King by general words of all Land c. Conditions c. 3 Co. 2. a. b. much less could it pass from the King if it could pass at all by general words but I rest upon this First That it is a Power or kind of Trust to revoke but no Condition Secondly At least not such a Condition as is given to the King Thirdly If it were it ought to have béen executed by the same means as it should have béen by S. M. In Englefields Case there was no pretence to have more than to execute the Condition it ought here to have béen executed in the Life of S. M. and so it appears to be done in Englefields Case and Harding and Warners Case for I caused the Cases to be searched This is like the Case of the Statutes of 15 R. 2. cap. 5. 1 R. 3. cap. 1. 19 H. 7. cap. 15. these Statutes give the same advantage to Lords c. where persons have Uses in Lands respectively as if they had the very Lands but the Lord's c. cannot thereby claim any greater Interest than the cestuy que Uses had respectively in the Uses Now in this Case The Body of the Act and the Proviso fetch back and save the Trusts for all but S.M. As to the Execution for the Kings Debts it differs for the Process for they ever did and do run de terris de quibus illi aut aliquis ad eorum usum c. 'T is true in Sir Charles Hattons Case it was resolved That the Kings Debr should be executed upon Land wherein he had a power of Revocation Vid. Chirtons Case 11 Co. 92. And so Iudgment was affirmed per toram Curiam Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Debt upon a Bond. After Verdict for the Plaintiff the Judgment was entred quod recuperet the Sum pro misis custag ' instead of pro debito praed ' But this was ordered to be amended as the default of the Clerk tho' in another Term The Court having power over their own Entries and Judgments Anonymus IN an Account it was held by the Court that if a man delivers Money to his Bayliff or Factor to lay out for him in Commodities he cannot bring an Assumpsit but only his Action of Account For the Chief Justice said that he knew such an Action once brought and the Jury that were to try the Cause informed him That if they should Examine all the Accounts which were between the Plaintiff and Defendant it would take up three or four days time So that it hath been always holden that in such case he should be driven to his proper Remedy which is an Action of Account and it may be the Factor hath laid out more Mony that he received Eaton versus Barker IN an Action upon the Statute of 17 Car. nunc for residing in a place where he had formerly kept a Conventicle and demands the 40 l penalty After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no Costs or Damages given For it was said that where a Statute gave a certain Penalty if this be not paid upon demand he that sues for it shall recover his Costs and Damages as North and Wingate's Case in the 3 Cro. 559. is But the Court held that they ought not to be given in Actions Popular whether the Forfeiture be certain or not but where a certain Penalty is given to the party grieved there he shall recover his Costs and Damages 10 Co. 116. Vide postea Polexphen versus Polexphen IN a Prohibition the Case was that Henry Polexphen died Intestate Andrew his Brother gets Letters of Administration in the Inferiour Diocess One who pretended to be the Wife of H. surmizing Bona notabilia procured Administration from the Prerogative Court Andrew appeals to the Delegates and dies Henry his Son and Heir comes in and gets the Administration committed in the Prerogative Court Repealed and hath Letters granted to himself Vpon this the Wife prayed a Prohibition supposing that the Delegates could not proceed after the death of Andrew but that their Commission was determined For their Authority is by that to proceed in a Case between such parties one of which is dead To which it was Answered That the Commission is to hear and determine the Cause And both in the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law the Suit shall continue after the death of either party for those which shall be concerned as appears by the Bishop of Carlisle's Case in 2 Cro. 483. and in the 1st Leonard 117 and 178. it is said That if one party dies ante litis conrestationem then it shall abate but if after it is otherwise And there are a number of Presidents of this nature both in the Arches and Admiralty Courts c. And in this very Case Henry Polexphen having obtained Administration de bonis non of his Vncle Andrew in the Country the now Plaintiff got it set aside by the Delegates because granted while an Appeal was depending and that upon full debate before them who would yet now suggest that the Appeal was determined by the death of Andrew The Court were of Opinion that no Prohibition was to be granted and that the Delegates Authority to proceed in that case continued notwithstanding the death of Andrew For the Commission is to proceed in causis Administration c. una cum suis incidentibus vel annexis qualitercunque c. Summariè juxta Juris exigentiam So that the Ecclesiastical Law is appointed to be their Rule by the course of which a Suit doth not abate by the death of the parties And Hale said The Appeal is to the King in Chancery and it is by reason of his Original Jurisdiction and thereupon he grants a Commission to hear it Now if he could hear it in Person none could object but that he might determine the Cause after the death of the parties and by the same Reason they may to whom he hath delegated his Authority But the Attorney General coming in and desiring to be heard in it for the Plaintiff the Court gave further time Eaton versus Barker THe Case was now moved again upon the Statute for coming to a place where he had formerly Preached in a Conventicle And Exception was taken to the Declaration For that it was not averred that the Defendant was in Holy Orders For the words of the Statute are That if any one that hath been Parson Vicar Lecturer c. or within Holy Orders and have taken upon them to Preach c. But to this it was Answered that there is another Clause in the Act That all such persons as shall take upon them to Preach c. which is general and extends to all men whether in Orders or no which have been Preachers And of that Opinion were the Court. It was also Objected That there was no Averment That the Defendant was not there upon Summons Sub
if the Heirs satisfied the Office of their Title without pleading as where Conusans of Pleas have been once allowed it is sufficient in another Action to shew the former Roll where it was alallowed Note An Indictment for a Nusans in the High-way The Court will not quash this Indictment upon Motion unless certified that the Nusans is removed But they will Reverse it upon a Writ of Error if their be Error in it without any such Certificate Iles Case A Mandamus was prayed to the Churchwardens of the Parish of Kinsmere in Hampton to restore John Iles to the place of Sexton there and it was granted And so the Court said hath béen for a Parish Clark Churchwardens a Scavenger But it was denied to one who pretended to be Master of the Lord Mayors Waterhouse for that they said was not an Office but a Service Anonymus A Fine was levied of Lands in Blandford Forum Resolved That this should not pass Lands in a Hamlet of that Town there being Constables distinct in Blandford Forum from others that were in the Hamlet so that they were as two Vills But if a Fine be levied of Lands in a Parish it shall extend to all the Vills within the Parish The Lord Hawley's Case A Mandamus was granted to restore him to the Recordership of Bath The Corporation returned That they were Incorporated by Letters Patents of Queen Elizabeth which empowered them to chuse probum discretum hominem in legibus Angliae peritum to be their Recorder and to hold a Court twice every Week before the Mayor Alderman and Recorder or any two of them whereof the Mayor to be one That the 1st of August 15 of this King he was made Recorder by the Committee upon the Act of this King for regulating of Corporations and that he continued in the Office Secundum locationem illam until the 25 of December 21 of the King and that from the 1 of August 15 of the King to August 21 he absented himself by the space of five years without any reasonable Cause and that he is nullo modo peritus in lege and that at a Court August the 21 they summoned him to appear some days before and he not coming they amoved him from his Office the 30 day of the said August After this Return filed it was moved First That it was repugnant for they returned That the Lord Hawley continued in his Office until the 25 of December 21 of the King and after that they amoved him in August 21 of the King To which it was answered That in regard upon the whole return it appears that he was amoved though it be said he continued after that is not material but surplusage As where a Jury gives a general Verdict and yet discloses special matter disagreeing to it the Court judges according to the special matter or else they might mean that though he were turned out yet he did continue exercising it de facto And the Court were of Opinion that the contradiction in the Return was not material For Hale said If it shall be taken that he is yet in then there is no need of a Mandamus Again it was said That the matter of absence was not sufficiently returned for it appears by the Charter that the presence of the Recorder is not necessary to the holding of the Court for it is to be held before the Mayor Aldermen and Recorder or any two of them whereof the Mayor to be one then they have not returned that they held a Court