T. 22 Car. Rot. IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration of a Marriage Promise inter alia not good ought to set forth the whole Promise c. Inter al' promisit de payer tant puis Verdict pro Querent ' Judgment fuit done vers luy because he ought to set forth the whole promise which is entire Hinacre versus Lemon M. 22 Car. Rot. SLander Words charged with procuring Felony good The Defendant said of the Plaintiff she caused Mr. Langly's Servant to steal and purloin 30 and received them and sold them which was the cause why his Master broke and upon a Verdict and Iudgment in the Common Bench in a Writ of Error the Iudgment was affirmed because she is charged with procuring of Felony and receiving stollen Goods Haines versus Finch Debt upon a promise for bringing up Children good without saying they were the Plaintiff's AN Executor brought an Action of Debt upon a promise made with the Testator for bringing up of Children and Teaching and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon nil debet pleaded it was moved that Debt would not lie in the Case because it was not layed that they were the Plaintiff's Children But the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for Debt will lie upon a promise made by a stranger Debt upon a promise of money to marry a poor Virgin as in N. B. 122. k. If one promiseth money to another for marrying a poor Virgin Debt lieth but the parties agréed and so no Iudgment was given And Roll said that in Trevilian's Case Servant retain'd an Attorney for his Master and promises him his Fees Debt lies against the Servant where a Servant retained an Attorney for his Master and promised he should have his Fées an Action of Debt was brought thereupon by the Attorney against the Servant in C. B. and the Plaintiff recovered but upon Error in this Court a rule was given for the reversal of the Iudgment notwithstanding the like President shewn in Bradford's Case but he said that the Iudgment was not reversed upon the Roll and his opinion was that the Iudgment was good Edwards versus French T. 22 Car. Rot. 675. Slander whereby he lost his Marriage And no agreement of Marriage or mutual Love alledged and the words were spoken only in the innuendo yet good SLander The Plaintiff declares that whereas there was a Communication of Marriage betwéen the Plaintiff and one Mary Hicks who was worth 300 li. and that she deferred Marriage with the Plaintiff q. d. that verisimile fuit that they should be Married the Defendant in the hearing of divers persons said Mary Hicks is Mr. Edwards his Whore innuendo the Plaintiff whereupon Mary Hicks was refused to Marry the Plaintiff And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that there was no agréement of Marriage nor mutual love alledged betwéen the Plaintiff and M. H. 2. That the words were not alledged to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo yet upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Osborne versus Brooke Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 677. SLander Captain Osborne is forsworn Slander Is forsworn and his Oath appears upon Record Act ' gist and his Oath appears upon Record The Defendant as to the first words pleads not guilty and as to the latter justifies that he was forsworn in finding of an indictment of Forcible Entry and upon de injuria sua propria as to the justification both issues were found for the Plaintiff And upon motion of Latch in arrest of judgment First if the Words themselves were actionable Secondly if the Iustification made them good and actionable and upon great debate judgment was given for the Plaintiff in both points First the Court did take the words being spoken together to be the same as if he had said he is forsworn upon Record Justification explains the Parties meaning to be of perjury which is as much as to call him perjured Secondly his justification hath explained his meaning in them to be of perjury And Tuke and Condie's Case was cited for this where the Defendant in an Action brought for saying You are forsworn justified that he was forsworn in an indictment of Battery and the issue upon the justification being found for the Plaintiff he had judgment in Common Bank which was afterwards affirmed in this Court and now allowed for good Law by both the Iudges yet two Objections were made by Latch against this judgment First that the Declaration of it self being insufficent in substance could not be made good by the Defendant's bar Secondly that the ground of the Action is the disgrace that the Plaintiff incurs before the Auditors now they must understand the words according to the common acceptation as they were spoken and not in the sense wherein the Defendant justifies the speaking of them and he cited a Case 21 Jac. betwéen Wheeler and Abbot where in Slander for saying Thou hast stollen my Piece innuend ' a Gun the Defendant justified that the Plaintiff did steal his Gun and though the Iustification which shewed the Defendant's meaning to be of a Gun was found against him and Piece was a word of an incertain signification which could not be explained by the Innuendo Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Reasons aforesaid Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Water's Case Ten in common makes a Wall against the house to prevent the others getting in no disscisin IN an Assise of a House in Westminster upon null ' tort c. pleaded and a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that there were two Tenants in common of the House and one of them nailed up the Doors and made up a Wall against the House to prevent the others getting into the House and this was resolved no Disseisin and so the Iury were discharged But the point in Law would have béen that a Tradesman purchased Lands in fée to himself and his Wife and after became Bankrupt c. whether the Commissioners had power to sell so as to bar the Wife Taylor versus Usherwood Hill 18 Car. Rot. 87. Demise IN an eject ' firmae upon a special Verdict the Case was That one devised Land to one Elizabeth for her life and after her death to the eldest Heir male of her body and to the Heirs males of such Heir male so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth and if he be not of twenty four years of age at that time then that the Husband of Elizabeth shall hold them till he comes to that age and the profits to be disposed among the younger Children Elizabeth dieth her Heir male within the age of twenty four years and after he attained to that age and entred and demised to the Defendant And Hales argued for the Defendant That if the demise had rested in
brought in the Exchequer but I think it was for delay only Term Mich. 24 Car. Banco Regis Udal versus Udal IN a Trover and Conversion of 400 Load of Timber Vpon not guilty pleaded the Iury found by special Verdict that Sir William Udal being seized in fée of the Mannor of Horton whereof the Land where the Timber grew was parcel did Covenant by Indenture to levy a Fine to the use of himself in Tail the Remainder to such persons and for such Estates as he should limit by Indenture and for want of such limitation the remainder to the Defendant for life the remainder to his eldest Son in Tail and to his tenth Son and for want of such Issue the remainder to W. U. for life the remainder to his eldest Son in Tail c. and so to his tenth Son the remainder to the right heirs of Sir William with a Proviso that upon tender of 5 s. c. he might revoke those uses and limit others and levyed a fine accordingly And after by another Indenture reciting the uses of the first and the Proviso in it made a new limitation to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Defendant for life with like remainder ut supra to his Sons the remainder to W. U. for life with like remainders to his Sons the remainder to the Plaintiff in Tail c. according to his power and the clause in the said Indentures and dyed without Issue and the Defendant neither himself nor W. U. having any Son cut down the Timber and years after sold part of it and the Plaintiff seised the rest which the Defendant did take again from the Plaintiff and sold the same and if c. And the case being argued Trin. Pasch ult and this Term it was resolved by Bacon and Roll. 1. That if there be tenant for life the remainder for life and tenant for life cut down Timber trées he that hath the Inheritance may seise them although he cannot have an Action of waste during the life of him in remainder For 1. The particular tenant hath not the absolute property in the Trées but only a special Interest in them so long as they continue annexed to the Land And therefore a Termer cannot grant away his term excepting the trées but the exception is void for that he cannot have a distinct interest in them but only relative to the land And so it is resolved in Sanders Case Lib. 5. 