Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	pope_n	rome_n	4,726	5	6.8398	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67861	The jurisdiction of the admiralty of England asserted against Sr. Edward Coke's Articuli admiralitatis, in XXII chapter of his jurisdiction of courts by Richard Zouch ...	Zouch, Richard, 1590-1661.; Coke, Edward, Sir, 1552-1634.	1663 (1663)	Wing Z22; ESTC R21844	62,368	170

those matters which belong unto him onely upon the Sea the other Cases of double Damages for ought appears to the contrary might be for matters of Trespass committed likewise by Force and Arms. Touching Praemunires brought for suing in the Admiralty Court Sir Edw. Cook saith That they being brought upon the Statute of the 16 of King Rich. 2. for suing in Curia Romana aut alibi are so evident and of so dangerous a consequence as no application shall be made thereof And for the dangerous consequence it is most true for that the penalty intended in that Statute extends to the imprisonment of the person during pleasure and the loss of all his goods and of the profits of his Lands during life and for the application which he forbears it may be conceived that his meaning was that the Admiral or his Judge might be made liable thereunto but for the Evidence that by Curia Romana aut alibi the Court of Admiralty should be understood under his favour it is not so clear nor if the Statute be well considered can it with any reason be maintained the word Alibi or elsewhere in that Statute was in truth intended of Avignion in France or some other place to which the Pope and his Court in those times did usually remove and that Statute being intended to exclude the forein authority of the Pope it might be thought necessary to debar the people of this Kingdome from having intercourse to the Popes Consistory whether at Rome or any where else and when the Popes authority and his Laws were in force in this Kingdome and no way depending upon the Crown the word Alibi or elsewhere was held to extend to Bishops Courts if they medled with temporal causes belonging to the Kings Courts especially if they took upon them to reverse or disparage Judgements given in the Courts of Common Law but how the word Alibi should be applied to the Kings Court of Admiralty never relating to any Forein power and proceeding onely by those Laws which are allowed by the King to be in force in that Court it is a mystery beyond any ordinary imagination It may be further noted that although it be said that the two Praemunires were brought upon such occasions yet it doth not appear that any Judgement was given upon either of them Lastly For confirmation and conclusion of this Point it may be added that before the King and his Councel it was likewise agreed unto by all the Judges That the Admiral may inquire of and redress all Annoyances and obstructions in Navigable Rivers beneath the first Bridges that are any impediment to Navigation and passage to and from the Sea and also try all personal Contracts and injuries done there which concern Navigation upon the Sea and that no Prohibition is to be granted in such Cases That the Admiral of England may hold Plea of Contracts and other things done beyond the Sea relating to Navigation and Trade by Sea TO maintain that the Court of Admiralty may hold Plea of Contracts and other things done beyond the Sea It is alleged First That by an Ordinance made by King Edward the first and his Lords at Hastings which is extant in the antient Book of Admiralty it was ordained that Charum Contract c. That every Contract made between Merchant and Merchant or betwixt Merchant and Mariner beyond the Sea or within the flood-mark shall be tried before the Admiral and no wayes elsewhere Secondly It may be taken into consideration That such businesses amongst Merchants and Seamen are to be determined according the Civil Law and equity thereof as also according to the customes and usages of the Sea Mr. Selden in his Notes upon Fortescue observes out of Bartolus Quod in Curia mercatorum debet judicari ex aequo bono omissis juris solennitatibus which the Admiralty Judges may and do observe but the Courts of Common Law hold they must do otherwise Malines relates an instance of a Merchant-stranger who having sold Commodities to three several Merchants of London took one Bond of them all for the payment of 300 l. and one of them breaking and being imprisoned he was contented to compound with him for the fifth part of his Debt or for 20 l. in lieu of a 100 l. conceiving him as a third party to be liable for no more and having received that summ gave him a release and afterwards the two other parties neglecting to pay him their parts he was advised to sue them at the Common Law where he was given to understand That if a man release one of his debtors who is bound with others by way of acquittance they are all released and acquitted thereby which was contrary to the rule of Equity and that simplicity and just dealing which is expected amongst Merchants which do not admit that a mans action should operate beyond his intention and that a favour yeelded to one in necessity should not extend further to his prejudice in respect of those which were in better condition Thirdly to the like purpose it is observed that in Contracts and Bargains betwixt such persons those solemnities are not required which are necessary in Deeds at the Common Law as of signing sealing and delivering to make their Bills and Obligations of force and the bearers of such Bills according to the course of Merchants shall be admitted to demand and recover without Letters of Attorney Fourthly It is considerable that Instruments made beyond the Sea have usually Clauses relating to the Civil Law and to the Law of the Sea Malines shews That when two or three take up money at interest and all binde themselves as Principals generally according to the Civil Law and custome of Merchants every person is bound but for his own part and therefore where it is intended that for the better security every man should be bound in solidum in the instrument of the Contract ther is a declaration and renunciation made of all privileges and especially of those which are called Exceptio divisionis ordinis excussiones and beneficii Epistolae divi Adriani In Wests Presidents concerning Merchants affairs there are the like forms as where a man obligat se haeredes Executores suos omnia bona mobilia immobilia praesentia futura tam ultra quam citra mare ubicunque existentia renuncians omnibus singulis exceptionibus c. and amongst the rest he declares the form of a gneral procuration to sue for Debts in a Forein Country wherein it is specified that power is given ad Libelles Petitiones c. articulos dandum datisque respondendum ad Lites contestandum de calumnia vitand● juramentum in animam constituentium praestandum all which are as strange to the Law of this Land as the places from whence they proceed Fifthly For that as Fortescue affirms Contracts and Bargains made amongst strangers in another Realm must be proved otherwayes than in the Courts

