And at length it was adjudged that the Declaration was good Harding against Turpin IT was agréed by Hutton If a Copyholder makes a lease for years to commence at Michaelmas it is a forfeiture presently None gainsaid it Hutchinson against Chester AN action upon the case was brought against Chester And declares how the Plaintiff was in doing of certain businesse for the Defendant The Defendant said to him Do it and I 'll repay you whatsoever you lay out And shews that he had expended 4 l. and does not shew in certain and particular circa quid And for that cause it was held naught Read against Eaglefield IN debt by Read against Eaglefield and others who were Sheriffs of Bristowe The case being that they being Sheriffs took the Plaintiff by a Capias ad satisfaciend and detained him in prison untill the party Defendant and now Plaintiff paid the money to the Sheriff It was held that that was contrary to his warranty which is ita quod habeat denarios hic in curia And for that he did not so he is chargeable to him that was in Execution Stone against Walsingham STone libels against Walsingham in the spiritual Court and he pleads an agréement that for five years he ought not to set forth his tithes but to pay for them 6 s. 8 d. upon which matter a prohibition was granted Richardson you ought not to have a prohibition A lease for tithes ought to be by deed but by way of contract it is good for a year only without deed Vpon the Book M. 26 H. 6. But for 4 or 5 years by parol Such an agreement is not good Richardson May a Parson bargain and sell his tithes happening 4 years after by parols Yelverton It had been so adjudged in many Cases in the Kings Bench and the difference is where it is by way of demise and where by discharge Hutton The reason why it is good for years is for that that the contract moves severally But by way of deuise between Parson and Parishioner it is not good And Weston and Biggs case where it was resolved If there was an agréement made between Parson and Parishioner for discharge for tithes for years it was good without deed otherwise if it be for life Davenport not Richardson Then for more than a year that contract is void And you cannot bargain and sell the profits of beasts which a man hath not in his possession now but for those which he hath in his possession he may sell any profits Quod concessum Intr. 4 Car. rot 670 or 870. Litman against West LItman brought an action upon the case against West for words And he declared he being an Attourney c. and colloquio habito between them concerning his office The Defendant spoke these words He is a Cozener and hath cozened me of 20 s. And Serjeant Henden objected that the words were not actionable For that that they are too general And although they had Communication of his Office As Attorny Yet when the words were general and might be applyed as well to other things as such as touch his place yet for that c. As if one says of an Attorney Thou art a Common Barrettor Is not actionable And it was adjudged where one said to a Wheeleright Thou art a Cousener and hast cousened me of a pair of Wheeles Is not actionable And Sir Wil. Fleetwoods Case One said of him He is a Cousener and hath consened me in entring the Kings Accounts So here he might cousen him of 20 s. twenty ways and not as Attorny Richardson said the words were actionable Some words spoken of some men would bear an Action although the same words spoken of another would not As the Case of an Attorny especially as the Case is laid here And he had spoken of him as an Attorny Then it ought to be taken that he was a Cousener in his profession If one said of an Attorny Thou art a Cousener and hast delivered cousening Bills c. If it had been laid here that he had been an Attorny for the Defendant It would be actionable And this Case is more strong than Birchleys Case in Coo. lib. 4. One said of Chomely Recorder of London That he could not hear but of one side of his head And that was adjudged actionable And that being spoken of an Attorney there it would bear an Action One said in the North Country That one was a Daffidowndilly and adjudged actionable Because that the word there used expresses an Ambidexter being a flower of party colour Hutton said That the action would lye In one Gardleys Case who was an Attorny One said of him he was his Attorny and he had cousened him So of a Goldsmith Thou hast consened me and sold me a Saphire for a Diamond These words are not actionable because that the Goldsmith himself might be deceived in the stone And here these words spoken of an Attorny cannot be otherwise but to disgrace him in his profession An action in the Kings Bench. Thou art a cousening Knave Coroner and adjudged actionable One said of a Lawyer He hath no more Law than an Horse an action lies for both are applyed to his profession Yelverton agreed that the Iury had found that the words were spoken of him as Attorny For they have found the words in the Kings Bench. The Case was An Inne-keeper and an other were in communication and he said to him No man comes to thy House but thou cousenest him And adjudged actionable And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Middleton against Sir Iohn Shelly MIddleton recovers in Debt against Sir Iohn Shelly and had Execution And afterwards Sir Iohn purchases the Land of the Plaintiff And long after the Execution was sued by Elegit and that land extended But before Livery by any the Plaintiff dies Yet the Sheriff returns that he delivered the Land Hutton We will not credit that he is dead But you bring a Writ of error Yelverton agreed The return of the Sheriff Richardson the return of the Sheriff does not prejudice a third person although it concludes the parties And if the Execution was made if the party brings an Ejectione firm Whatsoever the Sheriff returnes his proceedings ought to be proved legal See if the Sheriff deliver possession where the partie is dead if any thing lies It was urged to have a writ of restitution But where the Sheriff gives possession contrary to the rule of the Court. Coventries case IN Coventries case before Ashley brought a Copy of the sentence given in the high commission Court which was that the parties shall be excommunicated and be fined 30 l. and imprisoned Whereupon he prayed a prohibition Richardson If they had gone but to excommunication they had been well Yelverton Iustice they have power by fine and imprisonment in some cases but here where the party grieved may be fined at Common law not For if the party be fined in the high Commission and be
only upon the Land in possession but also the rights to the same the one in point of Giving The other in point of renouncing The Land in possession could be but in one that is in the Offenders and so it was given but the rights to the same Lands might be in sundry persons in the Offendor or in his Heirs or in Strangers Now when the Statute saith the King shall have the Land without saving the Rights of the Offendors or his Heirs or any claiming to their use Tenant in tayl discontinues and after disseiseth his Discontinuee and is attainted of Treason he forfeits his Estate gained by the Disseisin and also his right of Entayl for he cannot take benefit of his ancient Right against the King by force of the Statute of 26 H. 8. and 32 of H. 8. and this agrees with the reason and the rule in the Marquess of Winchesters Case for if the Traytor have right to a Strangers land that shall not be given to the King for the quiet of the Stranger being Possessor for the quiet of his possesion but such right shall be given to the King being Possessor for the quiet of his possession and the word Hereditament in the Statute 26 H. 8. are both sufficient and fit to carry such right in such Cases and no man will dispute but they are sufficient to save naked rights to the Lands of strangers therfore it is not for the count of words but because it is alleged it was not meant so it was said in Digbies Case and so hath Antiquity expounded it for the good of the Subject against the King and against the letter of the Law But can any man imagine that the Parliament that gave the Land to the King should leave a right in the Traytor in the same Land to defeaf him again of it since the Statute gives the right and the Land and this gives a forfeiture of all rights belonging to the Person attainted of Treason and their Heirs for the benefit of the Kings forfeiture is of so great importance that if it be not taken as large as I take it it is an avoiding of all the Statute even that 33 H. 8. cap. 20. for though they have the word Rights in both Statutes even that of 33. doth not include the right of Action to the Lands of Estrangers by an Equity against the Letter So for this time the Case was abruptly broken off by reason the King had sent for all the Iudges of every Bench. Springall against Tuttersbury IN Springall and Tuttersburies Case It was agreed by the Court If a verdict be given at a nisi prius and the Plaintiff or Defendant die after the beginning of the Term yet Iudgement shall be entred for that relates to the first day of the term Overalls Case ONe Overall was sued in London and for that that he was of the Common Bench a Writ of Privilege issued which is a Supersedeas and staid the Sute wholly and not removed the Cause And if the Plaintiff had cause of Action he ought to sue here And then by the course of the Court a Clark shall not put in bayl Foxes Case THe Lord Keeper in the Star-chamber cited one and Butchers Case to be adjudged 38 Eliz. An Vnder-Sheriff makes his Deputy for all matters except Executions and restrained him from medling with them And it was adjudged a void Exception So if it be agreed and covenanted between them that the Deputy should not meddle with matters of such a value It is a void Covenant And that was agreed by Richardson to be good Law Hil. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Overalls Case IT was agreed at another day in Overalls case by all the Clarks and Prothonotaries of the Court that the Course always was that if an Atturney or Clark be sued here by bill of Privilege he needs not put in bail But if he be sued by original and taken by a Capias as he may be if the Plaintiff wil Then he ought to put in bail quod nota MEmorandum that on Sunday morning in the next term ensuing which was the 24. day of Ianuary Sir Henry Yelverton puisne Iudge of the Common Bench dyed who before had been Attourney general to King Iames and afterwards incurring the displeasure of the King was displaced and censured in the Star-chamber and then he became afterwards a practicer again at the bar from whence he was advanced by King Charls to be a Iudge He was a man of profound knowledge and eloquence and for his life of great integrity and piety and his death was universally bewailed Termino Hill 5 Car. Com. Banc. Honora Cason against the Executor of her Husband HOnora Cason sues Edward Cason Executor of her Husband and declares by bill original in nature of debt pro rationabili parte bonorum in the Court of Mayor and Aldermen of London and alleges the custom of London to be That when the Citizens and Fréemen of London die their goods and chattels above the debts and necessary funeral expences ought to be divided into three parts and that the wife of the testator ought to have the one part and the Executors the second part to discharge Legacies and dispose at their discretion And the children of the Testator male or female which were not sufficiently provided for in the life of the Father to have notwithstanding the Legacies in the will the third part And the custom is that the Plaintiff in this action ought to bring into the Court an inventory and sue before the Mayor and Aldermen And that she had here brought an Inventory which amounted to 18000 l. so that her third part was 6000 l and demanded it of the Executor who unjustly detained c. And it was removed to the Common bench by writ of Privilege And now Hitcham Serjeant moved for a procedendo And the Court séemed to be of the opinion to grant it Because that the custom is that the sute ought to be before the Mayor and Aldermen and then if they retain the action here the custom would be overthrown But they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum may be remanded here and that they may proceed upon it in this Court And that there be divers presidents to this purpose And they agreed that a rationabile parte bonorum is the original writ by the Common Law and not grounded upon the Statute of Magna Charta But that it does not lie but where such a custom is which custom they ought to extend to all the Province of York beyond Trent Richardson chief Iustice said that in the principal case The Plaintiff in London might have declared without alleging the custom As it is in 2 H. 4. Because that the custom is well known But otherwise Where custom ought to be shewed and where not where an action is upon the custom in a place where the custom does not extend There it ought to be shewn And afterwards at another