12. f. and so Mainard said it was resolved 10 Car. in Whites case in the Court of Wards in case of lesseé for life but where a Lease for years was made without Impeachment of waste such an exception was adjudged good as he said in Sir Alan Piercy's Case and so Bacon said it was adjudged 9 Car. in Dame Billinglys Case Then the remainder for life betters not the interest of the tenant for life in the Trées but only is an impediment for the time to the bringing of an Action of waste and therefore after the death of him in remainder for life an Action will lye for waste done in his life time And so it is adjudged in Pagets Case Lib. 5. 76. g. and so Mainard said it was adjudged Mich. 14 E. 2. in a Case not Printed that where he in reversion upon an estate for life granted his reversion for life and the tenant for life made waste and then the grantée of the reversion dyed that an Action of waste would lye against the tenant for life which proves that the cutting down of the Trées by the Tenant was tortious 2. It was resolved that the mean remainders in contingency though of an estate inheritance alter not the case for an estate in contingency is no estate till the contingency happen And therefore it was agréed that the Plaintiff might have had an Action of waste in this Case had there not béen a remainder for life in esse notwithstanding the mean contingent remainders 3. It was resolved that a Trover and Conversion in this Case would lye for all the Timber trées though the Plaintiff never seized parcel of them for by the cutting down of them an absolute property was vested in the Plaintiff unless they had béen cut down for reparations and so imployed in convenient time And for this Bury and Heards Case was cited by the Court which commenced in this Court 20 Jac. and depended seven years where a stranger entred into Lands leased for life and cut down Timber trées and barked them and the lessor before seisure brought a Trover for the bark and had Iudgment to recover notwithstanding that the cutting down and barking was all at one time whereupon it was then objected that the distinct property of a chattle was never settled in the lessor and the book of 13 H. 7. 9. g. cited that Trespass vi armis doth not lye against lessée for years who cuts down Timber trées and sells them Per Curiam Which Case was then affirmed for good Law but there it was agréed That if lessée for years cuts down Timber trees and lets them lye and after carries them away so that the taking and carrying away be not as one continued act but that there be some time for the distinct property of a divided chattle to settle in the lessor that an Action of Trespass vi armis would lye in such case against the lessee And that in such case felony might be committed of them but not where they were taken and carried away at the same time Vide 3 In. 109. a. c. 4. 63. f. And it was resolved in that Case of Bury and Heard that although the lessee had a special Interest in the trees as for necessary reparations c. yet the Action would lye for the lessor for the Interest of the lessee was determined by the cutting down unless he had cause for necessary reparations which had there been yet might the lessor have his Action but if the lessee in such case had brought his Action and recovered this would have been a good bar against the lessor but in the principal case there was years distance between the cutting down and the sale And also the Defendant by the sale made himself an absolute wrong doer for though there had been cause for reparation yet the Trees being cut down and sold though other Trees had been bought with the money and imployed in reparations this would not have excused him in an Action of Waste And an exception was taken by Latch to the execution of the power of Sir William upon the limitation of the uses by the last Indenture for that it was made with relation to the Proviso And five shillings were not tendered which was the Condition of the power thereby reserved and then Sir William being tenant in Tail the reversion to himself in fee by the first Indenture and dying without Issue the Defendant being his heir was seised in fee but the exception was clearly disallowed both for
the Words so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth it would have béen a contingent limitation upon the being of that age at that time Where words make a contingency by the intent of the party but now that by a mean disposal of the Profits he fills up that space of time it appears he did not mean to make that limitation a contingency to the Remainder but upon that supposal to provide for the younger Children and the Case was adjourned Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Needler versus Guest Trin. 17 Car. Rot. 1324. IN an Action of Covenant Covenant for 2 s. for copying every Quire of Paper Breach that he copied four Quire and three Sheets for which 8 s. 3 d. was due And that there could be no apportionment for the Covenant was to allow him 2 s. a Quire but not pro rata If he had averred 3 d. to be the usual fees for copying three Sheets he might have helped himself The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant being an Attorney covenanted to take the Plaintiff for his Clerk and to allow him 2 s. for every Quire of Paper that he should Copy out and 1 d. for every Shéet that he should engross and so much for such and such things and all usual fées and among other breaches he alledged that he copied out a Bill containing four Quires and thrée Shéets for which 8 s. 3 d. was due to him which the Defendant hath not paid And upon a Verdict and Iudgment for the Plaintiff in C. B. it was moved for error that there could be no apportionment in this Case for the Covenant was to allow him 2 s. for copying a Quire but not pro rata And for this cause upon good debate the Iudgment was reversed but it was holden that if he had averred 3 d. to be the usual fée for copying thrée Shéets of Paper he might have helped himself upon that Clause Vincent versus Fursy Hil. 22 Rot. IN an Action of Trespass for entring into his House Trespass and breaking duas Cistas and for taking diversa genera apparatuum in Cista praedicta existent and for beating his Servant per quod Servitium amisit after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon motion in arrest of judgment it was agréed First that one may have a general Action of Trespass and a special Action upon the Case in one Action Secondly that the words diversa genera apparatuum were too incertain of themselves but being referred to a Chest wherein they lay they were reduced to sufficient certainty but because two Chests were mentioned before and the Apparel was alledged to be in Cista praedicta in the singular number so that it appears not in which they were judgment was given against the Plaintiff Stoughton versus Day Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 486. IN Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition That whereas the Plaintiff is Sheriff of Surry and hath made Cornelius Trapp his Bailiff of the Hundred of Brixto if he should execute his Office c. and make true returns of all Warrants directed to him then c. The Defendant upon Oyer pleads particularly performance to all the Plaintiff replies that process was directed to him to levy Issues upon J. S. and that he made his Warrant to Trapp to execute the same which Warrant he did not return and upon a demurrer Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff because he did not shew that the Issues were to be levied within the Hundred of Brixto for it was resolved that though the words of the Condition were general to make return of all Warrants directed to him yet it was to be understood of such only as were to be executed within the Hundred of which he was made Bailiff Capel versus Allen. Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 639. IN Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition to perform an Award the Plaintiff upon nullum arbitrium pleaded by the Defendant sets forth that the Arbitrators did award de supra praemissis modo forma sequenti viz. That the Defendant should pay so much to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff should pay for the Writings of the award and it was adjudged a void Award because but of one side for it did not appear that the other party was bound to pay for the Writings which was the only recompence for the Defendant And this also is matter subsequent to the submission and so cannot be intended a good recompence Johnson versus Barret auters IN an Action of Trespass Trespass for carrying away Soil and Timber c. Vpon Trial at the Bar the Question arose upon a Key that was erected in Yarmouth and destroyed by the Bailiffs and Burgesses of the Town and Roll said that if it were erected betwéen the high Water-mark and low Water-mark then it belonged to him that had the Land adjoyning But Hale did earnestly affirm the contrary viz. that it belonged to the King of common right But it was clearly agréed that if it were erected beneath the low Water-mark then it belonged to the King It was likewise agréed that an Intruder upon the King's possession might have an Action of Trespass against a Stranger but he could not make a Lease whereupon the