empringham's Case In this Term a Case was moved in Star-Chamber upon a Bill exhibited by the Attorney-General against Robert Empringham Vice-Admiral in the County of York Marmaduke Ketthewell one of the Marshals of the Admiralty and Thomas Haâ—rison an Informer in the same Court for Oppression and Extortion in Fining and Imprisoning divers of the Kings Subjects in the said County which no Judge of the Admiralty can justifie because it is not a Court of Record but they proceed according to the Civil Law and upon their Sentence no Writ of Error lyeth but an Appeal Also the said Empringham hath caused divers to be cited to appear before him for things done in the Body of the County which were determinable by the Common Law and not before the Admiralty whose authority is limited to the High Sea And for these and other Oppressions they were fined and imprisoned and sentenced beside to make Restitution c. Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Memorandum That upon the Thursday before this Term all the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled in the Council-Chamber at Whitehall where was Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and with him two Bishops and divers Civillians the Archbishop complained of Prohibitions out of the Common-Pleas and delivery of Persons by Haheas Corpus but chiefly of Sir William Chancy I defended our proceedings according to my Treatise thereof which I delivered before the High-Commissioners And after great dispute between the Archbishop and Me at last he said He had a Point not yet touched upon in my Treatise which would give satisfaction to the Lords and Us also and upon which he would rely And that the Clause of Restitution and Annexation viz. And that all such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any power Spiritual hath heretofore or hereafter lawfully may be used c. for visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all Errors Heresies Schismes c. shâ—ll for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And it was said That H. 8. and Ed. 6. did give Power by their Commissions to divers to impose Mulcts c. in Ecclesiasticall Causes c. and upon this he concludes That this having been used before 1 Eliz. this is given to Queen Eliz. and her Successors Also inasmuch as by 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 7. the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical may Fine and Imprison in particular Causes therefore Power to Fine and Imprison in all Ecclesiastical Causes is given to the King And this he said he uttered that it might be answered 1. To which I for a time gave this Answer That it was good for the Weal-publick that the Judges at the Common-Law should interpret the Statutes within this Realm 2. It was said by me That before the Statute of 1 Eliz. no Ecclesiastical Judge may impose a Fine or Imprison for any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Offence unless there be Authority by Act of Parliament And this was so affirmed by all the Justices Vide my Book of Presidents the Commission at large to Cromwel to be Vicegerent Afterwards in this very Term the Privy-Council sent for the Justices of the Common-Pleas only and there the Reasons of the said Resolution were largely debated and strong Opposition made hy Egerton Lord Chancellor but the Justices of the Common-Pleas remained constant in their Resolution Afterward the Council sent for the chief Justice of the Kings Bench Justice Williams Justice Crook Chief Baron Taâ—field Snig Althan and Bromly who were not acquainted with the Reasons of the said Rule of the Common-Pleas nor knew why they came before the Council And hearing the Lord Chancellor affirm That the High-Commissioners have alwayes by the Act 1 Eliz. imposed Fines and Imprisonments for exorbitant Crimes without any Conference with us or among then selves or hearing the matter debated were of Opinion with us And after at another day this
Mulier Vide 29 Ass pl. 14. b. Eliz. Dyer 226. 228. If the issue be Quod vacavit pâ—r resignationem part of which is Spiritual part Temporal this shall be tryed per paiis vide 9 H. 7. But admission and in iâ—ution though it be alledged in a stranger to the Writ yet this shall be tryed by the Ordinary as appears 7 Ed. 6. 78. 6. in Dyer similia 2. To the second answered and resolved That if upon Consultation with men learned in the Law they give Sentence according to Law this is well done and no Prohibition ought to granted but if they draw the interest of any man ad alîud examen there Prohibition lyes And in the Case at the Barr they well resolved the Law for by the said Livery of the Charter the Tythes do not pass as in gross because the intention of Parties was to pass the entire Rectory by the Feoffment and to pass the Tythes and so dismember the Rectory 3. As to the third Resolved That by the Ecclesiastical Law a stranger may come in pro interesse suo and when they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause of a Suite we ought not to question their proceeding unless they proceed inverso ordine and this ought to be redressed by appeal 4. As to the fourth Resolved That such a surmise That he hath but one Witness is not sufficient to have a Prohibition because the Court Ecclesiastical hath jurisdiction of the Principle And if such surmise shall be sufficient all Suits in the Ecclesiastical Court shall be delayed or quite taken away for such surmise may be made in every Case It was Resolved upon Evidence by Coke chief Justice de Banco inter J. S. who