all was false and written of set purpose and that for that the Lord displaced him it would be more difficult But for any thing as appears to us there is not any thing for which he might be justly displaced And also it was not said in the Declaration that the Defendant had any fee for his Office And Richardson also said That if it had been found as my Brother Hutton said Yet it is known that it should be more strong But then I conceive that the Action does not lye For it is apparent that nothing in the Letter may be applyed to a particular misbehaviour in his Office And by the Court Although the Declaration be laid falsely and maliciously Yet if the words be nâ—…t scandalous yet it ought to be laid falsely and maliciously And he said that it was adjudged in this Court Where an Action upon the Case was brought for conspiracy to indict a man and upon the Indictment the Iury found Ignoramus There the Indictee was clear And yet for the conspiracy the Action laid which was Blakes Case And it was said by Hutton If I have Land which I intended to sell and one came and says maliciously and on purpose to hinder my sale that he had a Title to it That that is actionable Which Harvey agreed without Question if he does not prove that he had a Title If one says of an Inue Go not to such an House for it is a very cutting House Agreed by the Court not Actionable Mich. 5 Car. Com. Banc. And Iudgment was given quod querens nil cap. per bil Pasc 6 Car. Com. Banc. THis Term there was nothing worthy the reporting as I heard of others For I my self was not well and could not hear any thing certum referre c. Trin. 6 Car. Com. Banc. Tomlins's Case IF the Husband makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Son in tayl By the Court That is a dying seised in the Husband For the Wife shall have dammages in Dower And so it was adjudged in the Lady Egertons Case But the Husband ought to dye seised of an Estate tayl or Fée simple which might descend to his Heir Mich 6 Car. Com. Banc. MEmorandum That Sergeant Atthowe died at his House in Northfolk who was a man somewhat defective in Elocution and Memory but of profound Judgement and Skill in pleading NOte it was was said by Hutton and Davenport That if an Inferiour Court prescribe to hold Pleas of all manner of Pleas except Title to Freehold That that is no good prescription For then it may hold Plea of Murther which cannot be c. Note It was said by Richardson chief Iustice that if two conspire to indict an other of a Rape and he is indicted accordingly If the Iury upon the Indictment find Ignoramus Yet that Conspiracy is not punishable in the Starchamber Father purchases Lands in his Sons name who was an Infant at the age of seaventeen years and he would have suffered a Common recovery as Tenant to the Praecipe But the Court would not suffer him Rawling against Rawling THe Case was thus A man being possessed of a Lease for 85 years devises it as follows viz. I will that R. Rawling shall have the use of my Lease if he shall so long live during his life he paying certain Legacies c. And after his decease I devise the use thereof to Andrew Rawling the residue of the term with the Lease in manner and form as R. Rawling should have it Crew said That after the death of R. Rawling and Andrew the term shall revert to the Executors of the Devisor But by the Court not But it shall go to A. Rawling the last Devisée and in manner and form shall go to pay Legacies And by all a strong Case And together with the Lease be by strong words The Archbishop of Canterbury against Hudson of Grays-Inne THe Archbishop of Canterbury prosecuted against Hudson of Grays-Inne in an Information upon the Statute of E. 1. of Champerty Henden Sergeant for the Plaintiff moved upon the Plea that it was insufficient Because that the Defendant had prayed Iudgement of the Writ when he ought to have pleaded in Bar For the Statute of E. 1. had appointed a special Writ in this Case as the Defendant said But by him the Information is upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. which gives that Action by sute in Chancery which before was only by sute at Common Law Richardson chief Iustice said That the Plea is not to the matter but to the manner for the Plaintiff had mistaken his Action For the Action is given to the King only And therefore said to Henden demur if you will The Case was that the Defendant purchased Lands in anothers Name hanging the Sute in Chancery for it And after rules for Publication was given in the Cause Malins Case AYliff moved in arrest of Iudgement in an action of Battery c. And the cause that he shewed was An issue mistaken cannot be amended It was brought against William Malin of Langlee and in the Record of nisi prius It was William Langley of Malin But by the Court it ought to be amended For it is a misprision apparently of the Clark For the whole Record besides is right And the Record of nisi prius ought to be amended by the Record in the Bench according to the 44 E. 3. But if the issue had been mistaken otherwise it had been Arrerages for rent upon an estate for life cannot be forfeit by Outlawry NOte That it was agreed by the whole Court That arrerages of rent reserved upon an Estate for life are not forfeited by Outlawry because that they are real and no remedy for them but a distress Otherwise if upon a Lease for years c. Hill 6 Car. Com. Banc. MEmorandum that this term Sir Humfrey Davenport puisne Iudge of the Common Bench was called into the Exchequer to be Chief barron Browns Case AN Information upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. pro eo that one Brown was retained an Apprentice in Husbandry until the 21 year of his age and that he before his age of 21 years went away And the Defendant absque ullo testimonio detained him contra formam Statuti And by Hutton and Harvey Iustices only shewed the branch of the said Statute which says And if any servant retained according to the form of this Statute depart from his Master c. Hil. 6 Car. Com. Banc. And that none of the said reteined persons in Husbandry until after the time of his reteiner be expired shall depart That is not to be intended of an Apprentice in Husbandry but of an hired servant For the Statute did not intend to provide for the departure of an Apprentice because that an Apprentice ought to be by Indenture And then a writ of Covenant lies upon his departure to force him to come again And by the Common Law an
contained in the Declaration That the Defendants were guilty before scil October Vpon which the Defendants demurre and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Although it was objected that the Iustification here by the Custom before had taken away the property And I shall be debarred in Detinue and so in Trover But the Court was of the contrary opinion That the Defendants Plea in barre here shall not be good without traverse as it is and therefore the time is not made material but any time before is sufficient Méer possession sufficeth to maintain a Trover Pasc 7. Car. Com. Banc. Eaglechildes Case FInch Sergeant said that 6 Car. in the Kings Bench it was ruled upon Bill of Exchange betwéen party and party who are not Merchants There cannot be a Declaration upon the Law of Merchants but there may be a Declaration upon the Assumpsit and give the acceptance of the Bill in Evidence Crompton against Waterford WAterford was sued in the Spiritual Court for saying these words of the Plaintiff she will turn tayl to tayl with any man intimating that she would be naught with any man And sentence was given for the Plaintiff Whereupon he appealed to the Delegates propter gravamen And the Delegates overruled it and assesse costs for the wrong appeal Then there was a prohibition granted because the words were idle words and not punishable in the Spiritual Court Hutton seemed That the costs taxed by the Delegates are not taken away by the Prohibition Richardson on the contrary For the principal is prohibited and the costs are incident And because that a prohibition stays all proceedings the costs are taken away If the costs are to be executed by the Delegates then the prohibition to them will help But if the costs are remanded to the inferiour Court as well as the cause then the prohibition to the Inferiour Court will help So quacunque via data the costs are to be discharged And the party if excommunicat be dissolved And so agreed by the Court. Alleston against Moor. ALleston an Attourney of this Court brought an action upon the Case against Moore for calling him cheating knave and it was not upon speaking of him as an Attourney And for that by the Court in arrest of judgement It is not actionable If he had said you cheat your Clients it would be actionable One said That my Lord Chief Baron cannot hear of one ear colloquio praehabito of his administration of Iustice And it wad adjudged actionable Otherwise it had been if they had had no discourse of his Iustice Trin. 7 Car. Com. Banc. Coxhead against Coxhead IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was to perform an Arbitrament and the Defendant pleads nullum fecere arbitrium The Plaintiff replies that they made such an arbitrament and recites it the Defendant rejoyns that the Condition was to make an arbitrament of all things in controversie and that other things were in controversie whereof no arbitrament was made The Plaintiff sur-rejoynes that the Defendant did not give notice of those upon which issue was taken and no place alleged where notice was given And that exception was moved in arrest of Iudgement And upon that Iudgement was stayed Trin. 7. Car. Com. Banc. NOte It was said by Richardson Chief Iustice If a man sends his servant to a Draper to buy cloath for his Master and makes not the contract in his own name That the Master shall be charged and not the Servant Which was not denied 11 E. 4.6 Tomlinsons Case IF an Executor is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Legacy and the Executor pleads plene administravit a Prohibition shall not be granted if they will not admit that plea. For they ought to judge there if he had administred fully or not But upon suggestion that they did not reject any administration which our law allows A prohibition shall not be granted as Richardson said which was not denied by the whole Court Williams against Floyd WIlliams was Plaintiff by an English Bill to the Council of Marches against Floyd in the nature of Debt upon an Escape and there was a Latin Declaration upon an Escape turned into English because that the Defendant being Sheriff of Canarvan suffered one against whom the Plaintiff had a Iudgement being taken by capias utlegat to escape To his damage of 40 l. And by the whole Court a prohibition was granted Although that by their Instructions they had power of personal actions under 50 l. For this is intended a meer personal action As debt detinue c. But Debt upon a Iudgement or debt upon an escape or upon the 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of tithes an action upon 8 H. 6. or any other action upon matter of Record or Statute In such cases they have not Iurisdiction And the Defendant there might have pleaded nul teil record and then he might have proceeded further But the misdemeanour here in permitting the party to escape might have been punished there by Information Gee against Egan GEe an Attorney of this Court brought an Action upon the Case against Egan and declares that he was an Attorney for many years late past and still is and that he had taken the Oath of an Attorney to do no fraud nor deceit in his Office as Attorney And that colloquio habito et moto inter one Rise Brother in Law to the Plaintiff and the Defendant concerning the Office of the Plaintiff as an Attorney and concerning a Bill of Costs and Expences by the Plaintiff in defence of a Cause prosecuted by one Treddiman in the Common Bench against the Defendant laid out and expended The Defendant 1 Augusti 4 Car. spoke those words to Rise Your Brother and Mr. Treddiman have cheated me of a great deal of mony c. by which the Plaintiff is in danger to lose his Office And it was moved after verdict for the Plaintiff in arrest of Iudgement by Ayliff Because that here is not any certainty in the Declaration that the words were spoken of the Plaintiff as Attorney And then they are not actionable For he does not shew at what time the speech was of him as Attorney Richardson upon reading of the Record said It was true that no time of the speech is shewen neither is it after the speech shewen upon whom he spoke those words Which might help it Neither is it said afterwards that is to say primo die but primo die Augusti he spoke c. And if it can be intended that those words were spoken of the Plaintiff as Attorney That would inforce the words to bear an Action But if such words are generally spoken of an Attourney without speech of his Office they are not actionable For he may be a Cheater at dice or in a bagain c. And here non constat that the words were spoken of the Plaintiff as Attourney Secondly it does not appear that the Plaintiff was was an Attorney in the Cause but says
three things were moved in arrest of Iudgement which Serjeant Barkely answered There was a covenant to enter into an obligation at Michaelmas and the Plaintiff shews that he entred before So he does not perform the consideration which he conceived to be a good performance For if a man be bound to doe an act or pay money at Michaelmas a payment before is good H. 7. 17. 2. pasc It is shewn that an action of Covenant was brought after And they say that upon his shewing covenant does not lie but debt but he said that the Plaintiff had his election here to have debt or covenant As in the Lord Cromwels case the words covenanted provided and agreed give advantage of a condition or covenant If a covenant had been sor 30 l. then debt only lyes But here it is to perform an agreement Thirdly that it appears within the declaration that the action of the case was 6 years before the action brought And so by the Statute of 21. Jac. the action does not lye I agree if the cause was 6 years before yet the breach was within the 6 years and that is the cause of action 6. rep 43. In a covenant there is the deed and the breach of the covenant and that is the cause of the action And therefore being matter in Deed an accord with satisfaction is a good plea to it 13. E. 4. Attaint is grounded upon matter of record but the false oath is the cause of it For that there also accord is a good plea So in our case the non performance by default was not at the time limitted which was before the 6 years but no action was brought against the Plaintiff untill within the six years And then he is not damnifyed untill within the six years 5 Rep. 24. Richardson For the two first exceptions he agreed with Barkley as to the third he said that there can be no action before the breach of the promise or covenant But the breach here is before the six years for the non performance of the agreement is a breach and a breach is a damnificationn In one Boughtons case the non payment is a damnification But all the question here was whether that ought to be pleaded but I conceive that it need not for by the Statute-law the action is taken away And it being a general law the court ought ex officio to taken notice of it For in that after verdict if it appears that there is no cause of action although the verdict be found for the Plaintiff he shall never have Iudgement And upon the matter that latches in time amounts to a release in law the proviso cannot ayd you For every man shall be intended without those disabilities for that that he would shew that he would have advantage of it And Crook of the same opinion for the reasons given before and said that although the Statute took away the Common law yet it is good law and done for the ease of the subject and for that shall be favoured as the Statute of limitations in all cases But he said the non performance was not a damnification before the action brought As if I be bound as for surety for A. who is bound to save me harmlesse Although he does not pay it at the day There is not a breach before the arrest or Iudgement For by the