Lessee might maintain an Ejectione firmae Whitacre versus Hillidell H. 22 Car. Rot. 1318. SLander Slander Margaret Whitacre is a Thief and stole my Wood and I will have her put in Bridewell and upon motion in an arrest of Iudgment after Verdict it was agréed by Bacon and Roll that those words she is a Thief and stole my Wood of themselves were actionable and Cases cited accordingly But Bacon held that the latter words qualified the former for the Statute 43 Eliz. cap. 7. enacteth that persons that steal Wood growing which is not Felony shall be whipped if they make not satisfaction now Bridewell is known to be a place where such penalties are inflicted so that upon all the words it shall be intended an accusation of such an offence the penalty whereof is whipping and not of Felony But Roll contra totis viribus because the words she is a Thief are single and the other accumulative being brought in by the word And but if it had béen for she stole c. then they are explanatory And this difference hath béen alwaies taken in this course But Bacon denied the diference and cited Clerke and Gilbert's Case Hob. 331. thou art a Thief and hast stollen twenty load of my Furzis and adjudged not actionable and no difference allowed betwéen and and for but Roll flatly denied that Case to be Law 2. To accuse one of petit Larceny will bear action and for that the offendor shall be whipped so that might be his meaning and he said that where the first words are a plain and direct Slander the subsequent words that should take of their effect ought to carry in them a very strong Intendment that they were
certain Lands c. promised to pay to the Plaintiff 15 li. annuatim pro quolibet anno during four years if J. S. should live so long and after the first year the Plaintiff brought his Action and upon non Assumpsit had a Verdict and Iudgment though it was not averred that J. S. lived so long for the Action lieth after the first year Si being a limitation subsequent Shaw versus Huntly Trin. 21 Car. Rot. 321. IN Debt Debt against an Executor upon plene administravit pleaded and Issue thereupon the Iury found that the Testator devised that his Executors should sell certain Lands Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Blackwell versus Ashton Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 636. A Scire facias Scire facias was brought against three Bailees upon a Recognizance acknowledged by them and the principal joyntly and severally and upon a demurrer the Writ abated by good advisement because this being founded upon a Record the Pl. ought to shew forth the cause of the variance from the Record as that one was dead but if an Action be brought upon Bond in the like case there the Defendants ought to shew that it was made by them and others in full life not named in the Writ because the Court shall not intend that the Bond was sealed and delivered by all that are named in it and therefore the Defendants cannot demur upon it though it be entred in haec verba And so it is if an action be brought upon a Recognizance taken before the Mayor and Recorder c. by the Statute of 23 H. 8. because there the parties must seal and so hath it been adjudged Dyer 227. e. 28 H. 6. 3. c. 36 H. 6. 16. Fyner versus Jeffrys Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1599. IN an Assumpsit Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares That where one Richard Brand had assaulted and beaten the Plaintiff c. the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would not prosecute the said R. B. c. promised to pay him so much as the Plaintiff was damnified and averrs that he hath not nor yet doth prosecute the said R. B. c. And that he was damnified by reason of the same Battery in 30 li. which the Defendant though such a time and place required hath not paid and upon non Assumpsit and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that the Plaintiff hath not given the Defendant notice of what he was damnified in but yet the Plaintiff had his Iudgment because the Defendant hath taken upon him to pay the damage that the Plaintiff susteined which when the Plaintiff ascertains to him and requires him to pay the Defendant at his peril is bound to pay if in truth he were so much damnified Lodge versus Weeden Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 146. IN an Action upon the Case for killing of Cattel infected de quodam morbo mortali Angl. the Murrain and throwing their Entrails into the Plaintiff's Field per quod diversa averia of the Plaintiff's interierunt after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon not guilty pleaded it was moved to be too uncertain because it doth not appear what nor how many Beasts perished but yet Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because there néeds not such certainty in an Action upon the Case which is not brought for the Beasts themselves or the value of them but for damages sustained by their death through the Defendants means Sims versus Gregory and others Trin. 23 Car. or Pasch 22 Car. Rot. 247. IN an Action of Trespass Trespass upon the Statute of Monopolies made anno 21 Jac. the Plaintiff sets forth the Statute and that 13. Jul. 14 Car. proclamation was made by the King concerning Wines by colour whereof the Defendants procured the Plaintiff to be imprisoned and 200 Pipes of his Wine to be detained till he made Fine for them and that afterward viz. 15 Jul. 14 Car. another Proclamation was made colore hujus Proclamationis postea scil 7. Jan. 20 Car. the Defendants caused the said Plaintiff to be taken and imprisoned and that the Defendants not fearing the said Stat. postea scil 14. Jul. ann 20. supradicto tantas minas de imprisonamento corporis ipsius T. Sims adtunc ibidem intulerunt quod idem Th. Sims per longum tempus scil à praed ' 14. die Jul. anno 20. supradict usque diem impetrationis hujus billae scil 14. diem Jul. 21 Car. circa negotia sua necessaria palam intendere non audebat c. contra pacem c. contra formam Statuti c. The Defendant pleaded not guilty within six years and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in an arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration was repugnant for the Imprisonment is laid to be 7. Jan. 20 Car. and then follows that the Defendants postea scil 14. Jul. 20 Car. tantas minas c. which is before the Imprisonment for the King began his Reign 27. Martii and the Iury have given damages with relation to the whole time whereas the Declaration is nought as to a great part of it And the Case being much debated it was agreed 1. That the Plaintiff in his Declaration need not answer the order of time wherein the Trespasses were done but may alledge that which was done 7. Jan. before that which was done 14. Jul. But yet 2. It was resolved that postea in the latter place must refer to the time immediately precedent and cannot leap over that and refer to the time wherein the Proclamation was made 3. It was resolved that the word postea in this case could not be void and the time brought in by the Scilicet stand absolutely because the word Scilicet is but explanatory and for instance and cannot contradict any thing that is precedent Hob. 172. But if the word Scilicet had been out and the time brought in by it had been alledged substantively then the word Postea would have been void being repugnant 4. It was resolved that the time brought in by the Scilicet was repugnant and void and the Declaration stands as if no such time had been alledged and then it runs thus That the Defendant's Postea tantas minas c. intulerunt quod idem J. S. per longum tempus circa negotia sua necessaria palam intendere non audebat and though this be uncertain for that no time is alledged yet it being not the substance of the Action but only for aggravation of damages and in as much as evidence could not be given of any threats after the reste of the Bill or damage by reason of them thefore being after a Verdict it was resolved to be good enough Lastly It was resolved That it shall not be intended in this case that the Iury have given damages with respect to the time brought in by the last Scilicet after per longum tempus which over-reaches the time that the threats were made the time brought in by the first Scilicet
