Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	adultery_n	husband_n	wife_n	1,526	5	7.7220	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43467	Reports and cases taken in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years of the late King Charles as they were argued by most of the King's sergeants at the Commonpleas barre / collected and reported, by that eminent lawyer, Sir Thomas Hetley Knight, sergeant at law, sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grayes-Inne, and appointed by the king and judges for one of he reporters of the law ; now Englished, and likewise of the cases, both alphabetical.	Hetley, Thomas, Sir.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1657 (1657)	Wing H1627; ESTC R10743	229,000	204

Sergeant Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that their Instructions are Whereas there be divers Books News and Tales spread abroad and Libells made by which the Subjects are abused and the Peace may be broken you shall proceed against such Persons till the Authors be found out and they be punished by fines imprisonments papers set on their breasts and the like And he said that those words are not accomtable at Common-law and therfore are not as they seem within their Instructions But admit that yet they have not power to give dammages to the Party Richardson said In the Star-Chamber libellous Letters that are spitefull and scandalous to defame any although that they bear not an Action at Common-law yet they are punishable there and also they give dammages to the Party wronged But there is difference betwéen the Star-Chamber and that c. Henden said that Magna Charta makes the difference Quod nullus liber homo capietur aut imprisonetur nisi secundum legem terrae So by the Common Law and their instructions they have not power to give damages to the party Richardson chief Iustice said that no prohibition should be granted for the Fine of the King for they have power in that Case without question and to the punishing in that matter And if they err in Iudgement for the Libellious Letter and adjudge it to be Libellious where it is not We cannot award a prohibition nor grant error But for the damages that Court differs from the Star-chamber for the Star-chamber had its power by its self and differs from the Common Law But that Court is by Commission and therefore they ought to follow their Instructions And therefore a prohibition as to the damages shall be granted And Yelverton also was of the same opinion but he said there was another clause in their Instructions And for that a prohibition as to the damages shall be granted Hutton and Harvey said That if the sute was by information than it is clear that damages cannot be given But it is by Bill so in nature of an Action as I conceive which concludes that they were damnified But it is now brought too late to grant a prohibition where the parties have admitted the action But a day was given to shew cause why a prohibition should not be granted quoad the damages And so they concluded for that time Note that it was said by the Court That if money be lent upon Interest and the Scrivener who makes the Obligation reserves more then 8. l. in the 100. l. That that is not an usurious Contract See the cause c. Eaton and Morris●s Case EAton and Morris being reputed Churchwardens but they never took any Oath as the Office requires present a Feme Covert upon a Common report for Adultery c. And the husband and wife Libel against them in the Ecclesiastical Court for that defamation And when sentence was taken and ready to be given for them the Churchwardens appeal to the Arches and for that that that presentment cannot be proved but by one witness they sentenced the Baron and Feme And now Ward who that term was made a Serjeant by a special call moved for a prohibition but it was denied by the Court for they were Plaintiffs first And also it is a cause which this Court had not any Conusance of Marshes Case before MOre of Marshes Case which is before Richardson Hutton Harvey and Yelverton said That the consideration also is good For although that it be not expressed that the Plaintiff himself shewed the accounts yet it appears fully that they were upon the request of the wife viewed And it shall be intended by Common presumption that the Plaintiff himself shewed them for he had the custody of them and is owner of them And the Books of Merchants are their secrets and treasure and they will not shew them by their good will Now it is not like to the case of an Obligation for there the certainty of the debt was before and he was compellable to shew it But the certainty here cannot appear without great search and labour and there can be no compassion to shew their Books And by Hutton Iustice There is no question but if the promise had been made after