in all that time neither have they returned that any mischief or inconvenience happned to them by his absence A Park-keeper shall not forfeit his Office for Non-attendance unless a Deer be killed or the like in his absence Also it is returned from the 1 of Aug. 15. Car. to the 1 of Aug. 21. he absented himself for five years and he might be out of Town five years in six years time and yet be there every Court day And for the other cause of removal that he was not peritus in lege It was said That the Corporation being Laymen could not return a thing whereof they were not Judges That the Return was too general nullo modus peritus but ought to have set forth some special Fact whereby it might appear to the Court. Also They could not remove him for a Cause which they could not examin he was put in by Commissioners authorised by Act of Parliament which it was said did capacitate implicitely him at least their Act supplied the Election of the Town which if it had been would have dispensed with his disability And the Case of Bernardiston Recorder of Colchester was much relied upon who in 1655 brought a Mandamus to be restored to his Office And it was returned That he was not learned in the Law and that one being indicted before him upon the Statute of 1 Jac. of having two Wives and convicted he denied him Clergy and also they returned That he absented himself for nine Months and notwithstanding by the Iudgment of the Court he was restored It was said by Sir William Jones on the other side That the absence as it was returned was sufficient Cause to remove him for it is returned That without any reasonable Cause seipsum elongavit by the space of five years which must be intended five years continued and not made up by Fractions and so held the Court in that Case and executionem officij sui totaliter neglexit Now tho' his Presence be not of absolute necessity to the holding of the Court yet it is highly convenient that he should be there seeing the Charter gives such large Iurisdictions to determine all Causes excepting such as concern Freehold according to Law The Court here also must judicially take notice That the Office of Recorder is concerned in other matters besides the Administration of Justice in the Court for he is as it were the Common Counsel of the Corporation And whereas it hath béen objected That it is not returned that they had held a Court during his absence or that any prejudice had ensued Also That it must be intended that there were Courts when they have returned the Charter which empower them to hold one twice every week and 't is returned That he absented himself in Regiminis Civitatis detrimentum c. and ' its apparent they must suffer prejudice by so long absence If a Park-keeper should desert his Office for five years it would make a Forfeiture without Special Damage The other matter returned also That he is nullo modo peritus in lege is good Cause for the Charter appoints them to Elect such an one so one that is not so qualified is not capable and the Act of this King authorises Commissioners but to do what the Corporation might have done It is apparent That the Office requires skill in the Law he hath no power to make a Deputy by the Statute of 21 Jac. Causes in many Cases are
Wingate and Stanton the Bail of William Stanton 38 Wise 's Case 69 Wood v. Coat 195 Woodward v. Aston 296 Wortley the Lady v. Holt 31 Wright v. Johnson 64 Z ZOuch v. Clay 185 ADVERTISEMENT Note That the Author of these Reports has referr'd to Croke's Elizabeth as the first Part and Croke's Charles as the third Part of those Reports except in the first thirty Sheets of the First Volume in which thirty Sheets he referr'd to Croke's Charles of the first Edition as the first Part and Croke's Elizabeth as the third Part of those Reports TERMINO Sancti Michaelis Anno 20 Car. II. in Banco Regis Sparks c. versus Martyn JONES moved for a Prohibition to the Court of the Admiralty for that they Libelled against one for Rescuing of a Ship and taking away the Sails of it from one that was executing the Process of the Court against the said Ship and for that in the presence of the Iudge and face of the Court he Assaulted and Beat one and spake many opprobious Words against him Now seeing that these Matters were determinable at Law the Ship being infra corpus Comitatus and they could not adjudge Damages to the party or Fine or Imprison He prayed a Prohibition But the Court denied it absentibus Windham Moreton 1 Cro. 216. For they may punish one that resists the Process of their Court and may Fine and Imprison for a Contempt to their Court acteâ— in the face of it tho' they are no Court of Record but if they should proceed to give the party Damages they would grant a Prohibition quoad that And of that Opinion was Wyndham the Case being afterwards put to him by the Chief Justice But the parties afterwards put into their Suggestion That the original Cause upon which the Process was grounded was a Matter whereof the Court of Admiralty had no cognisance Wherefore a Prohibition was granted For then the Rescous could be no Contempt Sir John How versus Woolley an Attorney of the Court. IT was Moved That Woolley should put in special Bail being an Attorney at large and having dicontinued his Practice But the Court said Attorneys at Large have the same priviledge with the Clerks of the Court and are to appear de die in diem And they were not satisfied that he had discontinued his Practice Suffil's Case IT was Moved to quash the Return of a Rescous against Suffil and divers others who rescued a person taken upon Mesne Process because the Rescuers being particularly named 'tis said rescusserunt and not added quilibet corum rescussit And for that Case was cited in the 2 Cro. where the Sheriff returns an Exigent against divers quod non comperuerunt upon the Quinto exacti and doth not add nec aliquis corum comperuit and for that cause it was Reversed in a Writ of Error notwithstanding Twisden being only in Court held it to be well enough it being in the Affirmative Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court for that a Parson Libelled against one there for talking of him Knave and 't was granted it not appearing to relate to any thing concerning his Function And a Case was cited to be Adjudged 24 of the Queen the Suit being in the Ecclesiastical Court for these words viz. Sir Priest you are a Knave and a Prohibition was granted Note If a man be taken in Execution he cannot be bailed tho' he brings a Writ of Error Anonymous IN Debt upon a Lease for years the Defendant may plead Entry into part upon which follows Suspension and it doth not amount to the General Issue Heely versus Ward ERror to Reverse a Iudgment given in the Court at Hull where the Plaintiff in an Assumpsit did declare That at such a place infra Jurisdictionem Curiae the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had assumed to pay him so much a yard promised to deliver him so many yards of Kersey and it was assigned for Error That the delivery is not laid to be at a place infra Jurisdictionem Curiae and indeed there is no place at all And of that Opinion was Twisden he being only in Court and cited a Case where in an Assumpsit in the Marshalsey upon a Promise to make a Lease of a House in Middle Row and after Iudgment it was held Erroneous because Middle Row was not laid to be infra Jurisdictionem Curiae The Bishop of Lincoln versus Smith THe Bishop of Lincoln sued in the Court holden before his Chancellor for a Pension to which he intituled himself by Prescription and a Prohibition was prayed for Smith the Defendant there for that being by Prescription that Court had no cognisance of it And for that my Lord Coke's Opinion was cited 2 Inst 491. especially he could not sue for it in his own Court But it was resolved by Keeling and Twisden the other Iustices being absent that Pensions tho' they were by Prescription might be sued for in that Court for having cognisance of the Principal that shall draw in the Accessory As if one Libel for a Modus decimandi if they allow it they may try it and Coke's Opinion they said was not warranted by the Books and Fitzh N.B. 524. is against it 2 Cro. 483. and the Court being held before the Chancellor and not the Bishop himself he might sue there Vide Hob. 87. Conusans of Pleas granted to be holden before the Steward of the Grantee licet the Grantee fuerit pars Anonymus AN Attachment was prayed against one who being arrested upon a Latitat gave a Warrant of Attorney to Confess a Judgment and presently after snatched it out of his hand to whom it was delivered and tore off the Seal And the Court seemed to incline in regard it was to Confess a Judgment in this Court that it was a Contempt upon which an Attachment might be granted Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit in the Court Christian for Tythes upon the suggestion of a Modus which was alledged in this manner That the Proprietors and Occupiers of such a Mannor or any parcel thereof should pay a Groat to the Parson for Herbage Tythes The Court held his this could not be for if a man had but two or three Foot of Ground in the Mannor he should pay a Groat but it ought to have been laid That the Proprietors and Occupiers of such a Mannor for themselves and their Farmers had paid Four pence Twisleton versus Hobbs ACtion for these Words You are a Forger of Bonds a Publisher of Forgery and Sue upon forged Bonds The Iury found the Defendant Not Guilty as to the first Words and resolved the last Words were not Actionable if not being laid that he knew of the Forgery Sir Thomas Griesley's Case INformation against him for stopping the High-way the word was Obstupabat It was proved in Evidence that he plowed it up and Resolved it did well maintain the Information Anonymus IN Debt If