because she might have many Sons But yet upon good consideration Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Court shall not intend that Mary had any other Sons besides the Plaintiff And Roll cited a Case where one said your Landlord Henley is a Thief and laid his Declaration only with an Innuendo of the Plaintiff then Landlord c. and adjudged good But in another Case where one said your Landlord without a Surname is a Thief in such an Innuendo it was after great debate the Court being at first divided in opinion adjudged naught But there if the Plaintiff had averred that he to whom the words were spoken had no other Landlord it had been good Vide French and Edward's Case su 3. More versus Clypsam IN a Replevin Replevin the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant cepit centum oves matrices vervices of the Plaintiffs The Defendant avows that his Father was seised in fee of the place where c. and died seised and that the Lands descended to the Defendant as Son and Heir by virtue whereof he entred and was seised in fee and took the Beasts damage feasant the Plaintiff makes a reply and concludes with a traverse absque hoc that the Defendant at the time of the taking was adhuc est seised in fee of the Land and issue thereupon was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Traverse was naught 1. Because the title of the Avowant is not answered for that the dying seised of the Father and the descent and the seisin of the Avowant is but a conclusion upon that 2. Because the Traverse is larger then the Avowry for adhuc est refers to the time of the pleading which is more then is alledged or then is material To the first it was answered that though it be not formal yet it is substantial enough for if the Son were not seised there could be no discent to him and therefore it is made good by the Verdict and the Court inclined to this opinion But the other exception was holden to be material Then an exception was taken to the Declaration because it is for 100 Ewes and Wethers and it doth not appear how many there are of Ewes and how many Wethers and the Sheriff is bound to make deliverance of the one sort and of the other for his delivery must be according to the Writ And though he may receive information from the parties so that it is a good return to say nullus venit ex parte querent ' ad ostendend'averia c. yet he is not bound to require it but ought to have sufficient certainty within the Record And for this cause after great debate Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff but it was agreed that oves without addition had been good enough and the Sheriff might have delivered the one sort and the other But if the Writ be for oves matrices the Sheriff cannot deliver Wethers so if it be for Black Horses the Sheriff cannot deliver White but is subject to an Action of Case Now there being some Ewes and some Wethers and the number not appearing the Sheriff is left at uncertainty and upon the same reason a Formedon of 100 Acres of Meadow and Pasture hath been adjudged naught as Roll said Com. Northumb. vers Green Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1198. IN Debt Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declares That one Cross made a Lease for years to the Defendant rendring Rent payable half yearly who granted the reversion to the Plaintiff and such a day which was the day wherein the Rent was due the Defendant attorned and for three years Rent and a half which included the Rent due the day of the attornment the Action was brought and upon nil debet and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Rent was payable to Cross before the attornment for that shall be taken if worst for the Plaintiff to be after Sun-set but it was disallowed for the Court shall not intend it and if they should the Verdict supplies the averment of the contrary And both the Iudges said that if a Writ abate one day and another Writ is purchased which bears teste the same day it shall be intended after the abatement of the first Caly versus Joslin Uxor ' Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1282. IN Debt Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years against the Husband and Wife Executrix which was laid in the debet and detinet Vpon plene administravit pleaded and a Demurrer thereupon the case was well debated by reason of contrary resolutions for Hargrave's Case was reversed in the Exchequer Co. 5.31 because the Action was in the debet and detinet but afterwards 7 Jac. between the Lord Rich and Frank. in C. B. upon great debate it was adjudged good in the debet and detinet And the like Iudgment was given 9 Jac. in C. B. in Sir Henry Carye's Case And after that Pasc 17 Jac. Rot. 346. B. R. between Paule and Moody it was adjudged good in the detinet only And the like 7 Car. in the Common Pleas and the same year in this Court between Smith and Nichols and the reasons of these contrary opinions was the inconveniency of the one side and the other for in as much as the Executors cannot waive the Term it were hard if the Rent should exceed the value of the Land and they having no assets that they should be charged in the debet of their own proper Goods and yet if the Action must be brought in the detinet only where fully administred were a good plea then may they retain the Land and with the profits thereof satisfie Debts upon specialty whereby the Lessor should be defeated of his Rent For the avoiding of which inconveniencies it was resolved that they may be charged in the debet and detinet for prima facie the Land shall be intended to be of greater value than the Rent and if it be otherwise Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Gilbert versus Stone Trin. 17 Car. Rot. 1703. IN Trespass Trespass for breaking of a House and Close the Defendant pleaded that 12 homines ignoti modo guerrino armati tantum minabantur ei quod de vitae suae amissione dubitabat and after requirebant compulsabant the Defendant to goe with them to the House quodque ob timorem minarum per mandatum compulsionem dictorum 12 hominum he did enter the said House and returned immediately through the said Close which is the same Trespass c. And upon Demurrer Hob. 134. c. without argument it was adjudged no plea for one cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear and the Defenant hath remedy against those that compelled him Also the manner of the pleading was naught because he did not shew that the way to the House was through the Close Mark versus Cubit Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 376. SLander
Slander You are a Rogue you are a traitorly Rogue you cheated your Father you are a branded Rogue you have held up your hand at the Bar you have deserved to be hanged and I will have you hanged And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff for all the words except traitorly Rogue the question was whether the words branded Rogue would maintain the Action for it is clear none of the others would because as was pretended the most that they impart is if he hath been branded for a Rogue by virtue of the Statute of 1 Jac. cap. 7. then his punishment is past and consequently the words not actionable because they cannot be any damage to him But upon debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for by the Statute if a branded Rogue wander again it is Felony and so the words put him in a nearer degree of Felony than otherwise he should be Brown Wood. ADministration was granted to the Sister of the half Blood of the Intestate and her Husband by the Prerogative Court and the Brother of the whole Blood sued there to have the Letters repealed and upon motion for a prohibition upon this suggestion it was agreed by the Court that the Sister of the half Blood is in equal degree of Kindred with the Brother of the whole Blood within the Statute And so was it resolved 1 Car. between Glascock and Wingate known by the name of Iustice Yelverton's Man's Case And if the Ordinary hath once executed his power according to the Statute he cannot repeal the Letters upon a citation but it was resolved that the Statute was not observed in the Grant of the Letters in this case because the Husband who is not of kin to the Intestate is joyned with the Wife and if she should die before him he should continue Administrator against the meaning of the Statute And for this cause a prohibition was denied but it was said that if it had been granted to them only during the Coverture perhâ—ps it might have been good because the Husband might have administred during the Coverture though it had been granted to the Wife only Hil. 23 Car. Banco Regis Hilliard Ux. vers Hambridge H. 22 Car. Rot. 1010. Action sur le Case IN an Action upon the Case against an Executor upon a promise of the Testator made to the Husband and Wife in consideration of their Marriage had at his request to pay 8 li. per annum to the Wife during the Coverture after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon non Assumpsit pleaded it was moved Termino Hil. 22 Car. in arrest of Iudgment that it should be brought by the Husband only the promise being made after the Coverture because the whole benefit thereof is to redound to the Husband and thereupon Iudgment was stayed But this Term the Case being moved again Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for it is in the election of the Husband to bring the Action alone or to joyn with his Wife as 43 E. 3. 10. 15 E. 4. 10. c. 7 E. 4. 6. a. 7. a. Br. Baron Feme 55. in case of a Bond made to them both after Coverture And the Case was held to be stronger because it is an Executory promise of a thing of continuance than if it had been to be done unica vice Vide 48 E. 3. 18. f. 16 E. 4. 