the Sute commenced it ha●… been good No question by Richardson and it is agreed by all That if the Defendent had required the Books to be brought to his house or to another place it should have been good And there is not any difference although the Books were shewen in the shop by the servant for he permitted his Books to be viewed c. And Yelverton said that Beechers Case and Banes Case is more infirm than this Case is And yet adjudged there to be good And so it was awarded that Iudgement should be entred for the Plaintiff Si non c. Of a Communication of Marriage A Communication between I.S. and A. was of the Marriage of I S. being possessed of a term for years and of certain goods promised to A. that if she would be married to him and they had issue a son that he should have the term If a Female that she should have the moyetie of the goods And after they intermarry and have issue B. a daughter The husband dies and B. brings an action upon the Case against the Administrator of I.S. By the Court she cannot bring the action unless as Administratrix of A. or in the name of A. And the Case of Stafford was recited Where there was a Communication between Stafford and a woman That if she would marry with him that Stafford would leave her at his death 100. l. And after the intermarriage and death of the husband in an action brought by the wife the question was whether the promise was extinguisht by the intermarriage And after grand disputes it was resolved that the intermarriage was but a suspension of the promise And so it was concluded Kitton against Walters KItton brought debt upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 9. for Perjury against Walters for an Action of Trespass for Battery was brought against him by I. S. and he pleaded not guilty and that the Defendant was brought as a witness And that he falsely and corruptedly deposed and did not speak voluntarily that the Plaintiff in the Trespass was wounded and beaten c. And that he could not labour for half a year c. And upon the general issue pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and Hendon moved to have Iudgement But it was objected that the party grieved shall not have that Action for that he did not say voluntarie deposuit c. For although that he falsly deposed wherein voluntary is not but a conclusion and voluntas ought to be in the premisses and corruptive does not include that and so was the opinion of the whole Court And it was awarded that the Plaintiff nil capiat per breve A servant of a Bayliffs Case IT was awarded

convict DEbt is brought upon an Obligation And the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff is Recusant and convicted according to the Statute of 21 Iac. cap. 5. and demanded Iudgement of the Action The Plaintiff replies Nul tiel Record And a day was given to bring in the Record Crowley Justice demanded what course he would take to make the Record come in And said that the Indictment was before the Iustices of Peace And the Court said that the Defendant ought to have pleaded the Iudgement if he shall be answered For the disability is not but quousque c As of an excommunicate Person 8 E. 3. Crook Iustice If a Plea be in disability of the Person and be pleaded in Bar it is peremptory And so was the opinion of the Court. And the Debt of a Recusant is not forfeited to the King as in Outlary But if he fail of payment of the Penalty imposed by the Statute Then c. And the Court said that if Nul tiel Record be pleaded in Bar it is an Issue and Iudgement shall be given upon failer of it And the direction of the Court for the bringing in of the Record was That a certiorari should be directed out of that Court to the Iustices of Peace where the Indictment was taken For Presidents were alleged that that Court sent a Certiorari to the Iustices of Assise a fortiori to certifie that in the Exchequer and so come by times into that Court c. Creedlands Case CReedland Administrator durante minori aetate of a Son of his Brother and the Son died and made the Wife of Hindman his Executor who called Creedland to account in the Spiritual Court for the Goods And he pleads an Agréement betwéen him and Hindman and that he gave 80 l. in satisfaction of all Accounts But they did not accept the Plea For that a Prohibition was prayed to be granted Richardson If the party had received the mony in satisfaction for which there shall not be Prohibition granted but if there had béen only an agreement without payment of mony then otherwise Crook It is a spiritual matter and they having Iurisdiction for to determine of all things concerning that But the agreement prevents that it cannot come into the Spiritual Court c. Giles against Balam GIles libells against Balam before the High Commissioners for an assault made upon him being a spirituall Person And Atthowe