have admitted Wager of Law and therefore lies not against the Executor It was difficultly brought in that Debt should lye against the Executor upon a Surmize of a Devastavit by himself But that Point is now setled but no Reason to extend it further And he cited a Case where Debt was brought against A. Executor of B. Executor of C. who pleaded that he had not of the Goods of C. in his hands To which the Plaintiff Replied That B. had Wasted the Goods of C. to the value of the Debt demanded Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and he had Judgment to recover de bonis B. in the hands of A. But that Judgment was Reversed Anonymus IF A. Engages that B. shall pay for certain Goods that B. buys of C. this is good to charge him upon a Collateral Promise but not upon an Indebitat ' Assumpsit for it doth not create a Debt Anonymus IN an Information for a Riot it was doubted by the Court whether it were Local being a Criminal Cause And it was observed that divers Statutes in Queen Elizabeth and King James's time provided that Prosecutions upon Penal Laws should be in their proper Counties Which was an Argument that at the Common Law they might have been elsewhere Taylor 's Case AN Information Exhibited against him in the Crown Office for uttering of divers Blasphemous Expressions horrible to hear viz. That Jesus Christ was a Bastard a Whoremaster Religion was a Cheat and that he neither feared God the Devil or Man Being upon this Trial he acknowledged the speaking of the Words except the word Bastard and for the rest he pretended to mean them in another Sense than they ordinarily hear viz. Whoremaster i. e. That Christ was Master of the Whore of Babylon and such kind of Evasions for the rest But all the Words being proved by several Witnesses he was found Guilty And Hale said That such kind of wicked Blasphemous words were not only an Offence to God and Religion but a Crime against the Laws State and Government and therefore punishable able in this Court. For to say Religion is a Cheat is to dissolve all those Obligations whereby Civil Societies are preserved and that Christianity is parcel of the Laws of England and therefore to reproach the Christian Religion is to speak in Subversion of the Law Wherefore they gave Judgment upon him viz. To stand in the Pillory in Three several places and to pay One thousand Marks Fine and to find Sureties for his Good Behaviour during Life Walker versus Wakeman THe Case was An Estate which consisted of Land a Rectory c. was conveyed to the use of one for Life c. with a Power to Lett the Premisses or any part of them so as 50 l Rent was reserved for every Acre of Land The Tenant for Life Demised the Rectory reserving a Rent which Rectory consisted of Tythes only and whether this was within the Power was the Question Serjeant Pemberton Argued That this Lease is not warranted by the Power for a Construction is to be made upon the whole Clause and the latter Words that appoint the Reservation of the Rent shall explain the former and restrain the general Word Premisses to Land only for if it shall be extended further the Settlement which was in Consideration of a Marriage Portion is of no effect for the Rectory As in case it should de Demised reserving no Rent which it might be if not restrained to the latter words and they applied only to the Land But it was Resolved by the Court that the Lease of the Rectory was good for the last Clause being Affirmative shall not restrain the Generality of the former And this Resolution was chiefly grounded upon Cumberford's Case in the 2 Rolls 263. where a Conveyance was made to Vses of divers Mannors and Lands with a Power to the Cestuy que use for Life to make Leases of the Premisses or any part of them so that such Rent or more were reserved upon every Lease which was reserved before within the space of Two years and a Lease was made of part of the Lands which had not been Demised within Two years before And Resolved it was a good Lease and that thereupon any Rent might be reserved because the Power was General To Lease all and the restrictive Clause should only be applied to such Lands as had been demised within Two years before Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 28 Car. II. In Banco Regis MEmorandum The last Term Sir Richard Rainsford was made Chief Justice Hale Chief Justice quitting it for infirmity of Body and Sir Thomas Jones was made one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench. Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case brought against the Defendant for that he did Ride an Horse into a place called Lincolns in Fields a place much frequented by the Kings Subjects and unapt for such purposes for the breaking and taming of him and that the Horse was so unruly that he broke from the Defendant and ran over the Plaintiff and grievously hurt him to his damage c. Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved by Sympson in Arrest of Judgment that here is no cause of Action for it appears by the Declaration that the mischief which happened was against the Defendants Will and so Damnum absque injuria and then not shewn what right the Kings Subjects had to walk there and if a man diggs a Pit in a Common into which one that has no right to come there falls in no Action lies in such Case Curia contra It was the Defendants fault to bring a Wild Horse into such a place where mischief might probably be done by reason of the Concourse of People Lately in this Court an Action was brought against a Butcher who had made an Ox run from his Stall and gored the Plaintiff and this was alledged in the Declaration to be in default of penning of him Wild said if a Man hath an unruly Horse in his Stable and leaves open the Stable Door whereby the Horse goes forth and does mischief an Action lies against the Master Twisden If one hath kept a tame Fox which getts loose and grows wild he that kept him before shall not answer for the damage the Fox doth after he hath lost him and he hath resumed his wild nature Vid. Hobarts Reports 134. The Case of Weaver and Ward Anonymus IN Trespass in an inferiour Court if the Defendant plead son frank Tenement to oust the Court of Jurisdiction It was said by Wild that they may enforce the Defendant to swear his Plea as in case of Foreign Plea negat Twisden and as in this Court where a Local justification in Trespass c. is pleaded the Defendant must swear it But the Court held no Indictment will lie for Perjury in such Oath no more than upon a Wager of Law Anonymus IN Trover the Hab. corpora
legitimum Granting of Administrations was originally Temporal an came to the Churchmen by the Indulgence of Princes and therefore must in some sort be governed by the Temporal Laws In Administrations the Whole Blood ought to be preferred before the Half Blood for Next of Kin shall be taken to be meant by the Statute such as our Laws judge to be so Rolls tit Prohibition 303. and so it was held in one Brown's Case before the Delegates in 8 Car. This being a New Case the Court gave no Opinion but Adjourned it to the next Term. Postea Termino Paschae Anno 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis NOte Where Justices of the Peace find a Force and make a Record of it upon their View they are to Commit the Offenders but cannot restore the Possession Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit in the Spiritual Court for Money taxed for the Reparation of the Church upon a Surmize that the Tax was imposed upon one part of the Parish omitting the rest And for this was cited Rolls tit Prohibition 291. in the Point But the Court doubted in regard it was not alledged That they had offered that Plea in the Ecclesiastical Court because Reparation of Churches is proper for their Cognizance But the Prohibition was granted and the other might Demur if they thought fit But afterwards in this Term it was Countermanded Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Admiralty where there was a Libel for a Ship taken by Pirates and carried to Tunis and there Sold for that it did not appertain to the Court to try the Property of the Ship being sold upon Land Curia In regard it was taken by Pirates it is originally within the Admiral Jurisdiction and so continues notwithstanding the Sale afterwards upon the Land Otherwise where a Ship is taken by Enemies for that alters the Property And this was the Opinion of the Court in Eglesfield's Case in my Lord Hales's time contrary to my Lord Hobart in the Spanish Ambassador's Case 78. in the 1. Cro. 685. they have Cognizance of the Case of the Pirate because incident to the Principal Matter But afterwards it was observed upon the Libel that there was no mention made That the Ship was taken super altum Mare And tho' there was contained therein very much to imply it yet the Court held that to be absolutely necessary to support their Jurisdiction Note One taken upon an Excom ' Cap ' was Discharged because the Writ de Excom ' Cap ' was not delivered into this Court and Enrolled as is required by the Statute Robinson versus Woolly IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus A Clerk was Admitted and Instituted to a Benefice within the Diocess of Gloucester whilst the Bishoprick was Vacant and a Mandate from the Archbishop for Induction but before it was Executed by the Archdeacon a new Bishop of Gloucester was Consecrated and whether the Induction coming after