informed upon the Statute of Usury and Smith that the Parties to the supposed Usurious Contract shall not be admitted Witnesses because upon the matter they were Testes in propria causa High-Commissioners Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis Upon a Ha. Cor. by Eliz. Lady Throgmorton Prisoner in the Fleet the Return was The Lady Throgmorton was committed by George Bishop of London and other Ecclesiastical Commissioners till further Order should be taken for her enlargement And the Cause of Commitment was That she had done many evil Offices between Sir James Scudamore and her Daughter the Lady Scudamore Sir James his Wife to make separation between them and detained her from her Husband and upon her Departure after Sentence for Contemptuous words against the Court saying She had neither Law nor Justice And it was Resolved 1. That for detaining the Wife and endeavouring to make separation no Suit can be before the High-Commissioners 2. For detaining the Wife there is remedy by the Common Law 3. That for such an Offence they cannot imprison the Wife 4. It doth not appear that the words were spoken in Court Secondly It is no Court of Record because they proceed according to the Civil Law so the Admiralty Courte and none can be committed for misdemeanor in Court unless the Court be of Record 5. It doth not appear by the Return what that Court was which is uncertain and upon this upon good Consideration she was Bayled But Randall and Hickins were this Term committed by the High-Commissioners because they were vehemently suspected for Brownists And they obtained a Hâ—beas Corpus and were remanded for this that the High-Commissioners have Power to commit for Heresy See my Treatise of the High-Commissioners Power The Lord Aburgavennye's Case In the Parliament a Question was moved by the Lord of Northampton Lord Privy-Seal in the Upper-House That one Edward Nevill Father of Edward Nevill Lord of Aburgavenny which now is in the 2 and 3 of Queen Mary was called by Writ to Parliament and died before the Parliament If he was a Baron or no and so ought to be named was the Question And it was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the two chief Justices chief Baron and divers other Justices there present That the direction and delivery of the Writ did not make a Baron or Noble untill he did come to the Parliament and then sit according to the Commandment of the Writ for untill that the Writ did not take its effect And in the 35 H. 6. and other Books he is called a Peer of Parliament which he cannot be untill he sit in Parliament which cannot be before the Parliament begin And the Command of the King by such his Writ may by his Supersedeas be countermanded or else the said Edward might have excused himself or waved it or submitted to his Fines And when one is called by Writ to Parliament the Order is That he be apparelled in his Parliament Robes and his Writ is openly read in the Upper-House and he brought into his place by Two Lords of Parliament and then he is adjudged in Law Inter pares Regni ut cum olim Senatores censâ— eligebantur sic Barones apud nos habiti fuerint qui per integram Baroniam terras suas tenebant sive 13. feoda militum et tertiâ—m partem unius Feodi militis quolibet Feodo computo ad 20 l. c. So that by this appears That every one who hath an entire Barony may have of right a Writ to be summoned to Parliament and with this agree our Books una voce That none can siâ— in Parliament as Peer of the Realm without matter of Record 35 H. 6. 46. 48 Ed. 3. 30. b. 48 Ass pl. 6. 22 Ass pl 2 4. Register 287. but now none can be summoned to Parliament by Writ without the Kings Warrant under the Privy-Seal at least But if the King create any Baron by Letters Patents under the Great-Seal to him and his Heirs or to him and to his Heirs of his Body or for life c. there he is a Nobleman presently and he ought to have a Writ of Summons to Parliament of Course and shall be tryed by his Peers if c. Richard the Second created John Beauchampe of Holt Baron of Kidderminster by Letters Patents dated 10. Octob. eleventh year of his Reign where all others before him were created by Writ Trin. 8 Jac. Regis Oldfield and Gerlins Case In this Term Thomas Oldfield came out of the Dutchy Court and before he came into Westminster-Hall with a Knife stabbed one Ferraâ— a Justice of Peace of which he dyed And if Oldfield should have his right hand cut off was the question before the two Chief Justices chief Baron Walmesly Warberton Foster and divers other Justices And it was Resolved No for it ought to be in Westminster-Hall Sedentibus Curiis as appears 3 Eliz. Dyer 188. 41 Ed. 3. Title Coron 280. And a President was shewn An. 9 Eliz. in Banke le Roy where one Robert Gerlin smote one in White-hall sitting in the Court of Requests and was Fined and Ransomed But if one smite another before the Justices of Assize there his right hand shall be cut off as appears 22 Ed. 3. fol. 13. 19 Ed. 3. Title Judgment And