prayed a Prohibition For that although their Commission by express words gives them power in that Case yet that Commission is granted upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. And it is not within the Statute although it be within the Commission yet they have not Iurisdiction The words of the Statute are That such Iurisdictions and Privileges c. as by any Ecclesiastical power have heretofore been or may be lawfully exercised for the visitation of Ecclesiastical Estate and Persons and for reformations of the same and for all manner of Errors Heresies Schismes Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormityes c. Those words extend only to men who stir up Dissentions in the Churrh as Schismaticks or new-fangled Men who offend in that kind Henden Sergeant The Sute is there for reformation of Manners and before that new amendment of the Commissions Prohibitions were granted if they meddled with Adultery or in Case of defamations But now by express words they have power of those matters And that matter is punishable by the Commissioners for two Causes First there is within the Act of Parliament by the words annexed all Iurisdictions Ecclesiastical c. Secondly It gives power to the Commissioners to exercise that And that is meerly Ecclesiastical being only pro reformatione morum c. The King by his Prerogative having Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction may grant Commissions to determine such things 5 Rep. Ecclesiastical Cases fol. 8. And Richardson said the Statute de Articulis Cleri gave Conusance to the Ordinary for laying violent hands on a Clerk But you affirm that all is given to the Commissioners And for that they should take all power from the Ordinary But by the Court The Commissioners cannot meddle for a stroke in Church-land nor pro substractione decimarum And yet they have express Authority by their Commission For by that course all the Ordinaries in England should be to no purpose And so upon much debate a Prohibition was granted On an Arrest on Christenmas day It was said by Richardson chief Iustice That upon arresting a man upon Christmas day going to Church in the Church-yard He who made the arrest may be censured in the Stat-chamber for such an Offence Quod nota It was also said by Richardson If a man submit himself out of the Diocess to any Sute that he can never have a Prohibition Because that the Sute was not according to the Statute 23 H. 8. commenced within the proper Diocess as it was adjudged Quod nota Manser against Lewes MAnser brought debt against Lewes the Bishop of Banger and had Iudgement and a fieri fac upon that to the Sheriff of Middlesex who returns That he was Clericus benefaciatus habens nullum Laicum feodum And Hitcham Sergeant to the King moved for direction of the Court what Process ought to issue or may have a Writ to the Metropolitan to make sequestration as it is 21 H. 6. 16 17. 34 H. 6. 29. Richardson said If you can satisfie us That the Sequestration ought to be against the Bishop as against a Clerk Then the Metropolitan shall do execution Hutton said A Bishop had Temporalties and for that the Sheriff ought not to return nollum habet Laicum feodum Richardson demanded whether the Statute of Westm the second which gives Elegit extends to the Temporalties of a Bishop Hutton not Harvey and Crook said That he ought to have first a Testatum est and then we may dispute of that But Hitcham doubted whether a Testatum est may issue to Wales Richardson an Elegit may issue and why not then a Testatum est And they in the Kings Bench grant it without doubt Stevens against the Bishop of Lincoln c. STevens and Crosse were Plaintiffs against the Bishop of Lincoln Holms Incumbent and Holsworth Defendents in a Quare impedit And the issue was where the Prochein avoydance It was given in evidence that a Feme was seized for life of the Advowson And he in reversion in Fee being an Infant grants the prochein avoydance And after when he in the remainder came to full age He reciting that grant concessit confirmavit praedictam advocationem habendam quando contigerit vacare And afterwards the Wife dies and the Church happens to be void And it was said by Davenport That that is not a new Grant but only a confirmation Crook Coo. lib. 6.14 Treports case Tenent for life and he in remainder makes a Lease if the Tenant for life dye the Declaration should be that he in the remainder made the Lease And so also by all