8. e. Eels versus Smith SLander Slander She hath married the Husband of another Woman And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the words would not bear Action for the Plaintiff's Wife might be dead or beyond Sea by the space of seven years and then the Case is out of the Stat. of 1 Jac. cap. 11. And though it be alledged in his Declaration that he had no other Wife yet the words must be taken as they were spoken before the auditors And perchance the meaning might be that the Plaintiff was contracted to and so in Conscience was the Husband of another Woman and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Yates versus Lindall SLander Slander She is a Sorcerer and a Witch and can witch and unwitch she is a white Witch and can witch and unwitch And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff Iudgment was given against her because she is not accused of any offence within the Statute Gawdy Congham Mich. 23 Car. Rot. 348. IN a Writ of Error Error upon a Iudgment in C. B. in an Action of Debt against Executors who pleaded fully administred and the issue being whether Assets or no it was found that they had Assets for part onely and Iudgment was given for to recover the whole Debt And it was moved by Hales for Error that it should have been for so much only as was found in the Defendants hands and so are all the Presidents in that Court which he said he had caused to be searched but the Iudgment was affirmed for it is good either way and in this Court it is the course to give Iudgment for the whole according to Mary Shiplie's Case l. 8. 134. Eeles versus Lambert Mich. 22 Car. Rot. 357. IN an Action of Covenant Covenant the Plaintiff declares That Sir Moulton Lambert the Testator did demise to him a Wharf called the Wharf-ground near the Common Dike and other Tenements for 21 years and Covenanted that he might quietly enjoy them without the interruption of the said M. L. his Heirs or Assigns vel aliquar ' personar ' clamantium per praed ' M.L. haered ' vel assignat ' suos vel per eorum medium consensum vel procurationem nisi c. and assigns for breach that one Mich. Clavel clamans titulum à praed ' M. L. postea scil 20. Feb. 17 Car. did enter upon him and eject him c. the Defendant pleads plene administravit and Issue being joyned thereupon the Iury found that Sir M. L. 15. Jun. 1634. made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and by the same Will dedit diversa legata bonorum in specie separalibus personis in dicto Testamento nominatis ac postea obiit post cujus mortem the Defendant 11 Car. bona praed ' sic ut praefertur in specie dat' ad valentiam 500 li. in executionem Testamenti praed ' praed ' separalibus personis in eodem Testamento nominat ' deliberavit and find the breach of Covenant to be six years after and that no other Goods of the Testators came to the hands of the Defendant si c. pro querent ' c. And the Case was argued by Green and Latch ex parte querentis that the Goods delivered for Legacies are Assets in the Executors hands as to this contingent Covenant 1. That the Executors shall be intended conusant of all Contracts and Duties of the Testators as well present as future as well contingent as certain and that therefore this contingent Covenant lay as a charge upon the
Testator's Estate 2. That such contingent Covenants are common assurances much favoured in Law which may all be easily defeated if the disposition of the Covenants by his Will should stand good against them for though the Executors should afterwards voluntarily break them yet the recompence must be had only out of the Testator's Estate 3. A diversity was taken between Debts without specialty and Legacies for those are duties of the same nature with Debts upon specialty but differ only in order and dignity but these are meer gratuities for which no Action lieth at the Common Law and therefore are not taken notice of by Law as duties but the remedy for them is in the Court Christian 4. The Executor was not compellable by the Ecclesiastical Court to pay these Legacies unless the Legatees in this case would give caution to repay them if the contingent Covenants should be broken And so it was said is the course in Chancery at this day in the like cases And Hales and Twisden ex parte Defendentis argued to the contrary 1. It was agreed by them and also by the Court that though the Legacies were devised in specie yet the Legatees could not take them without the assent of the Executors And that therefore the Case was the same as if the Legacies had been of money Indeed there is a difference between these Legacies for Legatum quantitatis est Legatario as Legatum in specie est 2. It was agreed that if the Covenant had been broken before the delivery of the Legacies the Administration would have wrought a Devastavit but the Legacies being first delivered it was agrued that the Executors ought not to be charged in a Devastavit upon this Covenant 1. From the nature of the thing it self for a Covenant is no Duty nor cause of Action till it be broken and therefore is not discharged by a release of Actions And when it is broken the Action is not founded meerly upon the specialty as if it were a Duty but savours of Trespass and therefore an Accord is a good plea to it and ends in damages 2. From the qualification of it in respect of the contingency of the breach thereof for it is to be presumed that it will be rather performed than broken 3. From the inconvenience that such a Covenant should obstruct the performance of the Will for it is a present and certain mischief that Legacies should not be paid and it is but a possible and contingent mischief that the Covenant should be broken and the Covenantee unsatisfied and therefore admitting that it were in place where by custome a rationabili parte bonorum would lie it would be very hard that the Children should expect till it were known whether the Covenant would be broken or no which may perchance continue in suspense for ever for such Covenants are commonly annext to Estates in fee. Now the reason is the same in case of Legacies for where it hath been said that the Common Law takes no notice of them so as to give remedy for them it was answered 1. That the Law takes notice of a Legacy so as to create a Duty in the party to whom it is bequeathed though he cannot take it without the assent of the Executors for after such assent the Law vests the property of the thing bequeathed in the Legatee and therefore a Condition imposed upon the assent is void 2. The Probate and ordering of Wills did belong originally to the Iurisdiction of Temporal Courts where the Legatees might have had remedy for their Legacies as appears by Glanvil lib. 6. cap. 6 7. where there is a Writ to demand a Legacy at the Common Law and now that the Iurisdiction is devolved to the Ecclesiastical Court the Common Law takes notice of the remedy there for Legacies for the power of that Court is regulated by these and therefore forbearance of Suit there hath been adjudged a good consideration of a promise and for the same reason Hale said he conceived that if an Executor of his own wrong paid Legacies the rightfull Executor should be bound thereby because he was compellable by Law to pay them 3. Though the Executor were not compellable by Law to pay the Legacies yet now that payment is executed the Law takes notice of it to vest the property of the Goods in the Legatees And this being before any Covenant broken the Administration will be good As to the Objection concerning provisional payment of Legacies it was answered 1. That it is the common case almost of all persons that have any dealing in the Kingdom to make such Covenants and to give Portions to their Children by Will and this is all the maintenance many of them have and therefore it is difficult for them to find security for the payment of that whereof they live 2. Though the Ecclesiastical Court in a prudential way use sometimes to take caution for repayment yet they are not bound so to doe And therefore this Court cannot take notice thereof 3. It hath been agreed that payment of Debts upon simple Contracts is a good administration against Iudgments defeasible upon performance of Covenants and yet the same provisional payment might be made in that case but the Law doth not compell it pur que c. And the Case being thus argued the last Trinity Term and this Term two Exceptions were taken by Bacon to the Declaration 1. That the Plaintiff hath not conveyed to himself a good Title to the Tenements for he alledges a demise of them habendum to the Plaintiff but he is not named in the premises but this was after agreed to be well enough for a Lease so made is good And Latch said it had been so adjudged 2. That the breach was not well assigned for the Covenant is against all persons claiming by the assent means or procurement of Sir Moulton but the breach assigned is that Clavel clamans titulum from Sir M. did enter now he might claim Title from him when as in truth he had no Title from him And for this cause Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And the Iudges would not deliver their opinions upon the matter in Law but upon the Arguments Roll did incline for the Plaintiff upon the provisional payment that might be made and said that Prohibitions have been denied upon suggestion of a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court where contingent charges have been pleaded because this Court takes notice of provisional payments which are used to be made there also he approved of the diversity between Debts without specialty and Legacies And Bacon inclined to the Defendant for the reasons before alledged Hil. 23 Car. Banco Regis Holdwich Ux. vers Chafe Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 326. IN an Action of Debt by the Husband and Wife Executrix upon a Bond supposed to be made to the Testator non est factum being pleaded it was found to be made to the Testator and another who died before the Testator