Iudgement the lands and goods are liable But for the arrest his body is troubled for that now the Scriveners put in such obligations that they save harmlesse the party and pay the money at the day But for the other matters in all he agreed and cited Richardson and Burroughs Case Where a payment before the day was adjudged a payment at the day Yelverton That is not found that there is any sufficient notice given to the Defendant by the Plaintiff of the agreement made which he ought to have And he agréed in omnibus with Richardson and said that Scriveners use things ex abundanti Richardson It is said habuit notitiam in the Declaration but does not say by whom Yet after verdict it shall be intended a good notice And although that Nichols had given the notice it is sufficient If there be a Lease for years upon condition that he doe not assign the other accepts the rent of the Afsignee before notice He shall not be bound by that acceptance before notice But if notice may be proved either by the Plaintiff or by any although it be by a meer stranger It is sufficient Yelverton denied that for he said That none but privies can give the notice of it as the case is Et adjournatur Denne and Sparks Case before RIchardson If a will be of lands and goods and that was the occasion of this will the revocation is only tryable at the Common Law But when the will is of goods only the occasion of it shall be tryed only in the Spiritual Court For it is incident to the probate of the will quod fuit concessum And he said that in the case before if the will be not revoked the devise is good at the time and the administration shall be granted as of his goods for the Law will not change the property of the residue after debts and legacies paid Crooke The case here is that the Testator makes his will of his lands and goods and devises the residue of his goods ut supra to his wise his Executrix who dies before probate Denne sues to be administrator as the goods of the first Testator and alleges revocation which because that his Proctor did not goe and swear that in fide Magistri sentence was given against him Vpon that he appeals in which there was the same Obligation and affirmed by the Oath of his Proctor Yet sentence was given against him And a prohibition ought to be granted for three reasons First For that the Will is of Lands and Goods and the occasion of that tryable here Secondly they offer injustice in giving the allegation Thirdly The Wife here dying before the probate the administration ought to be granted as of the goods of the Testator and not as of the wife And also they here would inforce Denne if he had the administration to take it cum testamento annex Which shall be an admittance by him that there was not any revocation Richardson for the first reason he agréed that the revocation shall be tryed by the common law But the goods here are only in question and all the usage and practice is that a prohibition shall be granted with a quoad the lands For the second That they will not allow the allegation If they will not pursue their rules and order of Iustice That is not a cause of a Prohibition but appeal for the third It is fit that there shall be an election if debts and Legacies are owing But it doth not appear here that there are any debts or Legacies to be paid but after Harvey agréed with Crook
Fifthly that he retained one Steveson in one of the Chapels of ease who was a man of ill life and conversation scilicet an Adulterer and a Drunkard Sixthly that he did not catechise according to the Parish Canon but only brought many of Dr. Wilkinsons Catechisms for every of which he paid 2 d. and sold them to his Parishoners for 3 d. without any examination or instruction for their benefit And that he when any Commissions were directed to him to compel any person in his parish to do penance he exacted mony of them and so they were dismissed without inflicting any penalty upon them as their censure was And that he and his servants used divers menaces to his Parishioners and that he abused himself and disgrac'd his function by divers base labours scilicet He made mortar having a leathern a prou before him and he himseif took a tithe Pig out of the Pigsty and afterwards he himself gelded it And when he had divers presents sent him as by some flesh by some fish and by others ale he did not spend it in the invitation of his friends and neighbours or give it to the poor but he sold the flesh to Butchers and the ale to Alewives again And that he commanded his Curat to marry a couple in a private house without any licence and that he suffered divers to preach which peradventure had not any licence and which were suspected persons and of evil life It was said by Henden that they cannot by the Statute of primo Eliz. cap. 1. meddle with such matters of such a nature but only examine heresies and not things of that nature and that the High-Commissioners at Lambeth certified to them that they could not procéed in such things and advised them to dismiss it But they would not desist and the Iudges Richardson being absent granted a prohibition if cause were not shewed to the contrary Note it was said by the Iustices a discontinuance could not be after verdict Humbleton against Bucke THeophilus Humbleton was Plaintiff in an Assumpsit against Bucke and declares that whereas there was a controversie between one Palmer who pretended to be Lord of the soyl and the Inhabitants of such a Village concerning Common in ripa maritima which Palmer claimed to be his own soyl The Tenants claim common there and a liberty to cut grass and make hay of it and to carry it away Palmer incloses the soyl Humbleton enters upon the place enclosed and also takes the grass being one of the Tenants And Palmer brought a Trespass against him and then Bucke assumes to the Plaintiff in consideration of a Iugg of Beer and in consideration that the Plaintiff in the Trespass hanging against him would plead a Plea in maintenance of their title of Common he immediatly would pay to him the half of his expences or if he failed of that he would pay him forty pounds And further he said that he pleaded not guilty in that action of Trespass which was found for him and that he expended so much money the half of which the Defendant refused to pay to him c. The Defendant pleads non defendit sectam in maintenance of their Common which was found against him And Davenport moved in arrest of Iudgement because that he ought to have pleaded such a Plea by which the title of Common might come in question but when he pleads not guilty he disclaims the matter of Common And also the word immediatly is not to be taken so strictly that he should pay the money in the same instant c. But the Plaintiff must declare what costs he had expended and then he shall have reasonable time by the Statute to pay the money But Athowe answered that the verdict which was in the Kings Bench helps him For it was there found that that land was the Kings wast and that Palmer was not owner of the soyl and therefore for that his plea was good for the title of Common cannot come in question Richardson Chief Iustice said that that is not a maintenance of the title of Common against Palmer First he cannot give that verdict in evidence in a prescription for the Common and the maintenance by that Plea of not guilty is for the soyl and not for the Common and whoever is owner of the soyl the title of Common is not specially against Palmer but it is general against every one in the world And so was the opinion of Harvey and Crook And Crook said that although the verdict had found the Assumpsit and so admitted that that plea was for maintenance of the title yet that shall not bind us For if a verdict finds matter which is repugnant or a thing which cannot come in question it shall not bind us But by Iustice Yelverton it was said That because the Iury have found the Assumpsit they have admitted all the residue And for that we do not doubt of it no more than the Iury have decreed As in an Ejectione firm If they be at issue upon the collateral matter it shall be admitted that there was an ejectment and so it was adjudged But this cause was deferred to another time to be argued more c. Meridith Mady against Henry Osan aliis MEridith Mady brought debt against Henry Osan for that he and 5 others were bound to perform the Arbitrament of thrée elected by them and the Plaintiff concerning all tithes and all other matters of controversie between them and that they still and all the Parishioners should perform and stand to the award made c. And upon breach of the award made was the action brought For the award was that when any of the Parishioners clip their sheep they ought to give notice to Mady the Parson to the intent that he or his Servants may be there And the Defendant did not give notice c. The Defendant by rejoynder pleads that Allen and others that they were Deputies to receive the Tithe-wool and that they or one of them were present at the clipping and so they demur Athowe said that notice ought to be given to the Parson himself for perchance he would be there himself had he notice And for that the breach alleged is not answered And also he said that they or some of them were present and does not name him as he ought for he may come in issue c. Richardson If the Arbitriment was made for some things within the submission and some things without It is good for those things that are within and void for the residue And although the Parishioners did not submit yet it is good because the six are bound for them Hutton said that the Award for the notice is not good for it is not well assigned where the notice should be given And an Arbitrement ought to be reasonable but it is unreasonable that he ought to inquire Mady wheresoever he is to give him notice as Cook 77. Salmons Case Crook said that the Award is
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 Morrisâ—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 haâ—… 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
by the Court that where a Servant of a Bayliff of a Franchise was sworn to serve a Process and by deputation from the Bayliff he ought not to have served a Process but to such a sum And he serves a Process of a greater sum without any warrant and after levies the money and parts with it That the Bayliff shall be chargeable Quod nota Beare against Hodge BEare was Plaintiff against Hodge for taking of his Cattel The Defendent was known as Bayliff to Thomas Wise who was seised of twenty acres c. whereof the Land in question was parcel in Fee And that it was Leased to Harris for 99. years if he and his two sons should so long live and rendring a Rent at the four usual Terms in the year and the best beast at the death of every one of the three in the name of an Herriot or 5. l. at the election of the Lessor And now for Rent arrear at Michaelmas and for an Heriot after the death of Harris he avowed c. The Plaintiff confesses the Lease and reservation and as to the Heriot he demurred But for the Rent he said that he tendered the Rent upon the Land toward the latter time of Michaelmas day and that none was there to receive it And that afterwards he tendered it to the Lessor himself out of the Land and he refused it And that after that time no demand was made but that he after the tender alwaies was and yet is Tenent c. and brings the mony into Court And upon that he demurred Henden said The Avowant may distrein without any new demand and that Case had been adjudged in this Court before For although that the Rent be tendered yet it remains due notwithstanding and then he is able to distrain 15 Iac. in this Court rot 710. Crowley brought a Replevin against Kingsmill who avowed For that the Plaintiff held of him by Fealty and 10 s. rent And for the Rent he distreyned the Plaintiff And that at the day he tendered the rent upon the land none was there to receive it as it is said c. And upon debate it was adjudged that he may distrein without demand 7 rep 29. Maunds case you may see that a Rent-seek shall not be distreined after tender without demand For if by his demand he is intituled to his Action then there ought to be a new Demand 21 E 4. 17. 7 E 4. 40. 20 H. 6.1 cited in Pilkintons Case If you will be excus'd of the Distress there ought to be a tender of the Arrerages at the time of the Distress Richardson Hutton and Harvey all agree That the Distress is good to have the Rent but not to recover Dammages because he does not all he might do And Richardson said That 2 H. 6. 10 H. 6. 20 E. 4. 10 E. 4. and the Case in the Assise and the whole current of Books was to the same purpose Harvey Iustice said that if a tender be upon an Obligation at the day he saves the penalty but if another Demand be afterwards and he refuses to pay he cannot plead unque prist And Iustice Crook cited a Case in the Kings Bench 16 Eliz. betwéen Cropp and Hambleton where a Rent upon a Lease was reserved to be paid at Michaelmas And if by forty daies after c. And in the mean time after the first and before the last the Lessee tenders to the Lessor himself And adjudged that it saves the Forfeiture For it is for his ease that he ought to tender upon the Land And by the same reason also when he hath tendered it to the Person himself and said that it is uncore prist and will demur upon that and not take advantage of his non-tender at the Distress the Dammages are saved But Yelverton was against that For it is agréed that a Distress is locall so then we cannot sever Dammages when the Law hath coupled them and made incident to the Distress Sed adjournatur c. Tithes ONe libells for Tithes of Fish which is due meerly by Custome And the Defendant pleads that time out of mind c. they have paid no Tithes of that And Henden Sergeant moved for a Prohibition And Richardson replyed and said it is méerly a Customary Tithe as Rabbits c. Whereof no Tithes are due by the law of the Land and a Prohibition shall not be granted But all the other Iustices affirmed that there shall be a Prohibition granted because that the Custome ought to be tryed by the Common law and they make a difference betwéen modus decimandi which is also Customary and where there is a Tithe precedent due and that modus converts it into another Duty There no Prohibition shall be granted But it shall be tryed in the spiritual Court whether there be such a modus decimandi or not And that Case in the Custome makes the Duty it self But he alleged the modus to be for two pence and the Parson for thrée pence shall be tryed by the Common law And they said that so was the opinion in the grand Case of lead ore And Hutton said that so it was determined in the Case of one Berry for tithes of Limekills which are as Minerals and are not tithable by the Commmon law But when the Custome is tryed then they in the Ecclasiastical Court may proceed upon it Hartop and Tucke against Dalby HArtop and Tucke brought a Quare impedit against Dalby as Incumbent and the Issue betwéen them was Whether the Church of Essenden was appendent to the Mannor of Essenden or in gross And the Plaintiff to prove the Appendancy gave in evidence that H. 6. seised of the Mannor and Advowson grants to Margaret his Wife the said Mannor habendum una cum advocatione for her Ioynture c. It was said that if the advowson was in gross it could not pass so not named in the Premises But of an advowson appendent otherwise it is As it was agréed in 38 H. 6. 36. Abbess of Syons Case which was granted by the whole Court. Henden to disprove that evidence alleged That the Advowson being made any time in gross It can never be appendent again And he shewed also how H. 3. was seised of that Mannor with the Advowson and that he granted the Mannor to I. S. for life excepta advocatione By which Grant it seem'd to him that it became in gross And said that the Iudgement of the Case in 38 H. 8. 38. was for that cause and that they did not ever find it contradicted And so totis viribus be maintained that to be in gross But all the Iustices were against him And that that is not but a disappendency pro quodam tempore And so was the better opinions in 38 H. 6. as the Case is in Dyer 33 H. 8. 48. 6. of a Villain If the King grants the Demesus of a Mannor for life After the death of the Lessée it is a Mannor again And if