was sufficient was the Question That it was It was Argued that after the Mandate made it was Executed so far as the Bishop had to intermeddle in the matter For if no Induction does follow the Remedy lies not against the Bishop F.N.B. 47. h. But an Action upon the Case against the Archdeacon for the Induction is said to be a Temporal Act 1 Rolls 125 195. Neither can such Mandate be Revoked by the Bishop or be Inhibited by the King 1 Rolls 294. Again the Archbishop hath a concurrent Jurisdiction with the Bishops throughout his Province and may Admit and Institute until the Inferiour Bishoprick is full And the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. takes away the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan only as to Proceedings in that Court In case the Inferiour Ordinary refuses to Admit the Archbishop may do it as appears Hob. 15. Hutton's Case and Mo. 879. It was said on the other side That this was but an Authority derived from the Bishop and therefore ceasing before it was Executed is determined The Bishop may direct his Mandate to another as well as the Archdeacon It was compared to a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which cannot be done after the Death of him that gave it Et Adjornatur Postea Anonymus IN an Information of Forgery the Defendant Challenged one of the Jury for that the Prosecutor had been late Entertained at his House This was admitted to the Favour tho' against the King Vid. for that in the 1 Cro. 663. And then the Counsel for the King challenged another and being pressed to alledge the Cause for 33 Ed. 1. does take away the General Challenge quia non sunt boni pro Rege But all the Court save Wild who seemed to be of another Opinion ordered the Panel to be first gone through and if there were enough the King is not to shew any Cause Vertue versus Bird. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that it was agreed between him and the Defendant That he should carry the Defendants Timber from a certain place to the Defendants House then and there to deliver at such place as the Defendant should appoint and that such a Day and Year he did carry with certain of his Carts to the place aforesaid the said Timber there ready to be delivered but that the Defendant delayed by the space of six Hours the Appointment of the place insomuch that his Horses being so Hot with Carrying of the Timber aforesaid and standing in aperto Acre they died soon after After Not Guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Ventris moved in Arrest of Judgment that here did not appear any Cause of Action for it was the Plaintiffs Folly to let the Horses stand Neither was the Defendant under the Penalty of an Action bound to receive the Timber or appoint a place but in case of Refusal the other might recover what he Contracted for the Carriage having done all on his part but not to bring an Action for not appointing a Place And by the Opinion of all the Court the Judgment was stayed Vid. 2 Cro. 386. Roll. Rep. 275. Baily and Merritt Anonymus IT was moved for the setting aside of an Order of Sessions for the Setling a Poor person in a Town which had been sent thither by a Warrant of two Justices and it was Confirmed upon an Appeal to the Sessions But the Court would hear nothing of the Merits of the Cause the Order of the Sessions being in such case Final unless there were an Error in the Form Note A man gives a Warrant of Attorney to Confess a Judgment and dies before the Judgment is Confessed This is a Countermand Anonymus JUstices of the Peace at the Sessions Ordered the Father of him which had the Bastard Child to provide for it under the pretence of the reputed Grandfather for the Statute doth enable them to Tax the Grandfather of a Legitimate Child But in this Case the Court held there was no Colour and therefore quashed the
upon the Warranty as well as the other tho' the Declaration saith knowing them to be naught yet the knowledge need not to be proved in Evidence Debt upon a Bond and a mutuatus may be joyned in one Action yet there must be several Pleas for Nil debet which is proper to the one will not serve in the Action upon the Bond. Sed Adjornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 34 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Quo Warranto was brought against divers persons of the City of Worcester why they claimed to be Aldermen c. of the said Corporation The Cause came to be tried at the Bar and a Challenge was made to the Jury in behalf of the Defendants for that the Jury men were not Freeholders The Court said that for Juries within Corporate Towns it hath hath been held that the Statutes that have been made requiring that Jurymen should have so much Freehold do not extend to such places for if so there might be a failer of Justice for want of such Jurymen so qualified but then to maintain the Challenge it was said by the Common Law Jurymen were to be Freeholders But the Court overruled the Challenge but at the importunity of the Counsel they allowed a Bill of Exceptions and so a Verdict passed against the Defendants and afterwards it was moved in Arrest of Judgment upon the Point But the Court would not admit the Matter to be Debated before them tho' divers Presidents of like nature were offered because they said they had declared their Opinions before and the Redress might be upon a Writ of Error Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Motion for a Prohibition to a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Churchwarden's Rate suggesting that they had pleaded That it was not made with the Consent of the Parishioners and that the Plea was refused The Court said That the Churchwardens if the Parish were Summoned and refused to meet or make a Rate might make one alone for the Repairs of the Church if needful because that if the Repairs were neglected the Churchwardens were to be Cited and not the Parishioners and a Day was given to shew Cause why there should not go to a Prohibition Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 35 Car. II. In Banco Regis Gamage's Case ERror out of the Court of the Grand Sessions where in an Ejectment the Case was upon Special Verdict upon the Will of one Gamage who devised his Lands in A. to his Wife for Life Item his Lands in B. to his Wife for Life and also his Lands which he purchased of C. to his Wife for Life and after the decease of his Wife he gave the said Lands to one of his Sons and his Heirs And the Question was Whether the Son should have all the Lands devised to the Wife or only those last mentioned And it was Adjudged in the Grand Sessions that all should pass And upon Error brought it was Argued that they were Devises to the Wife in distinct and separate Sentences and therefore his said Lands should be referred only to the last On the other side it was said that the word Said should not be referred to the last Antecedent but to all If a man conveys Land to A. for Life Remainder to B. in Tail Remainder to C. in forma praedict ' the Gift to C. is void 1 Inst 20. b. It is agreed if he said All the said Lands to his Son and his heirs it would have extended to the whole This is the same because Indefinitum equipollet universali Et Adjornatur Herring versus Brown IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was Tenant for Life with several Remainders over with a Power of Revocation Levied a Fine and then by a Deed found to be Sealed ten Days after declared the Vses of the Fine which Deed had the Circumstances required by the Power The Question in the Case was Whether the Fine had extinguished the Power It was Argued that it had not because the Deed and Fine shall be but one Conveyance and the use of a Fine or Recovery may be declared by a subsequent Deed in the 9 Co. Downam's Case And a Case was Cited which was in this Court in my Lord Hale's time between Garrett and Wilson where Tenant for Life with Remainders over had a Power of Revocation and by a Deed under his Hand and Seal Covenanted to levy a Fine and declared it should be to certain Vses and afterwards the Fine was Levied accordingly This was held to be a good execution of the Power and limitation of the new Vses and the Deed and Fine taken as one On the other side it was Argued That the Deed was but an Evidence to what Vses the Fine was intended and the Power was absolutely revoked by the Fine Suppose he in Remainder had Entred for the Forfeiture before this Deed should the Defendant have defeated his Right Et Adjornatur Postea Hodson versus Cooke IN an Action upon the Case for commencing of an Action against him in an Inferiour Court where the Cause of Action did arise out of the Jurisdiction After a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not Guilty it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That it was not set forth that the Defendant did know that the Place where the Action arose was out of the Jurisdiction which it would be hard to put the Plaintiff to take notice of On the other side it was said that the party ought to have a Recompence for the Inconvenience he is put to by being put to Bail perhaps in a Case where Bail is not required above and such like Disadvantages which are not in a Suit brought here and the Plaintiff ought at his peril to take notice However to help by the Verdict And of that Opinion were Jeffreys Lord Chief Justice Holloway and Walcot but Withens contra The Court said that it could not be assigned for Error in Fact that the Cause arose out of the Jurisdiction because that is contrary to the Allegation of the Record neither is the Officer punishable that executes Process in such Action but an Action lies against the party And so it was said to be resolved in a Case between Cowper and Cowper Pasch 18 Car. 2. in Scac. when my Lord Chief Baron Hale sate there Anonymus AN Indictment of Perjury for Swearing before a Justice of the Peace that J. S. was present at a Conventicle or Meeting for Religious Worship c. It was moved to quash it because it did not appear to be a Conventicle viz. That there was above the number of Five and so the Justice of the Peace had no power to take an Oath concerning it and then it could be no Perjury To which the Lord Chief Justice said That Conventicles were unlawful by the Common Law and the Justices may punish Unlawful Assemblies And he seemed to be of Opinion that a man might be
