Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	chief_a	court_n	justice_n	1,463	5	6.5737	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33627	Certain select cases in law reported by Sir Edward Coke, Knight, late Lord Chief Justice of England ... ; translated out of a manuscript written with his own hand, never before published ; with two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.; Reports. Part 13. English	Coke, Edward, Sir, 1552-1634.	1659 (1659)	Wing C4909; ESTC R1290	92,700	80

shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were resolved by the Court. 1. That all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Di● quod est duo electio id est

seperatio quia seperat duas Jurisdictiones So Dioces signifies the Iurisdiction of one Ordinary seperated and divided from others And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction in London exempt out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop of London For that cause it is fitly said in the Title Peramble and body of the Act That when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London ergo he is cited out of the Dioces And in the clause of the penalty of ten pounds It is said out of the Dioces or other Iurisdiction where the party dwelleth which agreeth with the signification of Dioces before And as to the words Far off c. they were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief which was before the Act As the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 33. in the Preamble it is Disseisins with strength and the body of the Act saith such Disseisor yet the same extendeth to all Disseisors but Disseisin with force was the greatest mischief as it is holden in 4. and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So the Preamble of the Statute of West 2. cap. 5. is Heirs in Ward and the body of the Act is Hujusmodi praesentat as it is adjudged in 44 E. 3. 18. That an Infant who hath an Advowson by discent and is out of Ward shall be within the remedy of the said Act but the Frauds of the Guardians was the greater mischief So the Preamble of the Act of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. which gives falsifying of Recoveries recites in the Preamble That divers Lessees have paid divers great Incomes c. Be it enacted That all such Termors c. and yet the same extends to all Termors and yet all these Cases are stronger then the Case at Bar for there that word such in the body of the Act referreth the same to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be dwelling And if he shall not be cited out of the Peculiar before any Ordinary a Fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shal not cite others out of another Dioces And these words Out of the Dioces are to be meant out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth but the exempt Peculiar of the Archbishop is out of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London as S. Martins and other places in London are not part of London although they are within the circumference of it 3. It is to be observed That the Preamble reciting of the great mischief recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsary proces to appear in the Arches Audience and other high Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So as the intention of the said Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction unlesse it were in five Cases 1. For any Spirituall Offence or cause committed or omitted contrary to the right and duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves that there ought to be a default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in case of Appeal and other lawfull cause wherein the party shall find himselfe greived by the Ordinary after the matter or cause there first begun ergo the same ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case that the Bishop of the Dioces or other immediate Iudge or Ordinary dare not or will not convent the party to be sued before him where the Ordinary is called the immediate Iudge as in truth he is and the Archbishop unlesse it be in his own Dioces these speciall Cases excepted mediate Iudge scil by Appeal c. 4. Or in case that the Bishop of the Dioces or the Iudge of the place within whose Iurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the matter or cause of the same suit Which clause in expresse words is a full exposition of the body of the Act scil That every suit others then those which are expressed ought to be begun and prosecuted before the Bishop of the Dioces or other Iudge of the same place 5. In case that any Bishop or any inferiour Iudge having under him Iurisdiction c. make request or instance to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Iudge and that to be done in cases only where the Law Civill or Common doth affirm c. By which it fully appeareth That the Act intendeth That every Ordinary and Ecclesiasticall Iudge should have the Conusance of Causes within their Iurisdiction without any Concurrent Authority or Suit by way of prevention And by this the Subject hath great benefit as well by saving of travell and charges to have Iustice in his place of habitation as to be judged where he and the matter is best known As also that he shall have many Appeals as his Adversary in the highest Court at the first Also there are two Provisoes which explains it also scil That it shall be lawfull to every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishops Diocesse within his Province for matter of Heresie which were a vain Proviso If the Act did not extend to the Archbishop But by that speciall Proviso for Heresie it appeareth that for all causes not excepted is prohibited by the Act Then the words of the Proviso go further If the Bishop or other Ordinary immediatly hereunto consent or if the same Bishop or other immediate Ordinary or Iudge do not his duty in punishment of the same which words immediatly and immediate expound the intent of the makers of the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop the calling any person out of the Dioces where he shall be dwelling to the probate of any Testaments which Proviso should be also in vain if the Archbishop notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary through his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded that the Archbishop out of his Dioces unlesse in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the Act of 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Dioces And in truth the Act of 23. of Henry the eighth is but a Law declaratory of the ancient Canons and of the true exposition of them The Act of 23 H. 8. is a Declaration of the old Canon Law And that appeareth by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus and Cap. de Competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation in London An. 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. Where it is decreed ordained and declared That none should be cited to the Arches or Audience but the Inhabitants within the Archbishops Dioces