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
found for the Plaintiff and Finch Recorder moved in arrest of Iudgement first for that they assigne the wast in a Park where the wast is in Land c. Secondly Because that that Action did not lye for them both alike for if the Grandfather and he in the remainder in tayle had joyned in a Lease yet they could not joyne in wast The Books are If Tenant for life and he in the remainder joyn in a Lease they may also joyn with wast 21 H. 8 14. Although 19 H. 7. be put otherwise And 2 H. 5. Sir William Langfords Case Two joynt Tenants to the Heirs of one of them and they make a Lease for life And it was adjudged that they might joyn in wast for the Tenant for life had a reversion for life and had not made any Forfeiture If the Grandfather and he in remainder had joyned in a Lease and afterwards in wast it had been naught for the lease came out of the first root And it was resolved Tr. 2 Jac. Kings Bench Poole and Browses Case That one in remainder cannot have wast where there is an intermediate Estate for life Yelverton and Hutton did not believe the Case of 2 Jac. Crook If there be Tenant for life with such a power c. of Lands held in capite he may make Leases for life without Licence of Alienation and well proves this cause Yelverton and Hutton For the wast being assigned in a Park it is good for a Park is Land Sed adjournatur Hodges against Franklin TRover and Conversion is brought by Hodges against Franklin The Defendant pleads sale of the Goods in Marlborough which is a Market overt and the Bar was well pleaded and an Exception was taken For that that it is not said that Toll was payed It was said by Hutton That there are divers places where no Toll is to be paid upon sale in Market And yet the property is changed and Iudgement accordingly Grimston against an Inn-keeper IN an Action upon the Case it was said at the Bar and not gain-sayed That they ought to say in the Declaration Trasiens hospitavit for if he board or sojourn for a certain space in an Inne and his Goods are stollen the Action upon that is not maintainable And for omission although the Verdict was given for the Plaintiff Iudgement was given Quod nihil capiat per billam upon fault of the Declaration and he paid no Costs Wilkins against Thomas IT was said by the whole Court That a consideration is not traversable upon an Assumpsit but they ought to plead the generall issue and the Consideration ought to be given in Evidence Ireland against Higgins IReland brought an Action upon the Case against Higgins for a Greyhound and counts that he was possessed ut de bonis suis propriis and by Trover came to the Defendant and in consideration thereof promised to re-deliver him It seemed to Yelverton that the Action would not lye and the force of his Argument was that a Grey-hound was de fera natura in which there is no property sed ratione fundi live Deer and Coneys and vouchd 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 24. 10 H. 7. 19. for a Hawk for Hares are but for pleasure but Hawks are Merchandable This difference in 12 H. 8. is allowed so long as a Dogge is in the possession of a man an Action of Trespasse lyes detinue or replevin But no Action if he was out of his possession and so had not a property then there is no consideration which is the foundation of an Action Hutton to the contrary and said the whole argument consisted upon false grounds as that a Dogge is ferae naturae Which if it were so he agreed the difference in 12 H. 8. But he intended that a Dogge is not ferae naturae for at first all Beasts were ferae naturae but now by the industry of man they are corrected and their savagenesse abated and they are now domesticae and familiar with a man as Horses and a tame Deer if it be taken an Action lyes Rogers of Norwich recovered Damages pro molosso suo interfecto And 12 H. 8. So of a Hound called a Blood-hound And a Dogge is for profit as well as for pleasure For a Dogge preserves the substance of a man in killing the Vermine as Foxes And now is not an Horse for the pleasure of a man for a man may goe on foot if he will and an Horse is meat for a man no more than a Dogge Therefore an Action may lye for the one as for the other And for a Hawk he ought to shew that it was reclaimed for they are intended ferae naturae One justifies in 24 Eliz 30. for a Battery because he would have taken away his Dogge from him A Repleavin was brought for a Ferret and Nets and a Ferret is more ferae nat than a Dogge Seale brought 25 Eliz. Trespass for taking away his Blood-hound and there it was said to be well laid And then now if he has a property the consideration is good enough to ground an Assumpsit It is adjudged that a feme dowable The heir promises to endow her before such a day and the Action is maintainable upon that by the Court Intraturudic pro quer if no other matter were shewed by such a day Jenkins Case HE brought an Action upon a promise to the Plaintiff That if he marryed her with the assent of her Father she would give him 20. l. Adjudged a good consideration by the Court. 3 Car. rot 414 Sir Edward Peito against Pemberton SIr Edward Peito is Plaintiff against Pemberton in a Replevin and the Defendant was known as Bayliff to H. Peito and said that H. Peito the Grandfather had granted a Rent for life to H. Peito the Son to commence after his death The Plaintiff confesses the grant but sayes that after the death of Peito the Grandfather these Lands out of which the Rent issued descended to Peito the father who made a Lease for a thousand years to the Grantee and dyes The Avowant confesses the Lease but sayes that before the last day of payment he surrendred to the Plaintiff Vpon which there was a Demurer and the question was whether the surrender of the Lease would revive the rent Harvey If he had assigned the Lease to a stranger the rent had been suspended 5 H. 5. One grants a rent charge who had a reversion upon a Lease for life to commence immediately there the question was when the Lease was surrendred whether the rent now became in esse because that the Lease which privileged the Land from distresse is now determined in the hands of the Grantor himself Crook If the Grantor had granted reversion to a stranger and the surrender had been to him It was clear that the suspension had been for the term Hutton If a man seised of a rent in Fee takes a Lease of Lands out of which c. for years and dyes the
Executor shall have the Land and yet the heir cannot have the rent Harvey In this Court it was the case of one Asham who had a purpose to enclose a Common and one Tenant was refractory wherefore Asham made him a Lease of the soil in which he had Common and afterwards he surrenders it again And it was agreed that the Common was suspended during the term Crook A Lease for years is by the contract of both parties and the surrender may revive the rent but by the surrender the arrearages shall not be revived And suppose that the surrender was by Indenture and a recitall of the grant that is a grant and then it is expresse that by the surrender their intent was that the rent should be revived 3 H. 6. A surrender determines the interest of all parties but of a stranger But it is determined to themselves to all intents and purposes Crook It was one Cooks Case against Bullick intrat 45 Eliz. rot 845. Com. ban It was there adjudged and this diversity was taken If one devise Lands in Fee and after makes a Lease for years of the same Lands to the Devisee to commence after his death it is a countermand of his will if the Lease was to commence presently it is no countermand and the reason is In the first case both cannot stand in Fee the Devise and the Lease But when the Lease commences immediately he may outlive the Lease And this Case is put upon the intents of the parties But Henden This Case is also adjudged If two Tenants in Common are and one grants a Rent charge the Beasts of the other are not distreinable But if a Tenant in Common takes a Lease for years of another his Cattel are discharged again But Yelverton and Hutton doubted that Case and so it was adjourned to be argued c. Thomsons Case THompson libells for delapidations against the Executors of his predecessor and Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that Thompson is not incumbent for his presentment was by the King ratione minoritatis of one Chichley and the King had not any such Title to present for where the King mistakes his Title his Presentment is voyd and he is no Incumbent 6 Rep. 26. Greens Case And Sir Thomas Gawdys Case where the King presented jure praerogat when he had another Title and the present Action was adjudged voyd and whether he is incumbent or not that shall be tryed But by the Court a Prohibition was denyed because that he was now incumbent And the Iudges would not take notice of the ill Presentment of the King But in case of Symony the Statute makes the Church voyd and then the Iudges may take notice of that and grant a Prohibition if the Parson sues for Tythes But if a quare impedit be brought and appears that the King had not cause of Presentment then a Prohibition may be granted which also was granted by all the other Iustices Richard Youngs Case RIchard Young was Demandant in a Formedon and admitted by Prochein amy and the Warrant was allowed by a Iudge and it was certified and entred in Gulstons Office in the Roll of Remembrance but it was not entred in the Roll as the course in the Common Bench is and after Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff And for that Formeden the Defendant brought a Writ of Errour and removed the Record and assigned it for Errour And before in nullo est erratum pleaded And Davenport moved that it might be mended for he said that there was a difference between that Court and the Kings Bench as it is in the 4 Rep. 43. Rawlins Case for the Entry of the Roll was Richard Young came et obtulit se per atturnat suum where it should have been proximum amicum And the Entry in the Remembrance Roll was That he was admitted per Gardianum Richardson said that all the Books are That an infant ought to sue by Prochein amy and defend by his Guardian and so is a Demandant But the Court agreed That that should be amended according to the Certificate As a speciall Verdict should be amended according to the Notes given to the Clerk And Davenport said that he would venture it although it was by Guardian for he held it all one if it were by Guardian or by Prochein Amy. See afterwards more of this The Vicar of Cheshams Case THe Earl of Devonshire had a Mannor in the Parish of Chesham in Buckinghamshire which extended to Latmos where there is a Chapell of Ease and the Vicar of Chesham Libells for Tithes against one of the Tenants of the Mannor And Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that the Earl prescribed that he and all his Tenants should be acquitted of all the Tythes of Land within Latmos paying 10. s. per. ann to the Chaplin of Latmos And he said that such a Prescription is good as it was adjudged in Bowles Case And a Prohibition was granted Wildshieres Case IT was agreed by the whole Court That for Executing of a Capias utlagatum or for a Warrant to Execute it or for a return of it no Fee is due to the Sheriff c. It was afterwards agreed upon an Habeas corpus sued by Wiltshiere who was imprisoned being under-Sheriff by the Lord Chamberlain for arresting Sir George Hastings Servant to the King upon a Cap. utlagat That he may well doe it upon the Servant of the King for it is the Sute of the King himself and he is sworn to serve it and there is no cause of the Commitment returned but only a recitall of the Commitment unless he was released by the Lord. And the Iudges took exception to that and said that it ought to be unless he can be released by the Law and said if no cause be returned they ought to dismisse the Prisoner And they ordered the Keeper to inform the Lord Chamberleiâ— and that their Opinion was and so was the Opinion of all the Iudges of England That he who procured the Commitment of the under Sheriff ought to pay all the Charges and Expences Quod nota Wentworth against Abraham THe Lord Wentworth brought an Action upon the Case against Abraham upon an Assumpsit and declares that the Defendant 1 die Maii Anno Dom. 1625. in consideration that the Plaintiff would permit the Defendant to re-enter in a Messuage and Croft in which the Defendant had dwelt before promised that he would pay to him 30. s. yearly during the time that he should enjoy it And that he permisit ipsum reentrare and that he should enjoy it a year and an half which ended at Michaelmas 1626. And for that he would not pay 45. s. he c. And upon non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Davenport in Arrest of Iudgement for that that the Assize is to pay 30. s. Annuatim then before the Action be determined nothing is due and the Plaintiff cannot divide the