found by Office as appears by the Books 11 H. 4. 52. Ass 31. 30. Ass 28. 46 Ed. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. 1 As to the first it was Resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with Proclamations was not a Bar to her and yet it was Resolved That the Act 4 H. 7. c. 24. shall barre a Woman of her Dower by such a Fine if the Woman bring not her Writ of Dower within five years after the Husbands death as was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common-Pleas and 5 Eliz Dyer 224. For by the Act the Title of Feâ—e-Covert iâ— saved by taking Action in 5 years after she is uncovert c. But it was Râ—solved That the Wife was not to be aâ—dâ—d by that saving for in respect of her Husbands Attainder she had not any Right of Dower at his death nor could sue for the same after his death But it was Resolved That the Wife was to be aided by another former saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons viz. who were not Parties to the Fine such Action Right c. as shall first grow or come c. to them after the Fine ingrossed and Proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or other Cause or Matter before the Fine levyed so that they take their Action and pursue their Title within 5 years after such Right come to them c. And in this Case the Action and Right of Dower accrewed to the Wife after the Reversal of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the Seizin in Fee had and Marriage made before the Fine levyed according to the meaning of the said Act. And as to the Point of Relation it was Resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some not for relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same Parties to advance a Right but not to advance a Wrong which the Law hates or to defeat Collateral Acts which are lawful and chiefly if they concern Strangers for true it is as hath been said that as to the mean profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law till the time of the first Judgment given and that is to favour Justice and advance his Right that hath Wrong by the Erroneous Judgment But if a Stranger hath done a Trespass upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversal shall have an Action of Trespass against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleads there is to such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the Special Matter and maintain his Action And for the better apprehending the Law on this Point it is to know That when any man recovers any Possession or Seizin of Land in any Action by Erroneous Judgment and afterwards the Judgment is reversed as is said before and thereupon the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ reciâ—es the first recovery and the Reversal of it in the Writ of Errour is That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall be restored to his Possession and Seizin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Judgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod cadem A. ad plenariam seizinam tenementor praed c. restitui facias per Sacramentum proborum c. diligâ—nter inquiras ad quantum exitus proficua tenementor illor c. a tempore falsi Judicii c. usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die Judicium illu c. revocat fuit c. et quâ—liter hoc praecept c. in Octâ—b c. By which it appears that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have Restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Erâ—our cannot have Remedy against a Stranger and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to inquire of the Issues and Profits generally c. And therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Justice 4 H 7. 12. a. See Butler and Baker's Case in the third Part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was Resolved in the Case at Bar though to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by fiction of Law by the Fâ—ne with Proclamations and five years past after the Husbands death when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any Title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do a Wrong by a fiction in Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and could have no Relief till the Attainder was reversed As to the other Objection That the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for hâ—r It was Resolved That it needed not in this Case because the Title of Dower stood with the Queens Title and affirmed it Also in this Case the Queen was not intitled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it for then she ought to have had an Office But in case of Dower though that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the Title of Dower in such Case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office See Sâ—dlers Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports And the Case put on the other side was utterly denied by the Court for it was Resolved That if a man seized of Lands in Fâ—e take a Wife of eight years of Age and alien his Lands and after the Wife attains to the Age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that she shall be endowed because the Title of Dower being not consummate till the death of the Husband and there being Marriage Seizin in Fee age of 9 years and the Husbands death for that cause she shall be endowed it being sufficient that the Marriage Seizin and Age happen during the Coverture So if a man seized of Lands in Fee take a Wife and after she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the elopement the Husband alien and after the Wife is reconciled she is Dowable So if a man hath Issue by his Wife and the Issue dyeth and afterwards Land discends to the Wife or she purchase Lands in Fee and dyes without other Issue the Husband for the Issue which he had before the Discent or Purchase shall be Tenant by the Courtesie But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he aliens his Lands and after that she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was not by her Birth capable of Dower but by her Denization it began But