Lease be made to one for the lives of J. S. and J. N. there the Freehold doth not determine by the death of one of them for the reasons and causes given in the Case of Brudnel in the fifth part of my Reports fol. 9 Which Case was affirmed to be good Law by the whole Court XXXIII Easter Term anno 8 Jacobi In the Common-Pleas Heydon and Smiths Case RIchard Heydon brought an Action of Trespass against Michael Smith and others of breaking of his Close called the Moor in Ugley in the County of Essex the 25 day of June in the fifth year of the King quendam arborem suum ad valentiam 40 s. ibidem nuper crescen succiderunt The Defendants said that the Close is and at the time of the Trespass was the Freehold of Sir John Leventhrop Knight c. and that the said Oak was a Timber Tree of the growth of thirty years and more and justifies the cutting down of the Tree by his commandment The Plaintiff replyeth and saith That the said Close and a House and 28 Acres of Land in Ugley are Copyhold and parcel of the said Mannor of Ugley c. of which Mannor Edward Leventhrop Esquire Father of the said Sir John Leventhrop was seised in Fee and granted the said House Lands and Close to the said Richard Heydon and his Heirs by the Rod at the Will of the Lord according to the custom of the said Mannor and that within the said Mannor there is such a custom Quod quilibet tenens Customar ejusdem Manerii sibi haeredibus suis ad voluntatem Domini c. a toto tempore supradicto usus fuit consuevit ad ejus libitum amputare ramos omnimodum arborum called Pollingers or Husbords super terris tenem suis Customar crescen pro ligno combustibili ad like libitum suum applicand in praedicto Messuagio comburend and also to cut down and take at their pleasure all manner of Trees called Pollengers or Husbords and all other Timber trees super ejusdem Custumariis suis crescen for the reparation of their Houses built upon the said Lands and customary Tenements and also for Ploughbote and Cartbote and that all Trees called Pollengers or Husbords and all other trees at the time of the Trespass aforesaid or hitherto growing upon the aforesaid Lands and Tenements customary of the said Richard Heydon were not sufficient nor did serve for the necessary uses aforesaid And that the said Richard Heydon from the time of the said Grant made unto him had maintained and preserved all trees c. growing upon the said Lands and Tenements to him granted And that after the death of the said Edward Leventhrop the said Mannor descended to the said Sir John Leventhorp and that at the time of the Trespass the aforesaid Messuage of the said Richard Heydon was in decay egebat necessariis reparationibus in Maremio ejusdem Vpon which the Defendant did demur in Law And this Case was oftentimes argued at the Bar and now this Term it was argued at the Bench by the Iustices And in this case these points were resolved 1. That the first part of the Custom was absurd and repugnant scil Quod quilibet tenens Customarii ejusdem Manerii habens tenens aliqua terras seu tenementa Custom c. usus fuit amputare ramos omnimodum arborum vocat Pollingers c. pro ligno combustabili c. in praedicto Messuagio comburend which ought to be in the Messuage of the Plaintiff for no other Messuage is mentioned before which is absurd and repugnant That every customary Tenant should burn his Fuel in the Plaintiffs house But that Branch of the Custom doth not extend unto this case for the last part of the custom which concerneth the cuting down of the Trees concerns the point in question and so the first part of the custom is not material It was objected That the pleading that the Messuage of the Plaintiff was in decay egebat necessariis reparationibus in maremio ejusdem was too general for the Plaintiff ought to have shewed in particular in what the Messuage was in decay as the Book is in 10 E. 4. 3. He who justifieth for Housebote c. ought to shew that the House hath cause to be repaired c. To which it was answered by Coke chief Iustice That the said Book proved the pleading in the case at Bar was certain enough scil Quod Messuagium praed egebat necessariis reparationibus in maremio without shewing the precise certainty and therewith agrees 7 H. 6. 38. and 34 H. 6. 17. 2. It was also answered and resolved That in this case without question it needs not to alledg more certainty for here the Copyholder according to the custom doth not take it but the Lord of the Mannor doth cut down the Tree and carryeth it away where the rest was not sufficient and so preventeth the Copyholder of his benefit and therefore he needeth not to shew any decay at all but onely for increasing of the damages for the Lord doth the wrong when he cutteth down the Tree which should serve for reparations when need should be 3. It was resolved That of common Right as a thing incident to the Grant the Copyholder may take Housebote Hedgbote and Plowbote upon his Copyhold Quia concesso uno conceduntur omnia sine quibus id consistere non potest Et quando aliquis aliquid concedit concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest and therewith agreeth 9 H. 4. Waste 59. But the same may be restrained by custom scil That the Copyholder shall not take it unless by assignment of the Lord or his Bayliff c. 4. It was resolved That the Lord cannot take all the Timber Trees but he ought to leave sufficient for the Reparation of the Customary houses and for Ploughbote c. for otherwise great Depopulation will follow scil Ruine of the Houses and decay of Tillage and Husbandry And it is to be understood That Bote being an ancient Saxon word hath two significations the one compensatio criminis as Frithbote which is as much as to say to be discharged from giving amends for the breach of the peace Manbote to be discharged of amends for the death of man And secondly in the latter signification scil for Reparation as was Bridgbote Burghbote Castlebote Parkbote c. scil Reparation of a Bridg of a Borough of a Castle of a Park c. And it is to be known that Bote and Estovers are all one Estovers are derived of this French word Estouer i. e. fovere i. e. to keep warm to cherish to sustain to defend And there are four kinds of Estovers scil ardendi arandi construendi claudendi scil Firebote Housebote Ploughbote and Hedgbote 5. It was resolved That the Copyholder shall have a general Action of Trespass against the Lord Quare clausum fregit arborem