Action because they imply an act done And Roll said that where one said Where is that long lock't shagg-hair'd murdering Rogue And a stranger asked him who do you mean He said Greene of Fauseet the words were judged actionable so he said where one said Bring home the Cushion you stole the words were adjudged actionable But the Iudgment was stayed for further advice Dent versus Scott Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 1151. IN an Action of the Case upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit for Wares it was found by special Verdict Acc'on sur Case that the Wares were sold to the Defendants Wife for convenient Apparel which she wore and if c. And the Opinion of the Court was clear for the Plaintiff for the Wife may charge the Husband for Necessaries as Apparel Dyet and Lodging in case that the Husband doth not provide them for her But if the Husband allow a stipend to the Wife for these things and it be paid her then they held she could not charge him And Roll said that this was endeavoured to be proved at the trial and because it could not he would have had the Iury found generally for the Plaintiff And Bacon said that he and the other Iudges have lately certified the Lords in Parliament accordingly but for a flaw in the Declaration which was in considerat ' quod venderet deliberaret and no averment of any sale or delivery Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff because the Declaration was insufficient and so entered Note also that the promise in this Case is laid to be made by the Husband and the sale and delivery made to him but then it must be deliberasset for if it were in consideration quod venderet deliberaret to him then it may be questioned whether a Sale and Delivery to the Wife would make good the averment Dunsh versus Smith Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 37. IN an Action of Debt Debt brought by an Executor for the arrears of a Rent-charge upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in the life of the Testator did enter into the Land out of which the Rent was issuing and occupied it and took the profits thereof by the space of five years and demands the arrears of the Rent for the time And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mainard moved that the Action will not lye for the arrears against the Occupiers for the Statute gives it against the Tenants of the Land To which Hale answered That at the Common Law the Action lay against him that took the profits of the Land and against the Husband that was seized in right of his Wife C. 4. f. 49. 2. That this Action is given in lieu of a Distress and the Beasts of the Occupiers were chargeable to the Distress 3. That it would be convenient that the Plaintiff should be compelled to inquire out in whom the Estate was of right But Iudgment was stayed And Roll doubte◠of the Case but inclined against the Plaintiff Pasc 24 Car. B. R. Harvy versus Thorne Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 472. IN an Action upon the Case Case against an Executor the Plaintiff declares that upon a treaty of a Marriage it was agréed betwéen the Plaintiff and the Testator that he should pay to the Plaintiff 100 li. and whilst that should be unpaid he should pay the Plaintiff 10 li. per Annum which Agréement was made Anno 1618. And the Action was brought for all the arrears by the space of 28 years The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations whereupon the Plaintiff demurred And upon the motion of Hale who advised the Attorney to bring the Action for all the arrears that it appeared that all could not be barred by the Statute Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff no Counsel being retained in the Cause for the Defendant Loder versus Hampshire IN Debt Debt upon a singel Bill of 50 li. the Defendant after Imparlance pleaded That after the last continuance the Defendant had paid the Plaintiff 5 li. parcel of the 50 li. and demanded Iudgment of the Bill Whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and because the Defendant did not alledge that he had an Acquittance which he ought to produce At the motion of Earle Iudgment was given against the Defendant that he should answer over c. C. 5 E. 4. 139. a. Dod versus Robinson Trin. 23 Car. Rot. SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares that the last of March 13 Car. he was Instituted and Inducted into a Parsonage in Ireland and executed the Office of a Pastor in that Church by the space of four years after and the Defendant said of him He was a Drunkard a Whoremaster a common Swearer and a common Lyar and hath preached false Doctrine and deserves to be degraded And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved by Hale in arrest of Iudgment 1. That the words in themselves are not actionable because the Crimes charged impute no Civil or Temporal damage to the Plaintiff for which he may have Action But the Opinion of the Court was clear for the Plaintiff in that point for that the matters charged are good cause to have him degraded whereby he should lose his Fréehold which is a temporal damage to him Then it was objected That he did not lay that he was Parson when the words were spoken To which it was answered by the Court That it should be intended he continued Parson because he had a Fréehold in the Parsonage during his life But it was further urged That inasmuch as he hath laid a special time during which he exercised the Office of a Pastor it shall not be intended that he continued so longer then himself hath laid it And of this the Court doubted but inclined for the Plaintiff Morefield Webb Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 51. Acc'on fur Case IN a Writ of Error upon Iudgment in the Palace Court at Westminster In an Action upon the Case upon a Promise and a Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved for Error that the Habeas Corpora Jurator̄ was not returned served but that there was a Pannel of the Names of the Iurors annexed to it which Case is aided by the Statute of 21 Jac. which aids when there is not any return upon the Writs of Ven. Fac. Hab. Corpora et Distring so as a Panel of the Names of the Iurors be returned and annexed to the said Writs And two Objections were made 1. That this Statute extends only to such by Writ and in this Court it is by Precept and not by Writ 2. It appears that this Court was erected by Letters Patents 6 Car. which was after the Statute But it was resolved 1. That it is within the Intention of the Statute which doth provide amendment in any Action Suit Plaint Bill or Demand And Roll said that it is questionable if this Statute extends to the Grand Sessions in Wales and Iustice Jones was angry that it was made a Question
affirmed Trin. 24 Car. B. R. Freeborne versus Pincras Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 1375. Acc'on sur Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration c. did promise to joyn with him in a Surrender of certain Copyhold Lands for a Sale to be made of them to any person and avers that he had procured 2 Copyholders such a day to be present at a certain place within the Mannor and that the Plaintiff was then and there ready to have joyned with the Defendant in a Surrender of the Lands for a Sale to be made to one J. S. and that the 2 Copyholders were then and there ready to have received the Surrender c. and that then and there he did request the Defendant to joyn with him in a Surrender into the hands of the two Copyholders to be presented by them in Court to the use of the said J. S. c. Secundum consuetudinem manerij praed ' à tempore quo c. usitat̄ quodque sursumredditio sic requisita facienda fuit pro venditione of the said Copyhold Lands pro quadam pecuniae summa per praed ' J. S. solvend ' And that the Defendant non junxit with the Plaintiff in the Surrender licet ad hoc faciend ' postea eodem die per praed ' querent̄ requisitus fuit c. And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Non assumpsit pleaded upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was resolved by Roll that the Declaration was insufficient 1. For that the Plaintiff hath alledged that he was ready to joyn in a Surrender with the Defendant and that then and there he did require the Defendant to Surrender but hath