Court for the proceedings are diverso respectu We proceed against Conventicles as being against the Peace and as being against the Laws of the Church and to prevent the broaching of Heterodor Opinions as in one Court we do agere civiliter by Action criminaliter by Information for the same matter Secondly The proceeding in this Case is according to the constant course of proceeding in their Court for when a Presentment is made they form Articles thereupon tibi articulamur objicimus c. but they never recite or mention the Presentment in the Articles and therefore it does not nor need it appear in them in this Case So that it cannot from hence he concluded to be a prosecution ex Officio mero Moreover 25 H. 8. when it was in force concerned Heresie only As to the Presentment made in this Case by the Curate 1. Those Canons are not to be questioned they have been always allowed having been confirmed by the King 2. The Rectors absence shall be intended 3. The Churchwardens themselves whose ancient and unquestioned Office it is to make Presentments don't take a particular Oath upon all the Presentments they make but they do it by vertue of their general Oath of Churchwardens and Ministers do the same as the Bishop of Sarum present in Court had asserted just before in verbo Sacerdotis or rather by vertue of their general Oath of Canonical Obedience 4. They are not bound to specifie the Presentment in their Articles and this is not so liable to the Objection of Mischief and Vnreasonableness as the Informations daily brought in the Kings-Bench in the Name of the Clerk of the Crown which Informations are approved and preserved by the very Statute of 18 Eliz. c. 5. And if there be no due Presentment 't is an Error which consists in not proceeding according to their Rules i. e. the Canon Law and the proper remedy for that is by Appeal and our Courts will not take notice whether they observe their own Laws Prohibitions are only to be granted when the Common Law is invaded and interfered with Thirdly As to the examining of the Party upon Oath here is no cause to mention it and indeed it is not their course for they only ask him ore tenus whether he will confess or deny the Articles if he deny them then there is litis contestatio and they proceed to examine Witnesses to prove it and if it be not proved the Informer is condemned in Costs Justice Wyld I am of Opinion that there should go no Prohibition We must Iudge only upon the Suggestion Here 't is suggested that the Defendant proceeded against the Plaintiff ex Officio but that may be understood two ways either that he proceeded officiose on his own head or that he proceeded out of Duty according to his Duty and nothing appears to the contrary of this last and then he did as he ought If the Plaintiff had suggested that by the Law of the Land there ought to be a Presentment by such persons in such manner c. he might have brought that into question Archer of the same Opinion We must give faith and credit to their proceedings and presume that they are according to their Law 4 Co. 29 The King with the Convocation may make Orders and Constitutions for the Government of the Church Tyrrell of the same Opinion But if the Suggestion were that no Presentment by a Curate were sufficient nor unless it were upon Oath c. I should have been Opinion for a Prohibition I hold that the King and Convocation without the Parliament can't make any Canons which shall bind the Laity though they may the Clergy Vid. 35 H. 8. c. 19. Vaughan of the same Opinion If the Articles were exhibited meerly ex Officio i.e. out of the mind of the Chancellor himself they were not warrantable But there is no colour for this Suggestion for they appear to be the Information of a Publick Notary As to the Presentment which is thought requisite by the preamble of 25 H. 8. c. 14. declaratory of the Common Law or not it is sufficient Answer to say that the Act is repealed and therein the Preamble And for ought any man knows the Preamble was the Cause of the Repeal this has been the only specious Objection As to the Canons 3 Jacobi certainly they are of force tho' never confirmed by Act of Parliament Indeed no Canons of England stand confirmed by Act of Parliament yet they are the Laws which bind and govern in Ecclesiastick Affairs The Convocation with the License and assent of the King under the Great Seal may make Canons for regulation of the Church and that as well concerning Laicks as Ecclesiasticks and so is Linwood Indeed they cannot alter or infringe the Common Law Statute Law or Kings Prerogative but they may make alterations viz. in Eccleastical Matters or else they could make no new Canons All that is required of them in making of new Canons is that they confine themselves to Church Matters As no Human Law can be made which is contrary to the Divine Law and it is binding only in those things which are permissa by the Divine Law So no Canon Law can be made which is repugnant to the Law of the Land The Subject Matter is in the Case The permissa the things of Ecclesiastical Nature which are left indifferent by the Law of the Land in this Case we must presume there was a Presentment according to their Law if not the Remedy is by Appeal We ought not to assume the Iurisdiction of Iudging upon their Law but give way to their course of Proceedings Serjeant Ellis I only intended that Canons cannot be made to alter the Law without Parliament Curia We all agree as to the First Exception that the Spiritual Court may proceed against Conventicles as a Spiritual Offence tho' not as a Civil As to the Second That they have Conusans of all False Worshippers As to the Third That there is nocolour or occasion to make it Note The Course of the Spiritual Court is not to make a Significavit until forty days after the Excommunication General Citation is a cause of Prohibition for it ought to be expressed for what Cause But this is cured by Appearance or Appeal Termino Paschae Anno 1 Willielmi Mariae In Communi Banco Anonymus UPon a Suggestion of Devastavit of a Feme Executrix it was That the Baron and Feme devastaver ' converter ' ad usum ipsorum And upon the Issue it was found accordingly It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That they could not Convert to their own use And so in Trover and Conversion Quod converter ' ad usum ipsorum is not good Sed non allocatur For here the material part of the Issue was the Wasting which the Baron and Feme might do joyntly and the Conversion is nothing to the purpose Vid. 2. Sand. Issue upon a Devastavit Anonymus
usque diem martis prox ' post tres septiman ' Sanct ' Michael de audiend ' inde Judicio suo quod iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Bockenham versus Thacker IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that J. S. was indebted in a sum of Mony to the Plaintiff not exceeding 12 l and that the Defendant as he the Defendant said was indebted to J. S. in 12 l or there about That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would procure an Order from J. S. in writing to the Defendant for payment of the Mony which the Defendant owed J. S. or any part thereof to the Plaintiff he promised to pay the Mony according to such Order The Plaintiff avers that he procured such Order from J. S for the Defendant to pay him 5 l which he shewed to the Defendant and the Defendant refused to pay c. The Defendant demurs generally to the Declaration Levinz for the Defendant argued that it was no sufficiently set forth that the Defendant was indebted to J. S. and if not there was no consideration Cur ' contra for it must be intended that he was indebted for 't is set forth that the Defendant said so but if not the procuring the Note at the Defendants request by the Plaintiff was a sufficient consideration It was Objected further that the Plaintiff had not alledged that he procured the Note at the request of the Defendant as the agreement was and for that 3 Leon. 91. was cited in consideration that he should repair such part of the House at his request it was held naught for not laying the repairing to be done at request Sed non allocatur for it shall be intended to have been done at request and so is Bretton and Boltons Case 3 Cro. 246. 