stollen from him and that was sold in a Scriveners Shop Resolved that there was no change of the property For by intendment if a man had Drapery stollen from him he would not seck it there So if a man fells stollen Plate and sells it in the High street under his Cloak It does not change property And if a man sells a thing in a Silkmans Shop in London the Curtain being drawn That does not change the property And now to the principal Case Although he said that he was a Goldsmith and that that was his Shop It is not necessary to be intended that he used the Trade of a Goldsmith in it And that ought to be averred For every Shop is a Market overt for these Causes only which appertain to the same trade Williams against Bickerton VVIlliams brought an action upon the Case against Bickerton for saying He hath forsworn himself and I le teach him the price of an Oath for I will have his Ears cropt And it séemed that it lay For although it was not said at the beginning where it was that he forswore himself Yet by the circumstance it shews that he was in such a place for which it was punishable And M. 29 30 Eliz. Dantsleys Case Thou art a Pillary Knave remember that thou hast deserved the Pillary and the Action maintainable And the Plaintiff paid the Box for his Iudgement Bradyes against Johnson BRadye brought an Eject firm against Johnson and declared upon a Lease of Land habend a die dat Indentur praedict And does not speak of any Indenture before And for that the Declaration adjudged naught And so it was betwéen Bell and March. And this same term between Spark Where it was shewed quod concessit per eandem Indent Where he had not spoke of any Indenture before Lowen against Cocks IN Debt by Lowen against Cocks the Case was thus A man seised of an house in St. Edmonds Parish in Lumbard-street in London devises it to his wife for life the remainder to his Son George and if he dye without Issue then to Iohn and Thomas his Sons equally and to their Heirs The wife dyes George dyes without Issue l. and T. make a Lease for years rendring 5. l. to the one and 5. l. to the other l. devises the reversion to his wife and dyes and for that Rent the Action was brought by the Wife And the Question was if they shall be Ioynt or Tenants in Common For if joynt the devise of the Reversion is void And Secondly If by any Act which makes partition viz. the several Limitations of the rent to them If séemed to Hutton that they are Tenents in Common By reason of that word equally which in it self makes a Division In 33 Eliz. in Boucher against Marsh It was held that where a man devises Lands to three Children equally to be divided they are Tenents in Common And so it was 14 lac in case of Goods And it is clear as it is said If a Man devise 100 l. to two equally the Executors shall pay 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other For if that word equally does not make tenancy in Common it shall be all otherwise void And every word of a Will ought to be of some force And in these Cases the word divided was not the force of the matter but only equally And it was the Case of a Shepheard in the Courts of Wards Where a man devises that after the death of his Son all my woods shall remain equally to his Daughters and their Heirs of their bodies And it was there held by Dyer and Manwood that they were Tenents in Common If Parceners agrée to hold by That is sufficient partition And if the one Ioyntenant confirms to the other that does not give any thing but severs the Ioynture Harvey to the contrary First They are Ioint For Ioynture is the greatest equality for every one is seised by himself and the one hath as much of the profits as the other And so equal interest and equal benefit to the Survivor 6 E. 6. in Dyer A difference was taken between a Demise to two when it is said equally divided That they shall be Tenents in Common If equally to be divided they shall be joynt But it was never adjudged 17 Eliz. A man having 3 Sons devises Lands to them equally to be divided The Question was what estate they had For if the younger had not a fee they could not have an Estate equal with the eldest for he had a fee. Resolved that they shall have a fee-simple and also that they shall be Tenents in Common And held that to be divided and divided was all one And it was held also that the word divided makes the Tenancy in Common and not equally 2. As to that reserve of 50 l. to the one and 50 l. to the other clearly being a joynt Lease and a joynt reversion And the Rent as accessary to the reversion and shall not change the nature of it Yelverton They are Tenents in Common A Will shall be construed according to the intent of the Testator And exposition shall be made of the words to supply his intent Tomlins's Case IT was agreed by all That if one sojourn in the House of another and the House is broken in the night and the Stranger robbed in the House without being put in fear of his life In law He that robbed shall have his Clergy notwithstanding the Burglary For it is out of the Statute of 5 6 of E. 6. cap. 9. Dicksons Case AT Sergeants Inne in Chancery lane this Question was debated If a man steal Goods and the very Owner makes fresh sute to take the felon So that he waives the Goods and flies And before the Owner comes the Goods are seised as Goods waived and af-the Owner comes and challenges them Now if he shall have them or they shall be forfeited was the Question And it was held by Harvey and Crook That they are not at all forfeited for that the Owner had done his endeavour and pursued from village And that the Goods shall not be said to be waived but where it cannot be known to whom the property is Hutton Chief Iustice and Yellerton said That Goods waived shall be said those which are stollen and that the Felon being pursued for danger of apprehension waives and flies Now if they are seised before that the Owner comes the property is presently altered out of the Owner in the Lord although that he made fresh sute If that Sute was not within the view of the Felon allwaies But they all agreed if the Felon do as not flye but is apprehended with the Goods That then the Owner shall have his Goods without Question Or if the Owner comes and challenges the Goods before seisure and after the flight of the Felon Harvey said The Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. does not remedy any thing as to the restitution of the Goods stollen But upon
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
from the Bishop to be confirmed They cannot but walk in the steps of the Bishop And a day was given to shew why a Prohibition should not be granted And so it was ruled Feakes against ONe was sued in the Councel of Marches upon a Bond of 500 l. to pay 40 marks per annum And he alleged that he did not intend to take the forfeiture of the Bond but to compell him to pay the 40 Marks per annum And a Prohibition was granted to the Court at the motion of Hoskins For that their instructions were not to hold Plea but for c. And if this should be permitted it is but a window to draw more within their Iurisdiction and also the King would lose his Fines But he ought to have an Action of Debt Harvy If an Obligation was to perform an Annuity of such a sum by another Deed. The party may bring his Action upon the Obligation or Annuity And Yelverton said If it were to perform a Collateral thing or if the Condition was all one with the Obligation they cannot sue for the performance there Quod nota Intra Mich. 3 Car. rot Banc. 633. Watson against Vanderlash VVAtson brought an Action upon the Case against Vanderlash for scandalous words and declares that whereas he was skillfull in the art of Chirurgery and that he made much gain of that Art of the Kings Subjects that now is c. Et colloquio tunc ibidem habito de peritia sua in arte Chirurg c. et de quodam Matthews nuper ante sub cura ejus who is now dead He spake these words Thou didst kill Mr. Matthews thou didst kill him And upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and an hundred pound dammages given And now this was urged in arrest of Iudgement by Crew That he does not allege that he was a Chirurgean at the time of the words spoken So that his allegation to be a Chirurgean does not include the time c. that he spoke those words And then his profession is not discredited Secondly he does not allege thac he died under his cure but that he is dead For if those had been alleged it would have been more questionable And for that the words are not Actionable Now a man may kill a man divers wayes and justifie it As a Minister of Iustice 14 Eliz. in the Kings Bench Yates and Bostocks Case Thou wast the cause that I. S. did hang himself and that I. N. did cut his own throat And adjudged that they are not Actionable for he might have committed an Offence and because the other prosecuted him he might cut his own throat or hang himself and so this man might be under his cure and he doe his best endeavour to save him but yet he might dye And the Court does never extend words further than the Law directs them Coo. 4. 15. Stawloeps Case and Hexts Case fol. 20. Barhams Case The Court there does not supply that which the words doe not directly imply And here in this Case where the words may have a qualification they shall be taken in mitiori sensu Henden The word kill generally will bear an Action because that it shall be intended to be felonionsly as in the Lady Cockains Case Although it was not Felony in facto But here the words so spoken and particularly applyed they will not bear an Action They had a discourse of his skill in Surgery and of one Matthew who was sick of a dangerous disease Then that cannot to be intended it was Felony objecting the fayler of skill will not bear an Action As if I should say of a Lawyer He hath lost his Clients Cause And as it may be taken in mitiori sensu it cannot be strained to Perjury And so here there can never be intended a voluntary killing But Bramston and Finch on the other side That although there are not these words Tunc existenti Chirurgeon yet there are other words which supply them for it is That when Matthews was under his cure he was a Chirurgeon c. And the words are actionable without other reason for that he impeaches his credit and implies misbehaviour in his Art Hutton For the Exceptions we ought to intend that he continued a Surgeon and that his skill continued And also it is supplyed Then being speech of his skill c. Which proves that then he was a Sureon And Then ought to be intended that he is a Chirurgeon for it is not to be supposed that he laid aside his profession in the mean time And for the words if he had said For lack of skill of Chirurgery c. thou didst kill him will bear an Action for that is a slander to his profession And if one had said Goe not to such a one for he hath no skill in Chirurgery if he be a Chirurgeon if is actionable Or if of a Lawyer Goe not to such a one c. for he will deceive you And the Question will be whether it ought to be intended that he killed him for want of skill If one sayes Such a one was found dead and you killed him there it should be intended murderously And for the Case put by Crew I agree that a man may be a cause that another hangs himself by imagination But if one sayes You did kill such a one as hanged himself or cut his own throat that will bear an Action And so it ought to be intended also that when he sayes of a Chirurgeon c. That it was for want of skill Goe not to such an Inne the Plague hath been lately there These words are actionable for it drives away Guests Then these words were spoken to hinder him in his profession and benefit And because that he dyed under his hands it ought to be necessarily intended that it was for want of skill Harvey of the same Opinion Also there is sufficient matter to prove that he was a Chirurgeon at the time of the speaking the words c. When he came to the words it is saie that there was a speech between them c. and the speech was of his skill and of Matthews death If he had said Thou hast killed I. S. or murthered I. S. whereas he is living that will not bear an Action And so also it was that he dyed of his disease it must be by consequence that he did not kill him But it is said that he dyed that may be by killing And for that the word kill without doubt will bear an Action for if it be not murther it may be Man-slaughter And so it shall be intended if you cannot make a Iustification as a Minister of Iustice or se defendendo And then when he sayes that he killed him it shall be meant for want of skill which is actionable I. S. hath no more Law than a Horse If he had resembled him to any thing but a Beast it would not maintain an action But if he