30 l. by the year to the use of Richard and Anne Daughter of the Bishop after mariage for their lives Which Lands and Tenements to the value of 30 l. per annum shall be appointed and limitted out by meets and bounds and put in writing before Hillary Term next and delivered to the use of Edward Thomas and Walter Thomas for their lives which were Vncles of Richard if Richard and Anne had Issue male When the Survivor of them dyes without Issue male or if all the Issue male dye without Issue male Then the use to Edward and Thomas to cease Also there be two Conditions the one Precedent the other Subsequent And the precedent Condition makes that a contingent Remainder But Atthow would have that settled without Issue born to Richard c. But if all their Issues dye before the Survivor It can never be setled For the words scil at the death of the Survivor c And then before the contingency happen it cannot be setled If the contingency had been void at the time of the limitations I agree it should be void Now if the particular Estate be contingent all that depends upon it is contingent also And Edward and Walter took nothing but after the death of the Survivor of Richard and Anne without Issue And then it is as in the Case of Cook 10. 85. A Feoffment to the use of A. for life and after the death of B. to the use of C. and his Heirs That Remainder is contingent Because that B. ought to dye in the life of A. or the Remainder shall never vest So also to Richard and Anne for their lives and after their deaths without Issue to Edward and Walter And if they ever take an Estate it ought to be after their deaths c. Secondly For the uses of the Residue To the use of Richard for life and if he dye living A. without Issue male ingendred of the body of A. Then to A. for life that is contingent then of the residue after the death of Richard to the use of Edward Walter if Richard had not issue of Anne at the time of his death Whether it vests after his death see before c. That is contingent also And it is contingent whether he will dye without Issue male As if a Feoffement be made to the use of one for life and if he had no Heir of his body to another in fee that is contingent during the life And he had not but an Estate for life by that limitation and then that is destroyed by the Fine also And now if nothing was in Edward nothing can be setled in his Son And then those contigent Remainders being destroyed there is a good estate in the Purchasors and this special verdict was not found for any doubt but for the intricacy of the Indenture And therefore he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Harvey against Fitton HArvy the Administrator of Edward Fitton brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation of 200 l. against Edward Fitton and declares of Letters of Administration committed to him by the Archbishop of Canterby c. The Defendant says That the Intestate became possessed of Goods in Chester within the County of York And before the purchase of the Writ and after the death of the Intestate I. S. Chancelor of Chester committed Administration to Richard Fitton of all the goods c. And that he released to him and upon that de murs Bramston He doth not shew what person that Chancellor was or how he had that Authority to grant Administration quod fuit concessum per Cur. That for that it was naught And it was agreed that the Prerogative of Canterbury does not extend to York Dame Buttons Case DAme Button was Administratrix of Goods and Chattels of her Husband And the Sisters of the Husband would compell her in the Prerogative Court to make Distribution And after sentence given prays a Prohibition and divers causes were alleged But Richardson rejected all unlesse it was upon the Statute 21 H. 8. And upon that Statute he said that upon conference with the Iudges He conceived that it was in the discretion of the Court to grant a Prohibition in such Cases or not c. Hutton said That a Prohibition in such cases ought to be granted For he said if Sisters may come in for portions by Distributions where Cousins cannot And Sisters have not any colour to have Distribution For although that the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 18. extend a pueris Yet not All Freres or Sisters And the Ordinary although heretofore would compell an Executor to make Distribution yet now they never meddle with an Executor And hath not an Administrator the same power as an Executor And in Isabel Towers Case a Prohibition was granted For when they have executed their Authority one time lawfully they cannot make a Distribution Harvy to the same intent The Ordinary had not such a power upon the Goods of any especially where Administration is granted For then they have put the Property in the Administrator to pay debts c. And there may be a sleeping debt which by that means shall never be satisfied For if the Ordinary might grant Administration and afterwards make Distribution His Authority is not warranted and he does and undoes and so mocks the Statute In Flames Case it was said that if they are not permitted to make Distribution They will compell it before Administration shall be granted But they have not any such power