not alledged that he did give notice to the Defendant that he was ready to joyn with him and so it is no more then a bare request to the Defendant to make a Surrender which is not sufficient for that the Plaintiff was to joyn with him in it 2. The Surrender was to be for Sale to be made to J. S. and the Plaintiff hath not any way intimated to the Defendant that the intention of the Surrender was such And Roll said that the notice ought to be particular of the agréement and sum for which it was to be sold 3. The Promise is general to joyn in a Surrender and the Request is to Surrender into the hands of two Customary Tenants which being a particular way of Surrender grounded upon a particular custome is not within the intention of a promise generally to Surrender which is to be taken according to the common way of Surrender and so he said it was resolved Pasc 9 Car. in this Court betwéen Sims and the Lady Smith And so if a man be bound to another to make such assurance of Lands as the Obligée shall devise it is not sufficient for him to devise a Fine and to take out a Dedimus c. upon it and require his Conusants in that for this is but a special way of taking the Conusans and so he said it had béen ruled But if there were a Proviso that he should not go above five miles from his House then if his House be above five miles from Westminster he is bound to make his Conusans upon the Dedimus and that he said hath béen the difference 4. He hath not positively alledged that there was a custome in the Mannor to Surrender into the hands of two Copyholders which he ought to have done but hath too superficially pleaded And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Trin. 24 Car. B. R. Read versus Palmer Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 326. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares Acc'on sur Case that whereas he had brought an Action of Battery against the Defendant and procéeded to a Trial at Guildhall London where a Iury was drawn by consent and the Plaintiff and Defendant submitted the Cause to the award of two of the Iurors infra unum mensem proxime sequent̄ fiend ' and that postea eodem die in considerat̄ that the Plaintiff did promise to the Defendant to performe omnia et singula quae praed'arbitratores ex parte ipsius querent ' de et super praemissis faciend'et observand'ordinarent et adjudicarent And here the Plaintiffs Attorney after Issue joyned without notice inserted infra unum mensem the Defendant promised in the same manner and the same Clause there inserted by the Plaintiffs Attorney And after Verdict upon Non assumpsit pleaded this amendment after issue joyned without notice was moved in arrest of Iudgment wherein the question was Whether this amendment were in a point material for it was agréed that if it were not in a material part of the Declaration then it could not prejudice the Plaintiff And Twisden urged that it was not in a material part 1. Because every submission to an Award implies a Promise to perform it and so the promise laid is no more then was implyed in the submission 2. The Promise is to perform what the Arbitrators should award which must be taken with relation to the submission which was to an award to be made within a month And so the words infra unum mensem are but an expression of that which would have béen implyed without them But it was resolved by Roll upon good deliberation that the amendment was in a material part For 1. Though a submission to an Award be good Evidence to induce a Iury to find a Promise to perform it yet in Iudgment of Law the Promise is collateral to the submission and not implyed in it 2. Though the Promise be collateral to the submission yet if it had béen laid to have béen made at the same time with it then it should have béen intended adequate and proportionable to it but being laid to be made at another time although it be the same day it cannot be so intended because it is not immemediately applyed to the submission but it might have inlarged or abridged the time limited thereby And he cited a Case betwéen Hodge and Vavasour 14 Jac. where the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant such a day became indebted to him for Wares and in consideration thereof postea eodem die promised to pay it And this was ruled good not as a promise in Law but as an actual promise raised upon a consideration continuing which he cited to shew that a little distance of time though the same day alters the intendment of Law and a new Trial was awarded Trin. 24 Car. B. R. Chace versus Gold Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 219. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 200 li. with Condition for the payment of 104 li. at a day certaine Release made by the Defendant and two others joyntly and severally The Defendant upon Oyer and Entry of the Bond and Condition in haec verba pleaded that the Plaintiff did release praed ' scriptum obligatorium by the name of an Obligation in 200
Musgrave Hobart 18. which was cited by Hale who said he had séen the Record of it and it is entred Mich. 10 Jac. rot 76. in Scacar where the Plaintiff in an Ejectione firmae declared that J. S. 5 Maij 10. Jac. Demised a House to him Habendum from the Feast of Annunciation last past for 21 years extunc proxime sequentÌ„ And the Defendant the same 5. of May ejected him and upon Non cul the Iury found that the said J.S. the said 5. day of May by Indenture bearing date the 4. of May demised the House to the Plaintiff To have and to hold from the Feast of the Annunciation last past for and during the tearm of 21 years next ensuing the date hereof fully to be compleat and ended And upon that Verdict the Plaintiff had Iudgment which was affirmed there also in which case the tearm began from the Feast of the Annunciation in computation of the 21 years and upon the 5. of May in point of Interest But Roll agréed that if in the principal Case the Lease had béen made To have and to hold from the day of the date from henceforth for Seven years then the Plaintiff had declared right And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Hale for the Plaintiff Twisden for the Defendant Trin. 24 Car. Ward Prin. Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 169. IN a Writ of Error Error upon a Iudgment in C. B. in an Action upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares That whereas one John Ward the Plaintiffs Granchild by the consent of the Plaintiff was put to the Defendant to serve him being a as his Clerk And that the Defendant was to find him meat drink and lodging c. And that the Plaintiff thereupon had given 30 li. to the Defendant and had agréed to give 30 li. more in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special Request of the Defendant would give consent that the said John Ward should depart out of his Service And that the said John Ward should depart his Service the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 15 li. c. And upon Non assumpsit a Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved for Error that there was no Consideration for the Promise but the giving of the Plaintiffs consent that J. W. should depart and he might have departed without his consent but it was disallowed For the Relation of the Plaintiff to J. W. and the Charges he sustained in placing him with the Defendant shew that his Interest was so great in him that in all probability the Plaintiffs consent was an effectual means to cause J. W. to depart from the Defendants Service And the Case of Grisby and Lother in Hobart was cited where the Mothers consent that her Daughter should marry the Defendant was a good consideration of a Promise to the Mother And the Iudgment was affirmed Hale for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error Surry PRigg was Indicted that legitime electus fuit decenniarius Angl ' Headborough of the Ville of D. non praestitit sacramentum suum before any Iustice of Peace to execute the Office sed voluntarie obstinate abstained from it And it was agréed by Roll that one may be Indicted for not taking his Oath in such case but then he ought to be warned to appear before a Iustice of Peace there to take his Oath and for want of that and for that it did not appear how he was chosen Headborough the Indictment was quashed And afterwards upon motion a Writ was granted out of this Court directed to him commanding him to go before some Iustice of Peace to take his Oath c. was Convicted of Perjury by Verdict for swearing he was Servant to J. S. where in truth he was only Servant to the Servant of J. S. And for this Oath Roll fined him 10 li. though Wilde moved for an Abatement for that it was not malicious and said that one Tiler in liâ—e case was fined but 5 li. Newton Uxor versus Weekes Uxor Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 1470. IN an Action of Covenant Covenant upon an Indenture made by the Wife Defendant whilst she was sole to the Wife of the Plaintiff whereby she reciting that she was seized in Fée of certain Lands in consideration of a Marriage