2 Cro. 404. Berisfords Case and Poynters Case 1 Cro. Sed Nota All those Cases are after Verdict and so is the above cited Case See more of this Case afterwards Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 1 W. M. In Communi Banco SErjeant Trinder moved the Court to set aside a Verdict recovered in an Action for the mesn Profits after a recovery in an Ejectment shewing that the Defendant in the Ejectment had brought another Ejectment since and recovered so that the first recovery was disaffirmed and therefore there ought to have been no recovery for the mesn Profits but the motion was denied by the whole Court Leigh versus Ward DEbt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform an Award and the Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrator made no Award The Plaintiff replied that after the Bond entred into and before the time set in the Condition for making of the Award scilicet tertio die Novembris anno c. per quoddam Scriptum suum arbitr ' adtunc ibidem fact ' c. and so sets forth the Award upon which the Defendant demurred because no place was mentioned where the Award was made Tremain for the Plaintiff said that the adtunc ibidem should refer to the place mentioned in the Declaration where the Bond was made Cur ' contra The adtunc ibidem cannot be referred to the place in the Declaration and there is no place mentioned in the Replication Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Memorandum Mr. Justice Eyres came to this Court at the desire of the Court of Kings Bench who were trying of a Cause at the Bar to know the Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas upon this Question An Infant who was a party to the Ejectment that was upon trial had answered a Bill in Chancery by his Gardian whether that Answer could be read in Evidence against the Infant And the Opinion of the whole Court was that it could not be read for it is not reason that what the Gardian swears in his Answer should affect the Infant Blake versus Clattie TRespass Quare clausum fregir diversa onera equina of Gravel had carried away per quod viam suam amifit After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the diversa onera equina was incertain and then mentioned the loss of his Way and had set forth no Title to the Way nor set forth any certainty of it It was said on the other side that the Incertainty was aided by the Verdict and the other Matter about the Way was only laid in aggravation of Damages But the Court held the Exceptions material and thought it would be very inconvenient to permit such a Form of putting in of a Way to a Declaration in Trespass Anonymus IN an Action of Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declared in Michaelmass Term last and laid the Demise to be Anno primo Jacobi Secundi Regis The Defendant pleaded Nil hab ' in Tenementis and the Plaintiffs Attorney delivered a Copy of the Issue where the Demise was laid Anno primo Regis nunc and so the Nisi prius Roll was at first but it was observed that the Plaintiffs Attorney had amended it but gave no Notice thereof to the Defendants Attorney nor delivered him a new Copy of the Issue and so went to Trial which proceeded the Nisi prius Roll being right and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Serjeant Rotheram that there should be a New Trial granted for the Defendant was surprized to find the Record right when they had a wrong Copy of the Issue But it appearing to the Court that the Defendant notwithstanding proceeded in his Defence and the Verdict was after a long Evidence that the Court would not set it aside but ordered the Plaintiffs Attorney to attend for the undue Practice in making of an Amendment in such manner Bailes versus Wenman IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus That Articles of Marriage were made between the eldest Son and Heir apparent of the Defendant and Martha one of the Daughters of one William Nailor whereby the Defendant was to settle the Lands in question upon the Lessor for his Life and after his decease upon Martha for her Ioynture with a Proviso that the Lessor should make a Lease of the Premisses to the Defendant for 99 years if the Defendant and Susan his Wife should so long live and that Susan died before the Lease made to the Plaintiff So the only Question was Whether the Lease for 99 years determined by the Death of said Susan The Court upon the first opening without Argument were all of Opinion that it did determine and Ordered Judgment to be Entred for the Plaintiff 5 Co. 9. in Brudnell's Case Daniel and Waddington 2 Cro. 378. Vide Dyer 67. and 1 Inst 225. a. Trupenny's Case Vide Anderson 151. A Lease made to two for their Lives absque impetitione vasti durant ' vitis of the Lessees and held that this Priviledge would hold to the Survivor for 't is reasonable to give the Priviledge as large a Construction as
a Jury But the Court inclined to grant the Writ for it did not appear that it was parcel of his Tenure but rather imposed upon him by the Custom of the Mannor and if Attorneys shall be discharged of the Service of the Common-wealth à fortiori of any private Service Vid. postea The King versus Webb IN an Action brought against him for imbesiling of the Kings Goods which was laid in the Declaration to be in London it was moved for the King that the County might be changed And the Court held the King might choose his County and might wave that which he had seemed to have elected before as he may wave his Demurrer and joyn Issue contra Perries Case IN an Information of Forgery against him being an Attorney of the Common Pleas it was alledged That he had framed a certain Writing in the Form of a Release at Sherborn and that he published and gave it in Evidence at Dorchester and the Venue came out of Dorchester whereas it was said it ought to have come out of both places To which it was answered That the publishing and not the framing was the Crime But notwithstanding it was held to be a Mis-trial and being in an Information it was not aided by any Statute Postea Anonymus IN Trover and Conversion amongst other things the Plaintiff declared de sex bovibus instead of bobus Vpon Not guilty pleaded and found for the Plaintiff and entire Damages assessed It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Jury ought to have given no Damages for bovibus being a word insensible and entire Damages being given it was naught for all To which it was answered That if the word be insensible notwithstanding the Anglice the Jury shall not be intended to have regarded it in the giving of Damages and if it hath a signification then it is well enough And it was said bovibus was an old Latin word and is found in Plautus and 't is bobus only by contraction It was also said That the Plaintiff brought this Action as Executor and the Trover was laid in the Testators time which was not sufficient tho' the Conversion was alledged in his own But the Court held neither of these Exceptions sufficient to Arrest Judgment Rumsey versus Rawson IN Replevin The Defendant Avowed for Damage Feasant The Plaintiff replies That the Parson of such a Parish and all his Predecessors have had time out of mind Common in the place where c. belonging to his Glebe and that the Beasts of the Plaintiff were Levant and Couchant upon the Glebe and he put them into the Common by the Licence of the Parson The Defendant Traverses that they were Levant and Couchant and found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff had not alledged matter sufficient to justifie his Beasts going in the Common for no other Beasts ought to be put in the Common but those of the Tenant of the Land to which it is appendant or those which he takes to Compester his Land Fitz. N. Br. 180. b. and that tho' the Common be claimed for a certain number And the Opinion of the Court was That the Defendant might have demurred in this case But after a Verdict the Court shall intend they were Beasts which the Parson procured to Compester his Land and the right of the case is tryed so aided by the Statute of Oxford But they gave further time to shew cause Postea Anonymus AN Action was brought for these words Thou hast received Stoln Goods and knew they were Stoln Alice S. Stole them and thou wert partner with her For the first words the Court held them not Actionable for they might admit for a justifiable construction as if the Goods were waived But the last were holden sufficient for Partner with her must intend Partner in the Felony Skinner versus Gunter al. THe case was moved again by Pomberton and alledged in maintenance of the Action that it was but in the nature of an Action upon the Case for at the Common Law no Writ of conspiracy lay but for indicting one of a capital Crime and that after an acquittal by Verdict But since the Statute of 33 Edw. 1. de Conspiratoribus Actions have been brought for conspiring to Indict one of Trespass or to Sue one maliciously without cause of Action as this case is and so is Br. tit Consp pl. 2. and by F.N.B. 116. Such an Action in the nature of Conspiracy lies against one And the Title of the Action in this Case is In placito transgr super casum and for these Reasons all the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff Vid. Ante. Braithwaites Case BRaithwaite brought a Mandamus to the Mayor Bailiffs and Burgesses of the Town of Northampton to be restored to his place of Alderman there They make a Return and in their Return set forth the Letters Patents of 16 Car. by which they were Incorporated and power is given them of holding a Common Council consisting of a Mayor 2 Bailiffs and 48 Burgesses and that the Mayor Bailiffs and such Burgesses as had been Mayors commonly called Aldermen should have power upon just Cause to amove any Common Council Man from his place there and then they set forth how Braithwaite was a Member of the Common Council and had committed divers Offences which they expressed in particular Whereupon the 18 of Dec. 17 Car. the Common Council assembled together summoniri procuraverunt the said Braithwaite and he not coming to answer was the same day amoved ab officio suo loco suo in Communi Concilio per Majorem Burgenses authoritate secundum Chartam praedictam It was also set forth That they had a command from the Kin and Council to amove him Vpon this Return there were four Exceptions taken First That it did not appear that he was summoned for it ought to have been qui quidem Braithwaite postea summonitus fuir and not summoniri procuraverunt Sed non allocatur for it was held clearly to be all one Otherwise if it had been quod procuraverunt J.S. eum summonire A Second Exception was That their proceedings were too quick for they amoved him the same day wherein he was summoned Sed non allocatur for it appearing he lived in the same Town and refused to come to make his defence they might immediately amove him A Third Exception was That they had exceeded their power which was only to amove him from his place in the Common Council and they had amoved him from his Office Sed non allocatur for 't is that wherein his Office consists and indeed it was so averred in the Return But the main Exception was For that they had not as was alledged pursued their Authority for the Mayor and such Burgesses who had been Mayors have power given them to amove And here the Amotion is said to be per Majorem Burgenses so that it might be by