for he ought to commit Administration if it be demanded And it was so in one Clarks case In which the whole Court was of opinion But Yelverton would not shew his op'nion in the power of the Ordinary But he consented to a Prohibition without other cause Iohn Owens Case Mich. 3. Car. Com. Banc. IOhn Owen lived apart from his wife And upon petition of the Wife to the Iustices of Assise for maintenance they refer'd it to the Bishop of Bangor who ordered that he should pay to his Wife 10 l. per annum which was afterwards confirmed by decree in the Councel of Marches of Wales And because that Iohn Owen disobeyed that Decree and did not pay the 10 l. per annum the Councel sent a Messenger to apprehend his body and caused his Goods and the profits of his Lands to be sequestred And Henden prayed a Prohibition for that that Alimony was not within their instructions Richardson demanded of him if they could grant Prohibitions If they meddle with a thing which belongs to Ecclesiastical power where they themselves have power Harvey was of the same opinion For this Court should preserve other Courts in order Yelverton said For the sequestration of the Lands they could not do that Richardson They have not any power to sell the goods The Ecclesiasticall Court is the proper Court for Alimony And if the person will not obey they cannot but excommunicate him And by Yelverton when that comes to them

upon twenty matters Crook Admitting that all the offence was committed after the pardon yet you may suggest it to be before Henden and Bramston That so it was Pas 50 Eliz. In one Prat and Husseys Ease One that had a benefice took another but was not inducted Yet that was the irregularity upon which he was deprived and a prohibition was prayed upon the general pardon And it was concluded That if the libel contained that the irregularity was before any pardon and it appears also that it continued after yet a prohibition shall be granted Crook the offence is layed 1621 1622 1623 c. in one or every of them Now for a prohibition there are two clauses in our case Although it be that the offence was before and part after pardon yet we ought to grant a prohibition for that which was before is involved 5 Iac. Conveys case He and his wife after the death of Sir Blunt were sued before the high Commissioners for that that his wife committed Adultery with Sir Richard Blunt and he himself was the Pander And a prohibition was granted for two causes The one for that Adultery was not inquirable there the other because it was pardoned And although the word Adultery be in their Commission yet that does not give them Iurisdiction They cannot meddle with Alimony was one Condiths case upon the Canons in 1 Iac. Which gives to the Parson jurisdiction to appoint the Clark of the Church There was a custom there that the Parish should appoint it and several Clarks being appointed they set several Psalmes in the Church to the disturbance of it And a prohibition was granted to the high Commissioners for medling with it Richardson objected divers things with much earnestness but so apparently contrary to Law that I have omitted it Yelverton said she ought not to put in security to obey the sentence For if it be averred that all was before the pardon then there was no cause of sentence and if no sentence then the prohibition ought to be for all Crook The sentence is to pay a fine and to make submission and to be imprisoned until she found security to obey the sentence That is void Richardson said That they had not any means to make the party to pay the fine and if she would pay it presently she might be discharged But by the other Iustices the High Commissioners cannot demand the sine But they may Estreat it into the Exchequer At another day it was said Sir Wil. Chamcer before the high Commissioners was by sentence fined and imprisoned and by the opinion of all the Iudges of England They may proceed by fine and imprisonment and his case was for Adultery Hutton 44 Eliz. It was resolved that they cannot impose a fine but for Heresies Schisms and Errours c. Richardson The words of the Statute are that the high Commissioners may proceed according to the tenour and effect of the Letters Patents of the King Yelverton The sentence is the fine and the penance and there is the end of the sentence and when it is said she shall be imprisoned until c. That is no part of the sentence If it was that she should pay a fine do pennance and should be imprisoned three months Then all should be the Sentence Richardson said that they may procéed against other things than Heresies and Schismes upon that Statute de primo For there are the words Abuses Contempts Offences and Enormities Hutton The words in that Statute shall have exposition according to the meaning of the first intent It was that they had Authority