to be had betwéen the Plaintiff and her Son did grant to the Plaintiff a Rent-charge out of those Lands to have after the death of her Son and Covenanted to pay it c. The Defendants pleaded that shâ— had nothing in the Land at the time of the Grant but that a stranger was seized of it And upon Demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff both because the Defendant is estopped by the Déed and that the Covenant extends to it is as an Annuity absque argumento ad motionem Mri. Prestwood Southcote versus Southcote Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 1173. IN an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. the Plaintiff sets forth that he was proprietarius decimarum garbarum faeni c. And that the Defendant did sow certain Land containing so many Acres in that Parish with grain and after mowed it and carried away the Grain not setting out the tenth part And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Nil debet pleaded it was moved in arrest of Iudgment 1. That the Plaintiff hath entituled himself as proprietarius decimarum garbarum and demands for Tithe of Grain in general whereas Garbarum is a word of incertain signification and divers sorts of Grain are not wont to be bundled up as Rape-séed Mustard-séed and Cummin-séed which us'd to be threshed out in the Field 2. He demands for Tythe of Grain in general which is too incertain for that that there are several sorts of Grain But it was resolved 1. That Garba in its prime and proper signification is intended of Corn And so Roll said it was resolved 1. In Baxter's Case upon Consultation with the Civilians where one upon a Grant of Decimas garbarum would have had Tithe-hay but they did agrée that the word in its Latitude did comprehend any thing that useth to be bundled as wood c. but the ambiguity of the word here is taken away by the Verdict and is to be intended of Grain that is Garbable 2. The word Grain is certain enough for that it is expressed to be sowen upon a certain number of Acres And here is not a demand of the thing it self but Damages for it and all predial Tithes are within the Statute And this Exception was over-ruled in the great Case Coke Lib. Intra 162. cited 2. In. 650. And Roll said the same Exception was taken in Goldsmith's Case Trin. 10 Car. Rot. 893. B. R. but the Roll being séen in that Case the Verdict was not entred And Roll gave order that the Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff but after directed it might be respited till next Term But after the Iudgment was entred and a Writ of Error
that he had a double power by the first Indenture the one to limit other uses to such persons and for such estates as he pleased the other to revoke the uses limited by the first Indenture and to limit new uses And when he limits uses generally which cannot stand by the power reserved by the Proviso for lack of tender the Law will refer the limitation to the power he had to limit other uses c. And Sir Edw. Clears Case Lib. 6. 18. was cited And secondly for that the second limitation is expresly made according to his power which refers to that power which he persued And it was touched whether the uses limited according to that power were revocable by the Proviso And Mainard said it might be a question And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mainard for the Plaintiff and Latch for the Defendant Quaere in the case cited if a lessor should bring Trover against a stranger for Trees cut by him if this should be a bar to an Action of Waste for the Trees And if there were cause for reparations what remedy hath the lessee for his loss for it should seem that he will be liable to an Action of Waste for not repairing although the lessor recovers for the Trees Sir Anthony Ashly Cooper versus Saint John Trin. 24 Car. Rot. 267. Trin. 1649. between the same Plaintiff and Webb Defendant entred Hill 24 Car. Rot. 426. the same declaration was adjudged good upon a demurrer IN Trespass the Plaintiff declared quod cum he was seised of two Closes of pasture which were inclosed by him and whereas there was a Common next adjoyning to them the Defendant decem perticatas sepium claus ' praedictae pasturae prostravit sic prostratas for such a time custodivit per quod the beasts depasturing in the Common came into the Closes and eat the grass there ad dam ' c. the Defendant pleaded non cul'infra 6 annos And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mainard moved in arrest of Iudgment that it ought to have been vi armis because the Trespass is laid to be done in his own soil and said that in false imprisonment per quod he was compelled to pay 5 l. in a Case about seven or eight years since N. B. 93. d. Iudgment was arrested for want of vi armis But the exception was dissallowed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff without argument for the conclusion per quod and the commencement quod cum shew it to be an Action of the Case and the causa causans of the Damages may be laid vi armis or without it Lib. 950. f. Vide 13 H. 7. 26. f. which is no Law Quaere if in Case of false imprisonment there be not a difference between a conclusion per quod quousque c. Mich. 24 Car. Banco Regis Kynaston Spencer versus Jones Mich. 23 Car. Rot. 589. IN Debt upon a bond of 2000 l. bearing date 9 Martii 22 Car. with Condition to stand to the award of J. S. and J. N. indifferently chosen Arbitrators of all matters and controversies betwéen the parties Debt upon Award so that they made an award of the premises before the Feast of Easter next ensuing upon nullum fecerunt arbitrium ante festum Paschae pleaded by the Defendant the Plaintiffs replied that before the Feast of Easter viz. the 15 day of April following the Arbitrators did make their award that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiffs 1200 l. at four payments viz. on the 16 of October and the 16 of April and that on the fourth of May he should enter into four bonds for the payment and should then pay to the Plaintiffs 30 l. towards their costs and charges expended and that all Actions and controversies betwéen the Plaintiffs and Defendant should cease and determine and that they should seal and deliver to each other general Releases of all controversies suits and demands until the eighth day of March and time and place appointed for the doing of this And Assigned breach in not paying the 30 l. upon the fourth of May The Defendant rejoyned that the Arbitrators nullum fecerunt tale arbitrium modo forma pro ut de hoc c. whereupon Issue was Ioyned and by special Verdict it was found that the sixth of Febr. 22 Car. the parties agréed to submit all controversies betwéen them to Arbitrement and that 22 Febr. 22. Car. the Plaintiff became bound to the Defendant to stand to the award of the Arbitrators according to the condition ut supra and that 9 Mart. 22. Car. the Defendant became bound ut supra and that praedict ' 15 die Aprilis 23 Car. the Arbitrators made their award reciting that the Plaintiffs and Defendant became bound the 9 of March in 2000 l. a piece to perform their award and that the Defendant had received of the Plaintiff 1000 l. an 1641. which with Interest amounts to 1460 l. and upwards and that the Plaintiff had béen at Charges for the recovery thereof and thereby awarded ut supra And upon this Verdict two questions were made 1. Whether upon this Issue the submission be in question 2. Admitting it be whether the award upon the submission found be a good award Et Term. Pasch ult the Case was argued by Philips for the Plaintiff and Latch for the Defendant And this Term by Hale for the Plaintiff and Mainard for the Defendant And it was resolved by Bacon and Roll. 1. That upon this Issue the Iury cannot enquire of the submission for that is admitted by the plea. And therefore the Defendant could not have set this matter forth in the rejoynder thereby to have made good his bar that the Arbitrators made no award for the award in it self is a good award And it would have been a departure in him to have alledged a matter extrinsecal to the award which should prove it to be void and for this Lincy and Ashtons Case 12 Car. in this Court was cited by Roll where in debt upon a bond to perform an award upon nullum fecerunt arbitrium pleaded the Plaintiff set forth an award that the Defendant should pay 10 l. to the Plaintiff at the house of a stranger and Assigned breach in non-payment the Defendant rejoyned that he could not come to the strangers house without being a Trespasser and upon demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 39 H. 6. 6. h. Lib. 5. 103. for the award set forth by the Plaintiff was good and the matter alledged by the Defendant in avoidance of it was a departure from his bar And therefore he ought to have alledged the whole matter in his bar And so must he have done in this Case if he would have taken advantage of the submission and he said that 14 Car. Iudgment was affirmed in the Exchequer and both points resolved accordingly 2. Against the award it was objected that thereby the bond made by the