goods aboard a Ship contrary to the Charter-party without any respect to the place where it was made if no reason can be shewed that Judgment may be thought not to have been grounded so much upon reason as it was upon the common received opinion of the meaning of that Statute as it is therein related quia contractus ille apud novam Sarum factus junctus fuit Touching that of the 28. of Elizabeth whereby Glynn was condemned to Constantine for breach of Covenant in a Charter-party in the summ of 500. l. it seems a Case far more reasonable though something grievous because it is not denied but that a sute upon a Charter-party may be commenced at the Common Law upon a penalty as it seems that was for breach of Covenant in not staying at Madrill so many dayes as were limitted by the Charter-party Only that is thought no concluding argument against a sute in the Admiralty for freight grounded on a Charter-party But whereas when in the Arrest of judgment it was alleged that the Trial was not sufficient because the issue did arise out of a place in a Forein Kingdome from whence no Jury by Twelve men might be had Sir Edw. Cook sayes that Sir Christopher Wray and the whole bench resolved That the Plaintiff should recover cost and dammages because the Charter-party was made at Thetford in Norfolk within the Realm it is as much as if Sir Edw. Cook had said that whether the suggestion in the issue were true or false tryed by a competent or incompetent Jury yet if the sute were brought upon a Charter-party the Conusance thereof did belong to the Common Law and whether the former Judges had proceeded well or not was not material so that what is premised formerly touching Judgments and judicial Acts in the First Chap. may from this case be excused And as touching the infinite prohibitions granted upon sutes commenced in the Admiralty concerning Charter-parties there may be something declared and made appear reasonable hereafter in an other place As to the instances of Policies of assurance held tryable at the Common Law although by the Statute of the 43. of Elizabeth it hath been shewed that the proceedings in those causes at the Common Law were altogether inconvenient to the Kingdome yet in regard Sir Edward Cooks reasons in Dowdales case for the maintaining of proceedings in such businesses may be applyed to other matters to the prejudice of the Admiralty Jurisdiction something may be observed concerning the same in Sir Edward Cooks reasons as first That the Assumpsit is the ground and foundation of the Action and that the Arrest or Imbargo in that case had been no ground of an Action if there had been no Assumpsit neither could the Assumpsit have produc'd an Action if there had not been an Arrest But what was the nearest and immediate ground of the Action without doubt the Arrest And what was chiefly in question not the Assumpsit for it was taken for granted that that was done in London but it was the Arrest which as it was declared was in issue And it is likely that the Common Law which intended a Trial of the Vicinage intended it of the thing or matter which was in issue to be tried But he further argues That the Trial must be of necessity where the Assumpsit is made for otherwise there could have been no Trial at the Common Law which might have savour'd of some reason If possibly there could have been no Trial in any other Court but the Cause being Maritime and amongst Merchants it might more properly have been tried in the Admiralty or in the Assurance Court without a Jury or Trial of Twelve men by witnesses as Fortescue acknowledgeth Thirdly touching that of the Book of 48. of Edward the 3. where it is said That if a Mariner make Covenant only to serve in a Ship on the Sea yet if the wages be not paid they shall be demanded in that Court by the Common Law not by the Law Mariner the occasion was that an action of debt being b●ought at the Common Law upon an Obligation dated at Harflet in Kent whereas in truth it was made in Normandy and the consideration was Service done in Warr in France thereupon one of the Judges said That the summ demanded growing due for Service done in Warr the Cause ought to be tryed in the Constable and Marshals Court Another as it seems willing to retain the cause said t●at he hired a man to go in a message to Rome although the service were done in another Realm yet what was due by covenant might be recovered in that Court Another said if a Mariner make a Covenant with one to serve in a Ship on the Sea yet if his wages be not paid they shall be demanded by the Common Law c. So that it is plain it was not a Resolution of the Court but a fuit dic as they say and one mans opinion by way of argument to another purpose And the ground thereof might be that if it were in issue whether such a Covenant were made it might be tryed at the Common Law but it doth not conclude but that if the Question were whether the service in the Ship were performed on the Sea it might more properly be tryed in the Admiralty Court For confirmation on this point First To the 4. Request of the Judge of the Admiralty to the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench 12. May 1575. viz. That the Judge of the Admiralty may have and enjoy the knowledge of the breach of Charter-parties made between Masters of Ships and Merchants for voyages to be made to the parts beyond the Sea according as it hath been accustomed time out of mind and according to the good meaning of the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. chap. 14. though the same Charter-parties be made with in the Realm The answer is This is agreed upon for things to be performed upon or beyond the Seas though the Charter-party be made upon the Land by the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. chap. 14. Secondly it was agreed unto by all the Judges and Attorney General before the King and his Counsel That if a Sute be before the Admiral for Freight or Mariners wages or for breach of Charter-parties for Voyages to be made beyond the Sea although the Charter-parties happen to be made with in the Realm and although the money be payable within the Realm so as the penalty be not demanded a Prohibition is not to be granted But if the Sute be for the penalty or if the Question be made whether the Charter-party were made or not or whether the party did release it is to be tryed by the Kings Court at Westminster So that at first it be denied upon Oath that a Charter-party was made or a denial upon Oath tendred to which it may be added that it was there further agreed That if Sute shall be made in the Court of Admiralty for building