of Ground whereupon a Pump stood and grants that he shall have the free use of the Pump during the term and Covenants that he should enjoy dimissa praemissa and assigns a Breach in that he suffered Antliam praedictam esse fractam totaliter spoliatam And to this the Defendant Demurs And it was said in Maintenance of the Action That the Defendant having granted the free use of the Pump was bound to do all things necessary to make his Grant effectual to the Plaintiff or else he broke his Covenant of Enjoying and if the Plaintiff should come to Repair it he would be a Trespasser And of this Opinion was Keeling But Twisden conceived That an Action of Covenant would not lye there being no express Covenant to Repair it Otherwise if he had taken away the Pump and here he might bring an Action upon the Case because he lost the use of it and they Two being only in Court it was Adjourned Postea Anonymus A Presentment was made in a Leet for Erecting of a Glass-House which was said to be ad magnum nocumentum per juratores Jurat ' pro Dom ' Rege Dom ' Manerii tenentibus It was said A Man ought not to be punished for erecting of any thing necessary to the exercise of his lawful Trade but it was Answered that this ought to be in convenient places where it may not be a Nusance For Twisden said He had known an Information Adjudged against one for Erecting of a Brew-House near Serjeants-Inn But the other Justices doubted and agreed that it was unlawful only to Erect such things near the King's Palace But this Presentment was clearly Ill because it was not ad commune nocumentum And it was said further That the Leet was the King's Court and therefore it ought not to be Jur ' pro Dom ' Rege Dom ' Manerii tenentibus But the Court held it Surplusage for tenentibus and good for the King and the Lord of the Mannor For Leets are granted to the Lords as derived out of the Tourn 2 Cro. 382. for the ease of the Resiants within its Iurisdiction More versus Lewis IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares upon Two Promises One was That in Consideration that he had done him multum gratissimum servitium the Defendant promised to pay him Ten Pounds a year The Consideration of the other was That he had done him multa beneficia Vpon Non Assumpsit pleaded and found for the Plaintiff as to both the Promises and entire Damages given it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that neither of these Considerations were sufficient especially the last for there ought to have been some Service particularly expressed To which it was Answered That this being after a Verdict the Court must intend that the Plaintiff gave in Evidence something that he did which was Consideration sufficient otherwise the Jury would have give no Damages And a Case was cited in Hutton's Rep. 84. where the Plaintiff in an Assumpsit declared That in Consideration that she had served the Defendant and his Wife and done them loyal Service that he would give her 13 s 4 d And a Verdict being found for her she had Iudgment Sed nota In the Book nothing was said to be moved in Arrest of Judgment but the Insufficiency of the Consideration in respect that it was executed and laid to be done at the Request of the Defendant But the Court held clearly that nothing being particularly expressed in the Consideration of the Second Promise in this case it was meerly void and entire Damages being given the Plaintiff could not have his Judgment And thereupon Iudgment was Entred Quod querens nihil capiat per Billam Gregory versus Eads ERror to Reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Warwick in an Assumpsit where the Plaintiff declared of Three Promises whereof one was found for the Plaintiff and as to the other two that the Defendant Non Assumpsit and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for that which was found for him but no Iudgment was given as to the other that the Plaintiff should be amerced pro falso clamore or quod Defendens eat inde fine die And it was assigned for Error that this Judgment was defective and ought to be Reversed To which it was answered That the Judgment ought to stand for so much as was good Vid. con 2 Cro. 424. and 2 Cro. 343. was cited where in an Action for Words spoken at divers times the Jury found the Defendant guilty as to all and gave several Damages whereupon there was Judgment and a Writ of Error brought and assigned in that the Words spoken at one of the times were not Actionable Which being agreed the Court Resolved that Judgment should be reversed only quoad them and should stand for the residue for utile per inutile non vitiatur And Slocomb's Case 1 Cro. 319. where a Writ of Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment given in an Action for Words and assigned in that it was Entred Concessum fuit quod querens nihil capiat c. whereas it should have been Consideratum Yet because the Words were Insufficient the Court tho' they held the manner of the Entry erroneous ordered Judgment to be given Quod querens nihil capiat per Billam Et Adjornatur Postea Note It was said by Serjeant Maynard That after all the Evidence given in an Information the Kings Council may without the parties Consent withdraw a Juror and try it over again And so he said it was done by Hobart Attorney General 5 H. 7. and in the Exchequer by Noy in King Charles the First 's time Barkly versus Paine IN an Assumpsit in an Inferiour Court the Consideration was That the Plaintiff should solicit a Cause in Chancery The Court Reverst the Judgment for want of Jurisdiction It had also another fault for it was Defendens in misericordia capiatur Anonymus IT was moved to quash a Return of Rescous for that it was Vi armis in Ballivum meum affraiam fecerunt è custodia mea adtunc ibid ' rescusserunt and not Vi armis rescusserunt Sed non allocatur for by reason of adtunc ididem vi armis mentioned at first shall be applied to all Hanway versus Merrey THe Case was The Defendant had Covenanted to pay the Plaintiff a Sum of Money the 24th of June next whereupon the Plaintiff takes out a Latitat Teste 3 Maii Returnable the last day of Trinity Term following and Arrested the Defendant upon it Which being made appear to the Court they discharged the Arrest For tho' 't is allowed a man may take out a Latitat before the Money is due Yet the party must not be Arrested upon it before And this differs from an Original which if it bears Teste before the Money be due it is abateable but the Latitat is only to bring him in custodia that
remedied either by the words or intention of the Act. Vid. Ante. Nokes and Stokes versus .... THey two brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond. The Defendant pleads the Release of one of the Plaintiffs They pray Oyer of the Release which was of all Actions Suits c. that he had against the Defendant upon his own account and pleads that this Bond was not upon his own account and upon this Issue is taken and found for the Plaintiff Now it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That this Issue was frivolous And upon the whole matter it appears that the Plaintiffs have no cause of Action for the Release of one Obligée dischargeth the Bond and it must be upon his own account But the Court Seriatim delivered their Opinions for the Plaintiffs for he might take this Bond as a security of a Debt with which he was intrusted for another And the truth of the case upon the Evidence was That the Defendant being charged with the payment of divers Legacies to Strangers was requested by one of the Plaintiffs to enter into Bond to him and the other Plaintiff who afterwards made the Release that should be Conditioned for the payment of the Money Bequeathed to the Obligees to the use of the Strangers which not being done the Defendant was Arrested at the Suit of the Plaintiffs this being made known to the Plaintiff who was absent at the taking of the Bond and knowing nothing of the Suit was contented to Release all Actions he had against the Defendant upon his own account King versus Atkins DEbt upon a Bond of 2000 l The Defendant demands Oyer of the Condition which was That whereas the Plaintiff was bound with the Defendant to the King that the Defendant should give a true account of such Moneys as he should receive for the Excise and Chimney Money And that the Defendant should save him harmless from all Payments or Suits upon that Bond and pleads that no Suits Process or Execution was