of the Demand cannot be made parcel of the Issue 31 Eliz. rot 1137. Com. Banc. Dennis Varneys Case There the Book was agreed If it be to be demanded generally it may be at any time if it be tunc petit otherwise For otherwise it would be a Rent-charge at one time and a Rent-seck at another And the Distress it self is the Demand As it is in Lucas Case If one be obliged to pay mony upon Demand The Action brought is a sufficient demand And Barkley Sergeant He shews in the Avowry that such a one was seised of 20 acres and grants a Rent out of them and others by the name of all his Lands in Rustock and Ollerton For that he said that Ollerton is not charged Because that it is not pleaded that he was seised of that But the whole Court on the contrary And that it is an usual manner of pleading And that it shall be intended that he was seised of Ollerton First the words are per scriptum c. he granted a Rent and then he pleads that per scriptum suum he gave a power to distreyn And then it shall be taken that it was not made by any other Deed and the Distress given by the second Deed shall not make the Rent a Rent-charge And he cited Buts Case Then if it be a Rent-seck and the Distress gives a nomine paenoe There ought to be an actual Demand and that upon the day as it appears by Maunds Case And Pilkintons Case 5 Rep. 5 Eliz. Dyer If it was a Rent-charge the Distress it self serves for a Demand As it was many times adjudged Secondly The words are If the Rent be in arrear any day of payment or 14 daies after The last instant of the 14th day is the legal time for demand of it And the words existent legitime petit ought to refer to the daies expressed immediately before As 39 H. 6. A man obliges that his Feoffees shall do such an Act si quisuerunt Those words shall have reference to the Feoffées And Dockwrays Case If a Man be obliged that his Children which he now hath so also existent Being words of the Present tence refer to the days now mentioned and otherwise there would be a great inconvenience For it cannot be intended the same tenant to be alwaies upon the Land Barrows Case 20 Eliz. A Feoffment upon Condition to re-enfeoff upon demand at such a place It cannot be demanded without notice to the Feossée For that that he shall not be compelled to be there alwaies expecting And the same inconvenience alwaies would follow If the demand should not be upon the day of payment by which c. Richardson If the Rent had béen granted out of 20 acres in Rustock and then he had granted by another Déed that he should destreyn in other Lands being in the same County or not and is the same That that is but a Rent-seck 10 Assise 21 Ass And the Distress is not but a penalty And if that Rent is granted by one Deed and the distress upon the Land by another Deed If it be not delivered at the same time then there shall be a Rent-charge and there shall be also a Rent-seck And when also it is said that ulterius he grants per scriptum suum and does not say praedict It shall be intended another Deed then without averment that it was delivered at the same time It shall be intended at another time But admit that it be a Rent-charge and that it issue out of Ollerton where the demand of it was Yet he ought to maintain that actually In Maunds Case The distress is a sufficient demand For it is not but to inable him to destreyn and that is where the demand is limitted generally But if a Rent be granted and if it be demanded of the person of the Gruntor he may destreyn Then there may be an actual demand that was adjudged As in the Court 15 Jac. Com. Banc. Iackson and Langfords Case and in one Armerys Case And in another upon the same point So if you will grant a Rent-charge demandable at a special and particular place If it was at another place than the Land charged Without doubt there ought to be an actual demand So if it be upon a special place from the Land charged or demanded for the distress ought to be pursued as the Grant is And that is upon such a demand But where it is restrained by the words of the Grant And the same Law is where you will limit the time of the demand If the Rent be granted payable at such a day and grants over that ad tunc being demanded there a legal and general demand will not serve But there ought to be an actual demand And also it is as much although not in express words for the sence and meaning carries it If it be arrear at such a day existent petit The demand ought to be at the day mentioned before If I be bound in Obligation the Condition to pay mony at such a day being demanded There ought to be a demand at the day of payment or there shall not be a forfeiture And now then there is not a demand at the time so no cause of distress And although the Verdict be found if it be collateral matter yet it will not help For when it appears upon the whole matter that there is not any Title to distreyn the Tryall will not help it And so Iudgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Hutton Harvy and Yelverton agreed That if it was a Rent-seck and the distress a penalty there ought to be an actuall demand at the time limited But in case of a Rent-charge although the demand is limited to be made upon parcell Yet they all held that a generall demand will serve And that shall be at any place at any time For Harvey said There is no oddes whether it is limited to be demanded generally or to be demanded upon Dale If it be material it ought to be observed in the one Case as well as in the other Stanleys Case IN one Stanleys Case in an Action of Battery Sir Thomas Crew moved for mitigating the dammages Where the Iudgement was given upon a non sum informatus and afterwards a Writ of enquiry of dammages But the Court said That in such Cases they never will alter the dammages And Crook said that he was once of Councel in an Action of Trespass pedibus ambulando in the Kings Bench in such a Case upon a Writ of enquiry of dammages 10 l. was given That he could never have a mitigation by the Court c. Outlary NOte it was said That an Outlary in the same term for error may be reversed in the Common Bench Or in any term if it be void upon any Statute As for want of Proclamations c. And an Outlary was reversed for that the Writ was praecipimus tibi where it should have been vobis to the Sheriffs of London
Gammons Case before IT was now moved again And the Court was of the same opinion For take the sale for a reasonable price and the Conclusion alike and by that the price appears And although he said 19 l. he might have found less Secondly the Request shewen in the end shall be referred to all the particular sums reservando singula singulis And Harvey said He was of Councel in the Kings Bench Where the Writ was pro diversis barrellis of Bear And in his Declaration he shews that at one day he delivered one and at an other day another And it was ruled that the Declaration well maintained the Writ Thornills Case A Parson libels for the tithes of young Cattel preserved for the Cart. And the Question was as before Whether in such Cases a Custome ought to be surmised And Crook Fitz-Herberts nat brev is That of right Tithes shall not be paid for such things Richardson In all such Cases the Parson ought not to have Tithes if there be not a Custome alleged by which the Parson had any thing or recompence or by which his other Tithe is better And he said that he had searched the Books and the Book of Entries And there is not any such Case but some surmise is made as for that that he had tithe of Corn in specie where the Land is inclosed And so the Corn better Hutton It ought to be tryed if the thing in his nature be tithable or if there be any usage to discharge it or not as the Cattel are in their nature titheable then you cannot prohibit it But the usage ought to be surmised so And it may be Law as the Parson had better tithes Harvey If a Libell be for tithes of Hedgeing and Fenceing there a surmise ought to be made to discharge that But when it is for tithes of Heyfars which in apparency ought to be spared by the Law of the Land Otherwise it is c. Richardson For the herbage of those Heyfars tithe is due by the Ecclesiasticall law And we never can take tithe of them without express custome or other recompence Harvey There was a Case 16 Jac. Com. Banc. A Parson sues for the herbage of Horses and the other alleged that he kept them for the carrying of Coals There he ought to surmise something to be discharged And if he allege that he kept them in his house for serving of Husbandry the other may allege that he kept them to carry Coals and the allegation is traversable Richardson There was a case where the question was A Husbandman keeps an Horse to ride up and down about his business whether he shall pay for the herbage of him And a prohibition in that case was granted But a surmise ought to be made Crook said that in the Kings Bench he had 20 times seen a prohibition granted in such cases without any surmise And a libel is for dry Cattel If it be alleged that they are kept for the Plough the other may allege that he keeps them to sell without that that he keeps them for the plough And before there is any profit of them it is not reason they should be tithable and the Parson shall have the benefit for them after And for hedging it is lex terrae that he shall pay no tithes Richardson It is lex terrae ne consuetudo loci facit legem terrae And if he had used to pay tithes for the Cattel or for hedging he ought not to pay that still If an ignorant man will pay tithes for those things and after upon a livell a prohibition is granted if the other does not allege a custom the prohibition shall stand or if they allege a custom which is found against him no consultation shall be granted And for a Garden penny the reason of that is apparent for otherwise tithes shall be paid in specie And so for Harth-penny if he had always paid it it ought to be paid Hutton If a man had an antient garden for which he paid a penny and that is inlarged of that inlargement tithes ought to be paid in specie Rowe and Dewbancks Case IN a prohibition for slanderous words Brampston shewed cause why a prohibition should not issue The words were That one Harvey and Rowe should report that Mary Marrian should say that Dewbanck and one Anne Rowe were together in such a ones house in an upper Room and that the bed there was tumbled And reported that she said a pox of all Whores and Bawds And that the Husband of Anne Rowe came to demand his wife at the house and they denyed her to be there And that after they were both seen to goe out of a Broomy field and that one should wish he had been in a tree to have seen what they did And he said that a prohibition shall not be granted for that these words may have dubious interpretations for they may be spoken in mirth or in heat as well as to defame But when other words are joyned with them they shall not be granted And these words so cannot be taken but that they were advisedly spoken to slander As in Ayliffs case before when it is added that he lay with such a woman a prohibition shall not be granted Richardson These things are requisite in every action forwords First That the parties of whom the words are spoken be certain Secondly that the words tend to slander By imputing a direct offence that should not be punishable there now there may be a great familiarity and no hurt done And he is not directly charged with any offence as it was in Ayliffes case wherefore it was ruled that a prohibition should issue Eaton against Ayliffe EAton libells against Ayliffe pretending that a seat that the other claimed always belonged to his house and sentence in the spiritual Court was given against Eaton and costs pro falso clamore And he appealed to the Arches and there when they were ready to affirm the sentence he prayed a prohibition And it was moved by Davenport that it might be granted and he cited one Treshams case 33 Eliz. Where in such a case a prohibition was granted after an appeal Richardson There is no cause for any prohibition but in respect of the costs Hutton said it was a double vexation and the party shall not have costs for that Hitcham said they came too late to have a prohibition for the costs Richardson That is not like to the probate of a Will where a thing may fall out tryable at the Common Law But there the principal was tryable at the Common Law for they had it as in right Hutton Seats in the generalty is in the power of the Ordinary to dispose It is the prescription which makes that not tryable at the Common Law And if prescription be made there and it is found that he shall pay costs Richardson All disturbances appertain also to them If it be not upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. But if
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
was not shewed within two 2 daies And Bents Case and Hoptons were adjudged accordingly See 30 Eliz. rot 126. In the Case of a Sheriff there Wroth against Harvey DOwer was brought against an Infant and upon default Iudgment was given against the Infant and there was something assigned for error but notwithstanding Iudgement was affirmed as to that But afterwards an other errour was assigned in the record For that that the entry is obtulit se per Clerk atturnatum suum and names him not And so was the Case where such an one by Higgius atturnatum suum obtulit se And for that cause naught And Dyer 93. Because in waste the obtulit is per atturnatum suum and names him it was naught But Richardson said upon the first obtulit se it is not requisite to name the Attourney but upon the second Barleys Case NOte It was said by Richardson If a man says in his sickness I give 20 l. to I. S. and does not make Executors Yet I. S. shall recover against him who has the goods Crook said that 3 H. 4. That a devise is void if a Legacy be given and no Executors made Winchcombe against Shepard IN an action of the case for cutting of the bank of the River of Charwell by which the water run forth and drowned his meadows The Defendant pleads in bar that one Brooke was seised of a Mill called Gammons Mill and that there is a certain rivulet betwéen Gamors Mill aforesaid and Clyftons And that he and those whose Estate he had in Gamons Mill have used time out of mind c. as often as the said Gammons mill should be ruinous to cut the aforesaid bancks of the aforesaid rivulet in which the Trespass aforesaid is supposed to be done and to let out the water in old Charwell to repair the mill And he shews that the mill was ruinous and that he cut as aforesaid to repair and the water run out of the said old Charwell and so justifies And there was an exception taken by Atthow to this bar For that that he does not answer nor justifies to the place where the Trespass was done For he said that there is quidem Rivulus which is always to be intended of a strange thing As 6 E. 6. Dyer 70. In Trespasse the Defendant said quod quidam I. S. granted the part to him and afterwards said again quod quidam I. S. granted And because that he conveys two grants to himself by two persons for so the second quidam shall be intended And it shas ruled to be naught See the 33 and 34 Eliz. Debt by Lowe against Wotton The Defendant pleads that a long time after the Obligation was made by himself and Bassett quod quidam Iohannes Bassett acknowledged a Statute to the Obligor And because that he says quidam which shall be intended a strange person it was no plea. And the debt upon the Obligation is gon by the acknowleging the Statute See 9 H. 6. 