to punish the Bishops and Prelates for Errors and Schisms and the change of Religion For that that they did not regard the power of the Ordinary But they had incroached many other things And if those words include any thing they might punish anything whereof the Gcclesiastical Court had Authority As working upon Saints daies But there was a Case of one that was sentenced there for such a Cause And the Fine estreated And upon Argument in the Exchequer their proceedings adjudged void Richardson The word Enormity contains a thing of lesser nature For quicquid est contra regulam et normam Juris is Enormity And therefore in Trespass quare clausum fregit et alia enormia ei intulit But Yelverton The word ought to be intended of a grand offence For so in common acceptance it imports Harvey The Fine being pardoned all is pardoned Richardson said that they should procéed by excommunication and not by fine and imprisonment No more at this time was said in this Case Humlocks Case A Man makes a Lease for 21 years reserving 20 l. rent per annum payable at two daies and if he fayl of payment that it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to enter At the day of payment the Lessor came and demanded the Rent by these words I demand my half years rent And it was moved by Atthowe If that demand was sufficient for the Lessor Hutton and Yelverton seemed that it was sufficient For the thing that he demanded is enough certain and known Crook on the contrary For although it appears by the circumstances how much of the Rent he demanded Yet the words are not so plain as they ought to be For if a man makes a Lease for years reserving such a Rent as the antient Farmor was wont to pay from time to time to this day When the Lessor comes upon the Land and says to the Lessee Pay me my Rent that is not sufficient or good because it is not certain in Terms And yet it appears by the circumstances And when a man pleads a demand He shall shew the Lease and the Rent reserved and shall say That he demanded redditum praedictum And as I remember it was adjudged very lately That such a Demand shall be certain Hutton I hold a difference between such things which lye in notice of the person to whom the demand is made and where not For in a praecipe quod reddat if there be a recovery by default and the Tenant brings a desceit and by examination of the Summoners it appears That they came to the Land and summoned him in the Land but they do not shew to him at what day he ought to appear So the Lessee knows well enough that the Rent ought to be paid for it is certain by the Lease to which he is party and privy But Crook said in the Case that Hutton put If the Summoners had read the Writ upon the Land and had summoned him to appear at a day comprised in the Writ It had been certain enough And so in this Case if he had read the Indenture upon the Land and after demanded the Rent as afore it had been Without question it appears to me it should be good enough And so in our Case also Leech against Watkins IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was that if the Obligor and his Heirs did or suffered

But by the Court it is after verdict For the Original for part cannot be applyed to this Declaration and it shall not be taken as the Original for it And then there is no Original which is aided by the Statute and so it had been frequently ruled By Harvey it was one Blackwells Case here where the Writ was bona catalla cepit and the Declaration was viz. unicum discum plumbi And that was ruled to be no Original The Wife of Cloborn against her Husband THe Wife complains against her Husband in the Spiritual Court Causa saevitiae For that he gave her a box on the ear and spat in her face and whirled her about and called her damned whore Which was not by Libel but by verbal accusation after reduced to writing The Husband denies it the Court ordered the Husband to give to his Wife 4 l. every week pro expensis litis and Alimony Barkley and Henden moved for a Prohibition The Sute is originally Causa saevitiae and as a Case that they assesse Alimony And now for a ground of a Prohibition It was said that Cloborn chastised his wife for a reasonable Cause by the Law of the Land as he might which they denyed and said that they had Iurisdiction in these matters de saevitia c. And afterwards that the wife departed and that they were reconciled again And then that reconciliation took away that saevitia before as reconciliation after elopement Richardson It was said here that the Sute was now held and without Libel but that is no ground of a Prohibition for he proceeded upon that matter reduced in Articles and we cannot grant a Prohibition if they proceed to their form For we are not Iudges of their form But if they will deny a Copy of the libell a Prohibition lies by the Statute And