16 17. In a quare impedit for the King of the Chauntry of St. Tho. and alleges a presentation The Defendant says that there is a Chapel of St. Thomas in the same Village and that the Defendant and all his Ancestors have béen Patrons of the same Church It was held no plea for there is no answer to the title made by the King For it shall be intended of another Chapel But here because that he said virtute cujus he cut the aforesaid banks of the rivulet aforesaid in quo transgressio praedict fieri supponitur A sufficient answer was made to the same place so ruled by the opinion of all the Iustices But it was objected that this barre was not good upon the matter For although he might let it out yet he ought not to drown any ground But because that the fault was in the banks of old Charwell He is not punishable for that lawfull Act which he had done Otherwise if he had not prescription 6 E. 4 6. If I have a pond I cannot so let it out that it shall surround the ground of my neighbour Another exception was taken for not pursuing the prescription For he does not shew that the place where the cutting was alleged was between them two mills whereof he makes mention Yet adjudged contra querentem And afterwards this judgement was reversed by errour because he had made his prescription local and that ought to be pursued But for the overflowing after the letting out It was by all held that it is not punishable Ienkins's Case THomas Ienkins as heir to Iohn Ienkins brought errour upon a Iudgement given upon an indictment upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Recusancy and assigns this error For that the Indictment was contra formam Statut. edit 23 Ian. 1 Eliz. Where the Parliament began 25 Ian. And for that it was held erroneous 3 Eliz. Dyer 203. Other matter was alleged for that that the Statute is that it shall be taken before Iustices of the Peace or Gaol delivery The Indictment was before the one and the conviction before another But that was thought a small matter And it was beld by the Iustices that the heir might have a writ of Error upon such a Iudgement As upon execution of a Statute after the death of his father It was objected that he brought error as heir but does not shew how he is heir But nothing is answered to that Keene against Cox IN an action upon the case brought by Keene for saying He is falsly forsworn before the Iustices of Assize between A. and B. Adjudged that it lies Mercer Ux. against Cardock Ux. MErcer Ux. brought debt against Cardock and his Wife as Administrators of one Tox. And upon plene administr pleaded The Plaintiff replies that they had assetts to satisfie the aforesaid Defendant whereas it should have been Plaintiff And because that it was but the misprision of the Clark It was held that it might be amended the record now being brought before them by errour Calthrop against Allen. IN Debt the demand was of 19 l. 17 s. and declares upon five several contracts and shews the certainty upon every of them which being cast up amounted to 20 s. more than was demanded And because that he does not shew how he was satisfied of the remnant It was held quod nihil cap. Goodridges Case AN Indictment of Murder was brought against Goodridge and this exception was taken because that the Indictment was That the said Francis who was murdered such a day apud quondam Down vocat Westmen Downe in the County of Hampton insultum fecit quod ibidem habuit tenuit quoddam gladium in his right hand praedict Franc. percussit and does not say ibidem percussit And therefore naught For it is not of necessity to be intended that the percussion was at the same place Also he said whereof instanter obiit that is no certainty but by argument that he died in the same place
who was censured for Adultery with the wife of Stock and censured as here And an House was broken to apprehend and a Prohibition was afterwards granted for that that nullus liber homâ— c. ought to be imprisoned c. without lawfull proceedings Secondly 23 H. 1. 8. appears the particular course of proceeding in Spiritual causes Richardson The first part of the sentence is not part of the punishment But that she shall be taken untill she gave security c. And it is not but agreeable to the Ecclesiastical course For if she be taken by a Writ de excommunicat capiendo and then to perform the sentence or make agreement for the second part It is express within their power Brampstone said she is a feme Covert and part of the sentence is impossible scil that she should pay the Fine and then by that means the imprisonment would be perpetual Yelverton They cannot imprison without bayl Their Commission does not give them such power And at another day Richardson said That it was out of the High Commission and the Fine estreated For that now no Prohibition may be granted c. Smith et al. against Pannel SMith et alioc Church wardens of Bignel in Essex presented to the Arch-deacon that one Pannel was a Rayler and a sower of Discord amongst his Neighbours Whereupon the Arch-deacon inioyned him purgation et sur motion the Court granted a Prohibition for this Case belongs more perhaps to the Leet than to the Spiritual Court unless the rayling were in the Church or any waies tending to the Ecclesiastical rights Wats against Conisby ELizabeth Wats Wife of Edward Wats libelled in the Spiritual Court against Iane Conisby for a legacy of 100 l. the Defendant pleaded a Release of Wats the Husband after mariage and there were no Witnesses to the release to prove the same in regard they were dead and therfore it was not allowed but upon averment of the party that there were Witnesses that could prove the Release to be the hand of the party and that had heard the party confess so much that he had subscribed to the Release Prohibition was granted concerning this averment Lashes Case IOhn Lash brought to the Bar by a Habeas corpus cum causa directed to the Mair Aldermen and Sheriffs of London who certified the cause as followeth That there hath been a Court of Orphans time out of mind in London and that the custome hath been that if any Freeman or Free-women die leaving Orphans within age unmaried that they have had the custody of their Bodies and Goods And that the Executors or Administrators have used to exhibite true Inventories before them and for the Debts due to the deceased to become bound to the Chamberlane to the use of the Orphans in a reasonable sum to make a true account upon Oath of them after they be received And if they refuse to become bound to commit them till they become bound and then sheweth that one Joan Cather Widow being a Free woman-Fishmonger died leaving divers Orphans and that Iohn Lash was Administrator and had exhibited an Inventory of 1000 l. debt unreceived and was required by this Court to give bond in 1000 who refused per quod And it was alleged for the Prisoner by Sergeant Atthowe that he was already bound in the Ecclesiastical Court to make account and so he should be twice bound also he was inform'd that there was no such custom for Widdows of Freemen But the Court resolved that they could not examine the truth of the custom but the validity of it and they held it reasonable if it were true which is returned but if the Ecclesiastical Court would impugn a lawfull custom the Court would grant a Prohibition Scot against Wall SCot moved to have a Prohibition that whereas he had 20 acres of wheat and had set out the tenth part for tithe the Defendant pretending that there was a custom of tithing that the Owner should have 54 Sheaves and the Parson 5 and so he sued for tithes for that there was no such custom for the Court said that the modus decimandi must be sued for as well in the Ecclesiastical Court as for the tith it self and if it be allowed between the parties they shall proceed there but if the custom be denyed it must be tryed at the Common law and if it be found for a custom consultation must be granted if not then the Prohibition is to stand Farmer against Sherman IOhn Farmer brought Prohibition and the Case was thus And Abbot having a Privilege to be discharged of tithes quam diu manibus propriis c. in the time of E. 4. made a gift in tayl 31 H. 8. the Abby was dissolved question whether upon the clause of discharge of tithes within the Statute of Monasteries the Donee and his Heirs should be discharged and held that he should not for that Statute dischargeth none but as the Abbot was discharged in the time of the dissolution so that they must claim the Estate and discharge under the Abbot but if by a common recovery the reversion had been barred before or after the Statute it had been otherwise Napper against Steward NApper against Steward the Parson had a Prohibition against divers of his Parishioners that libelled in the Spiritual Court to make proof by Witnesses of divers manner of tithing in perpetuam rei memoriam Hide against Ellis A Prohibition for Hide against Ellis farmor of the rectory of Stanfield in Com. Berks prescribed that all tenants and occupyers of meadow had used to cut the grass to strow it abroad called Tetting then gathered it into wind-rows and then put it into grass-cocks in equal parts without any fraud to set out the tenth cock great or small to the Parson in full satisfaction as well of the first as of the latter math Vpon traverse of the custom it was found for the Plaintiff exception was taken that the custom was void because it imports no more than what every Owner ought to do and so no recompence for the 2 maths But the Court gave Iudgement for the Plaintiff for dismes naturally are but the tenth of the Revenew of any ground and not of any labour or industry where it may be divided as in gross it may though not in corn and in divers places they set out the tenth acre of Wood standing and so of grass and the Iury having found out his form of tithing there it is sufficient and the like Iudgment upon the like custom in the Kings Bench Pasc 2 lac rot 191 or 192. inter Hall Symonds Int. Hil. 2 Car. rot 2445. Bells Case AN action of Debt was brought by Bell upon an Obligation against one as heir of the Obligor scil Brother and Heir And the Defendant pleads riens per discent from the Obligor And upon that issue there was a speciall verdict found that the Obligor seised of Lands which descended to his Son
W. who died seised of the Lands which descended to his Vncle who was the Defendant Crawley Two things are required to maintain the action Whether the Defendant be heir Secondly who held lands by descent from the Obligor now is heir at Common law And now the heir by the Mannor shall be charged in debt as well as the Heir at Common law Dyer 228. All Brothers in Gavelkind shall be charged 11 H. 7. 12. The heir of the party of the mother shall be charged and so shall Bastardeign 4 E. 3. 14. Heir by Borrough-English And in this Case R. is not heir but by the Mannor Yet he shall be charged 32 Eliz. Dyer 368. by 4 the Iustices And the Defendant here had Lands by descent from the Obligor by which he shall be charged which was agreed by the whole Court But by Richardson It is not sufficient that he be heir in Blood and heir by the Mannor But he ought to have also Land to him by descent from the Obligor But here the Plea is that the Land descended to him immediately And for that you ought to have pleaded that the Obligor died and Lands descended to W. his Son and Heir who died without issue seised of the said Land which descended to R. his Vncle as Brother and heir to the Obligor Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Grays Case HEnden shewed cause that a prohibition should not be granted to the Ecclesiastical Court where the case was That one Brother had taken administration and the other would have distribution of the goods of the intestate And said that issues might enforce distribution of it And it is grounded upon Magna Charta cap. 18. Where there is a saving to the wife and the issues their reasonable part And upon the same reason that there may be a division between the issues so there may be between the Brothers but more remote degrees have no distribution And it is hard that one Brother shall have the whole estate and the others nothing And the Ordinary here is the most indifferent man to make distribution Hutton if the eldest son had lands descended to him and the youngest took Administration It is reason that the eldest shall have distribution And by him and Harvey a Writ de rationabile parte bonorum lies only where there is a custom And they said if it should be admitted that the Ordinary should distribute to the Brothers by the same reason he may to more remote degrees And he declared their opinions that many terms before they were against those distributions But they said That now the Ordinary would have an Obligation before they granted a Prohibition and they coloured their Obligation with the Statute of 31 E. 3. cap. 11. That an Administrator shall be count able to the Ordinary And Harvey said that be knew where a man that was rich died and the Ordinary had 600 l. to pious uses before he would grant administration But he said that in the time of Sir Iohn Bennet such an Obligation was questioned and they would not endure the tryal of it Hutton said that now for that that they could not distribute they might invent a new way scil divide the Administration As if the Estate be 400 l. they might grant Administration of the Goods of the value of 100 l. to the other But by him and Harvey That is illegally granted Doctor Wood and Greenwoods Case DOctor Wood libels against Greenwood in the Ecclesiastical Court for tithes of Wool Wood and Apples c. And he shews that he was Vicar there and that the 8 E. 1. there was a composition that the Parson should have the tithes of Grain and Hay praeterea the Viccar should have Alteraginum And for that that those tithes did not belong to the Viccar he prayed a prohibition And Henden objected that the Parishioner ought to set forth his tith and not dispute the Title of the Parson or Viccar But the Viccar ought to come in the Spiritual Court pro interesse suo but notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the Viccar refuses to claim those tithes that always within memory they have been paid to the Parson yet a prohibition was granted And in the end upon this Composition power is reserved to th◠Ordinary if any doubt or obscurity be in the composition to expound or determine it And if he please to encrease the part of the Viccar And there was not power of diminution As by Hutton It is also usual in such compositions And they say that the word Alteraginum shal be expounded according to the use As if wood had always been paid to the Viccar by vertue of this word so it shall continue otherwise if not And so it had been ruled in the Eschequer And upon that president it was ruled accordingly in this Court And by them wood is minuta decima as in the case of St. Albans it was ruled Sir Richard Dorrel against Blagrave SIr Richard Dorrell was Plaintiff in action of debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. against Blagrave who demanded oyer of the condition which was that if Blagrave fulfilled and kept all Covenants and agreements in an Indenture c. between him and the Plaintiff which on his part is to be performed and kept Then the Defendant pleads that he had performed all the Covenants on his part to be performed c. And the Plaintiff shews that Blagrave the elder by his Indenture granted a rent of 20 l. per annum to one that he intended to marry for her joynture which was to commence after his death And that it was out of all his lands in Watchfield And afterwards by the same Indenture he Covenants that he was seised of a good and perfect estate in Fee simple of lands and tenements in Watchfield to the value of 40 l. per annum And he assigns for breach that Blagrave was not seised of an Estate in Fée of the lands and tenements aforesaid in Watchfield Whereupon the Defendant demurred And Heidley moved two questions First that admitting the breach here well assigned yet the obligation is not forfeited And then when the Defendant is bound that he perform all Covenants on his part to be performed and not to the Covenants broken As if Lessee for years rendring a rent at Michaelmas and the Annunciation covenant to pay the rent at a day and afterwards he fail and then a Stranger is bound that he perform all Covenants c. That extends to the failer of payment which is past here in our case And by the whole Court not allowed For by such means all assurances of England should be deluded And now in this case the Indenture and the Obligation shall be sealed and delivered at the same time But if the Obligation had been sealed afterwards at another day yet it was allowed For by Richardson Suppose that the Condition of the Obligation recites the grant c. And the condition is that if the land