you you 'l say that an Husband may give reasonable chastisement to his Wife and we have nothing to do with it But only that the Husband may be bound to his good behaviour by the Common law And the sentence in causa saevitiae is a mensa thoro and we cannot examine what is Cruelty and what not And certainly the matter alleged is Cruelty For spitting in the face is punishable by the Star-chamber But if Mr. Cloborn had pleaded a Iustification and set forth a Provocation to him by the wife to give her reasonable castigation Then there would be some colour of a Prohibition Henden We have made such an Obligation as it is absolutely refused Hutton Perhaps he is in contempc and then they will not admit any Plea As if one be out-lawed at Common law be cannot bring an Action But the Plaintiff they advised to tender a Iustification and if they refused it then to move for a Prohibition Bachus and Hiltons Case HUtton cited one Bachus and Hiltons Case in the Kings Bench Where a Bill was of Lands 17 Maii and the Declaration 20 Mail which was after and so the Original before the trespass and after verdict Because it was mistaken Iudgement was stayed Mortimores Case AMhurst desired the opinion of the Court in this Case Copiholder is ousted and so the Lord disseised and the Copiholder releases all his right to the Disseisor and dies his Heir enters and brings trespass against the Disseisor who pleads his Franktenement And by the Court the Release is clearly void the Disseisor never being admitted Copiholder But they ought not to teach him how to plead And Hitcham cited a Case in which he was of Councel Two Copiholders in fee the one release to the other by Deed. And that was adjudged a good Release which was now also agreed by the Court. Earl of Mulgrave Ratcliffes Case Intratur Exchequer Chamber 18 Iac. Rot. Argued by Sergeant Atthowe D' e Mercurii post festum Sanctae Margaret 17 Edwardi 2d Iohn de Malo lacu gave to Peter de Malo lacu and the Heirs of his body the Castle and Mannor of Mulgrave by divers mean conveiances the Land came to Sr. Ralph Bigod 11 Ian. 6 H. 8. Sr. Ralph Bigot made a Feoffment to William Euer and others to the use of his last Will and died and the right of the Land together with the Entayl and the use also after the Will performed descended to Sr. Francis Bigot 10 Dec. 28 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod made a Feoffment to Iohn and others to the use of himself and Katherine his wife and the Heirs of their bodies and they had issue Ralph Bigod and Dorothy then the Statute 16 H. 8. cap. 13. for forfeiture for treason is made and 26 Maii 29 H. 8. Sir Francis Bigod was attainted of Treason committed 7 Ian. 28 H. 8. and was executed and Katherine survived H. 8. by the special act of attainder of Sir Francis Bigod and his forfeiture is made 4 Novem. E. 6. Ralph Bigod Son of Katherine and Sir Francis was restored in blood and died without issue Dorothy maried Boger Ratcliff and they had Issue Francis Ratcliff 5 Octob. 8 Eliz. Katherine died and Francis Ratcliff died having issue Roger Ratcliff 1 Febr. 34 Eliz. Francis Ratcliff Roger Ratcliff entred 11 Aug. 33 Eliz. Office found for the Quéen 28 April 34 Eliz. The Quéen by Letters Patents granted the same to Edward Lord Sheffield and the Heirs males of his body begotten at the rate of 9. 18. 3 d. Roger Ratcliff upon the whole matter sued his Monstrare de droit in the Exchequer and had Iudgement for him and Writ of Error being brought by the Lord Sheffield to reverse the Iudgement formerly given in the Case Points 2. First whether Francis Bigod who had Estate in special tayl in possession had also any right in the antient entayl left in him at the time of his Attainder or whether it were not in abeiance in respect of the Feoffment made 21 H. 8. and whether that right did accew unto the King by the Attainder of Francis and the general Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. or by the particular act of Attainder of 31 H. 8. and I am of opinion that there was a right of the old entayl remaining in him and that the King ought to have it together with that estate in special entayl in possession freed and discharged thereof as long as the Estate entayl endured In the handling of this point I shall occasionally speak of rights of Actions real given or not given to the King upon Attainder of Treason by force of Statute 26 of H. 8. or of the general Statute of 33 H. 8. for this Statute is so near of kin to that conservation of antient Rights that we must foresee that we do not in the Iudgement of this Cause prejudice the Statute ex aliqua Secondly Whether there be a Remitter in the Case after Attainder of Treason and if there be such a Remitter here when the Remitter begins and in whom whereas nothing hath as yet been distinctly said I am of opinion that there