Hill 4 Car. Com. Banc. that is a good Grant and charges the Heir although it first commenced upon him Yelverton said he charges himself And the Grant is for him and his heirs And warranty which is so granted to commence 40 years after although the Father dye before the commencement of it yet it binds the Heir And so it is of an Obligation to be paid 40 years after Quod concessum fuit Beckrows Case IN one Beckrows Case in evidence to the Iury c. Beckrows intending to a mary a Widdow makes a conveyance by Deed of Feoffment of his Land to several uses by which he setled his Land upon the issue of the Feme having issue by a former wife But after the mariage he by much importunity procured the Déed of conveyance into his hands out of the custody of the Wife and also an Obligation which makes mention of it and it was for performance of Covenants and then he cancelled the Deed and the Obligation and took off the seal from them And afterwards settles his Land upon his former Children and dies having Issue by his last wife And in actions under these conveyances It was permitted by the Court that the cancelled Deed should be read in evidence But first there should be Testimony given of the truth of that practice before it should be read c. A Copiholders Case IT was said by Richardson to Harvey privately That there is almost no Copyhold in England but the Fine in truth is uncertain For if the Rolls make it appear that some time a lesser and sometime a greater sum had been paid for a Fine that is an uncertain Fine And he said that he was of Councel in a Case where the Iury found that the Fine was certain And afterwards by Bill in Chancery It was decreed upon search of the Rolls to be a Fine incertain And that is now the ordinary course scil by decree in Chancery Francis Bill against Sir Arthur Lake FRancis Bill was Plaintiff in an Assumpsit against Sir Arthur Lake who assumed to the Plaintiff that in consideration that he would make for his wife certain apparel and prepare stuff and lace for it That he would pay for the stuff and making as much as should be required And he shews that he provided Sattin and Gold-lace and made the Apparel and shews of what value the Stuff was and what he deserved for his labour which amounted to the value of 39 l. and that he required the Defendant such a day to pay him which was within six years before the action brought but the promise was laid to be 7 years before The Defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations and that the Plaintiff did not bring his Action within the six years after the promise made nor within the 3 years after the Parliament ended But he does not shew when it ended Vpon which there was a Demurrer And by the Court the ending of the Parliament néeds not to be shewn here For the Question is not upon the 3 years after the ending of the Parliament but upon the matter in Law whether an Action ought to be brought within six years after the promise or after the request Richardson said That it ought to be within six years after the promise Here are two causes of Action for the words of the Statute are within six yenrs afcer the cause of Action the promise and the request and the promise is the principal Trin. 5 Car. Com. Banc. and the Action took its denomination from that scil an action of the Case upon an Assumpsit And if there be a demand which is the case of Action Here it will be answered the promise for a Request without promise is no cause of Action And the mischief that the Statute intended to remedy was that a man was should not be put to the proof of the matter de facto so long time after And if the request is said to be the cause of Action the promise may be laid 20 years before and although that may be proved But the other 3 Iustices were against him and said That the intention of the Statute is within 6 years after the cause of the Sute given which is not untill after request As if one promised to another so much when he should mary his Daughter The 6 years there shall be after the mariage Or if one promise such a sum to one at his return from Rome or such a place from whence it is not impossible to return within six years The payment shall be after the return and there is not a cause of Action before and also the promise and the Request are intire For the request is part of the promise and the promise is not intire untill the request They agréed if a man makes a request and suffer the 6th year to pass before an action brought and then makes a new request And this Case was more strong because the consideration was future Heidley said there was a difference where the request is necessary and where it is alleged but for form As if I sell a Horse for 10 l. generally and after the 6 years brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against the Vendee and shews in his Declaration that he was to be paid when he would require it licet saepius requisit c. within the six years Here the Plaintiff is barred For it was due by the contract and the request is but formal If a man brings an Action within the 6 years and afterwards is non-suted for want of request shewen where it was necessary and makes a new request after the 6 years and brings his Action It is good Which was granted by the Court. And in this Case the Court taxed Henden for advising the Defendant to plead the Statute and hazard it upon Demurrer When he might have tryed first the matter in fact But Henden said it was dangerous not to plead the Statute For the opinion of the Kings Bench and Exchequer seemed to be that it ought to be pleaded By the Court when it is apparent within the Record that the Action is brought after the 6 years certainly they doubted not but the Statute ought to be shewn in arrest of Iudgement But the doubt is when a general issue is pleaded in an Assumpsit or Trespass and it does not appear in the Trespass or Assumpsit that it was above the six years the Statute now may be given evidence Trin. 5 Car. Com. Banc. Starkey against Taylor STarkey an Attorny of the Common Bench brought an Action against Taylor for slanderous words and declares that he being an Attorney of the Common Bench of honest fame c. and that he gained much by that profession which was his Livelihood the Defendant maliciously and to hinder him in his profession spoke these words of him Thou art a Common Barrettor thou art a Iudas and a Promoter and a Destroyer and a Viper and a Villain and
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
of Entries If one said of a Chirurgion he did poyson the wound of his patient That is not actionable for it might be for the cure of it But if he said as it was in 33 and 34 Eliz. Com. Banc. He did poyson the wound of his patient to get money That is actionable And the words here are allayed if they be joyned with the first For being spoken of a Iustice his power and greatness may oppresse him without fault in the Plaintiff One said M. 37 Eliz. of a Iustice of Peace That he was a Bloodsucker and thirsteth after blood yet if you 'll give him a couple of Capons he 'll take them Not actionable for they are too general As to the Iustification all is justified clearly It was objected then is omitted in our justification It is true if he complain of oppression one time and we justifie at another time it shall be insufficient But the matters of Iustification here well enough meet with the time By which c. Gosse against Brown Gosse brought an action upon an Obligation against Brown dated 23 Feb. 20 Iac. to pay money upon the 30 of December following It was then said that the money was not to be paid until the 30 day of December For it is all one as if the bond had been without date But if the condition had been to have béen paid the 33 Febr. It was then presently due upon demand because it was an impossible date Gibbs against Ienkins GIbbs brought an action upon the case for scandalous welch words spoken in the presence of divers understanding the language And witnesses were sworn to the Iury who deposed that the signification of those words were to steal or at least to carry away Which words in English not being able to bear an action Iudgement was given against the Plaintiff Ravyes Case A Sheriff had taken one by capias ad satisfac a Stranger assumes to him that if he will let him goe at large that he would pay him what damages he should sustain thereby No action upon the case will lie for that promise because it is against the Common Law And 23 H. 6. 2 H. 5. If a man oblige another in a bond not to follow his trade It is void Darlyes Case SErgeant Atthow shewed to the Court that an action upon the case was brought by the Sheriff of S. And declares that the Defendant assumed that if he would put such an one in Execution into the Castle of which he had recovered against him to save him harmless And shews that he did take him in execution and that for that he was indicted for a forceabie entry and sues in the Star-chamber ad damnum 500 l. And the Court séemed that it was not a sufficient consideration For it was no more than by his office he ought to doe But if it was upon an other matter otherwise it should be And for that they said to the Serjeant that he might have demurred to the Declaration NOte that it was said that an Ejectione firm does not lie de una pecia terrae although that it was added conteining by estimation half an acre of land vocat It is not good But he ought to shew the longitude and latitude And it is otherwise in an assize and that for the view And so it was held by the Court. Hadves against Levit. AN action upon the case was brought That in consideration the Plaintiff would consent that his Son should marry the Daughter of the Defendant and that after the Coverture upon request of the Defendant the Plaintiff shall make a joynture of 20 l. to the wife That the Defendant should give 200 l. to the Son in marriage they are married the mony is not payed the Father of the Son brings this action and shews how he is indamaged by it because that he is constreined to give more to the Son and his Wife for to allow them maintenance then otherwise with an averement that be is forced to make that Ioynture if the other will make the request Richardson This action should have béen more properly brought by the Son for he is the person in whom the interest is And he put the case 22 Eliz. A man had a license to transport Herrings to Spain and the Daughter one of the parties had a license And a stranger comes to the Father and says to him procure me that license and I 'll give you 100 l. and 100 l. to your daughter It was held that the Daughter should have the action for the one 100 l. for more specially it concerns her And put the case of lorning Iorning 37 Eliz. Where A. was indebted to B. a stranger follows the sute for B. A. comes to the stranger and says to him leave the sute and I 'll pay your Master The Master shall have the action upon the case And now in our case the father does not demand the 200 l. but only the damages which will happen to him by the non-payment to the Son Hutton There is a difference when the promise is to perform to one who is not interessed in the cause and when he hath interest In the first case he to whom the promise is made shall have the action and not he to whom the promise is to be performed If A. promise B. to pay I. S. 10 l. upon a consideration which is not done B. shall have the action and not I. S. If there be two joynt of a Horse and the one conditions with the other to goe to Market to sell it who does it and appoints the payment to be made to another In this case he only to whom the payment is to be made shall have the action So also if my servant by my command sell my Horse the money to be paid to me I shall have the action and not my Servant for the interest is in me So here the interest is in the Son and he is to have the money It was said at the bar betwéen one Cardinal and Lewis It was adjudged that where two fathers promise upon marriage betwéen the daughter of the one and the Son of the other that the Father of the Son will give 100 l. stock and the Father of the Daughter 100 l. in money The money was paid and the stock not delivered And the action was maintained by the Father And the Iustices said that they would see that Record viz. 27 H. 8. Tathams case of a promise made to the wife c. They put at the bar one Cores Case That a man promised to one to make satisfaction of all debts in which he was indebted to another who was then absent He to whom the satisfaction was to be made brought the action upon the Case and well maintainable ve Mich. 43 44 Eliz. in t Rixon Horton Stone against Tiddersly THe action was brought upon an Obligation the condition whereof was that a conveyance of a Mannor shall be made to one P. and two others to the use of Richard Tiddersly and the heirs males of his body The remainder to the heirs males of Rob. Tid Vpon issue whether conditions were performed And it was found by verdict that it was to the use of the heirs males of his body the remainder to Rob. Tid and the heirs males of his body Held no performance for they agréed not to the words of the Condition IT was agreed by all That antient Demesne was a good plea in Ejectione firm but not after imparlance Crosses Case THere was errour brought because the appearance was by Anthony Goodwin Attornat suum And there was not any such in rerum natura The Court said that this averment shall not be received against the Recorder of the Court. FINIS