against the Plaintiff upon that Bond issint he saved him harmless The Plaintiff replies a Scire facias issued against him out of the Exchequer upon the Bond and that he was forced to retain an Attorney and that he paid 1 s for his Appearance To this the Defendant Demurrs Because he did not alledge that he gave him notice And this was said not to be like Broughtons Case 5 Co. For there the Defendant knew the Money was to be paid at the day and it was to save him harmless from the single thing but here from a great many so that it was requisite he should have notice Where the Mesne is bound to acquit the Tenant the Tenant shall not recover Damages unless he gives the Mesne notice that he is distrained so that he may Replevy the Beasts But it was said That no notice ought to be given where the thing is an Act of a third person as to pay Money when J. S. comes into England To which it was answered That did not lie in the Conusance of either Party but this was in the notice of the Obligée But that which séemed most against the Demurrer in this case was That the Defendant having pleaded no Process c. he takes upon him the knowledge of it Vid. 1 Cro. 54. And if in the Replication the Plaintiff had alledged notice and the Defendant had Traversed it it would have been a departure and the Court advised until the next Term. Postea Welsh versus Bell. TRespass quare clausum fregit and taking of two Horses out of his Cart The Defendant justifies the taking of them as a Distress for Rent due to him And to this the Plaintiff Demurrs First He could not sever the Horses but ought to have distreined Cart and all according to the Book of 20 Edw. 4. 3. Distress of a Cart loaden with Corn Rolls 270. 3 Cro. 783. and four Horses in it adjudged not excessive because he could not sever the Horses And in 3 Cro. 7. a Difference is taken between Distress for Rent and Damage Feasant to this purpose And the common ground is that a Distress must be taken so as it may be returned in the same plight 1 Inst 47. a. Secondly It appeared also in the Declaration That there was a Servant of the Plaintiffs in the Cart by reason of which it was alledged that the Cart and Horses were priviledged for a Horse cannot be distrained upon which a Man is Riding 3 Cro. 549 596. Ed Adjornatur Twisden cited a Case adjudged before Rolls Chief Justice in Trespass for taking of his Trunk The Case was the Defendant distrained it for Rent and being Informed that there were things of Value in it he caused it to be Corded to prevent damage And for that he was adjudged a Trespasser ab initio Anonymus AN Action on the Case was brought against the Defendant for taking and keeping of the Plaintiffs Wife from him And upon Issue joyned the Court was moved to defer the Trial the Case being that the Wife was Daughter of the Defendant and taken from him by the Plaintiff without his Consent and as the Plaintiff affirmed Married to him Now this Marriage was questioned in the Court Christian And the Court thought it reasonable that the Trial should be delayed until the Marriage was determined there But they were Informed on the other side that the Court were ready to give Sentence That the Marriage was good and the Defendant had Appealed Wherefore they thought fit that the Trial of the Cause should proceed The King versus Nelson AN Order for the keeping of a Bastard Child being removed by Certiorari it was moved to have it quashed because it was ad Sessionem pacis in Com' praed ' and doth not say Tent ' pro ' Com' praedict ' Sed non allocatur For such strictness is not required in an Order But Twisden said it ought to be so in an Indictment It was further alledged that it ought to appear That the Child was likely to be chargeable to the Parish which was agreed But that was sufficiently set forth in the Order for upon Reading of it it appeared that he was ordered to pay such Charges as the Parish had been at Wherefore the Court confirmed the Order and awarded that he should pay such Costs as the Parish had been at for Contesting of it as was done formerly in one Haslefoot's Case And besides the Court Committed Nelson Anonymus DEbt upon a Bond Conditioned to perform Covenants If the Defendant pleads performance without demanding Oyer of the Indenture it is a good cause of Demurrer Anonymus IN Covenant the Plaintiff declares That he let the Defendant a House and that he Covenanted to Repair it The Defendant pleads That it was sufficiently Repaired before the Action brought The Plaintiff Demurs because he doth not plead That he Repaired it for it may be the Plaintiff himself did it Keeling and Raynsford inclined against the Demurrer because
Covenant the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant demised to him a House with the use of a Pump and that he suffered it to be so out of Repair that it became Useless To this Declaration the Defendant demurs and Counsel being heard on either side divers times the Court delivered their Opinions severally Keeling Rainsford and Moreton held that the Action did lye the Use of the Pump being part of the things demised which Words make a Covenant as in 4 Co. Noke's Case and in 5 Co. Spencer's Case If a man let an House together with Estovers to be taken in the Wood of the Lessor and afterwards the Wood is stubbed up there Covenant lies for the Lessee And Rainsford put this Case If a mans Lets the Middle Rooms of his House to one and the Vpper to another and lets the Roof of the House decay he conceived Covenant would lie for the Lessee of the middle Rooms And if a Parson makes a Lease and then Resigns he is liable to Covenant as in 12 H. 4. And the Lessee would be at a mischief for he should be a Trespasser to Enter and Repair and if the Lessor ousts the Lessee of any of the things demised 't is clear the Covenant lies and this is as much an ouster as can be in this case where the Lessor is possessed himself And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff against the Opinion of Twisden who held strongly to the contrary for he said he might have an Action upon the Case and so remedy for his Damage Also he held clearly That he might Enter and Repair as if one Licence another to lay Pipes in his Ground to convey Water he may justifie an Entry to Repair the Pipes And he cited a Case adjudged in 9 Jac. where one by Licence erected a Cock of Hay in anothers Ground And it was held That the Owner of the Soil might put in his Beasts into that Ground but he that had the Licence might by vertue of that Licence also fence in his Hay Quando aliquid conceditur conceditur id sine quo res ipsa uti non potest and he said that he never met with a Case where Covenant would lie but upon an actual ouster either by a Stranger that hath eigne Title or the Lessor himself And this was a non feasans and in that he differenced it from the Case of Estovers being an actual Tort to stub the Wood up and in Covenant upon an ouster of a Term if it be not incurred Iudgment shall be to recover the Term it self as F. N. B. 145. which cannot be in this Case for the Sheriff cannot put him into possession of the use of the Pump neither is it fit that he should recover Damages for all the Term for it may be the Pump will be presently repaired And he conceived that if the Lessor Cuts down Trées growing upon the Land Demised no Covenant lies yet the Trees are Demised with the rest Ante. Anonymus A Draws a Bill upon B. to the use of C. and Vpon Non-payment C. Protests the Bill he cannot Sue A. unless he gives him notice that the Bill is Protested for A. may have the Effects of B. in his Hands by which he may satisfie himself Note It was said if an Action to recover Lands of which a Fine was Levied were brought and discontinued by the Demandant this would not amount to a Claim Glyn versus Smith A Scire facias upon a Record in the Kings Bench where the Action is brought by Original must alledge a place where the Court was holden because 't is Ambulatory and the Writs returnable there are coram nobis ubicunque tunc fuerimus in Angliâ But it is otherwise upon Records in the Common Pleas for that is confined to a certain place by Magna Charta Anonymus IT was moved to quash a Return of a Rescous because it was Mandavi Ballivis who took him virtute Warr ' praed ' And it was said Mandavi did not imply that it was in Writing But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. Anonymus IF the Party that brings an Audita Querela be out of Prison the Court will Bail him though grounded upon a surmise of a matter of Fact as payment c. But if he be in Prison not unless there be a Specialty Parries Case DIvers Deeds and Evidences were shewn to Counsel for his Opinion of the Title to certain Lands which were to be sold He delivers them to one Parry a Scrivener by the consent of the Parties Parry finding a Deed to concern the interest of a third person gives it to him and upon complaint to the Court they commanded him to produce the Deed that it might be delivered back again to the Parties they conceiving it an abuse in his practice which was under the Regulation of this Court Anonymus IN Replevin in the Court at Canterbury the Defendant avowed for Rent Afterward this was removed by the Plaintiff into the Kings-Bench and the Defendant prayed a Procedendo because Canterbury was a County of it self and no Assizes there and so the Cause could not be tried But the Court denied it saying it was their own fault that they had not the Assizes there and every Subject had the liberty of removing his Suit into a Superiour Court Twisden said He had formerly known it to be denied in an Ejectment Girlington versus Pitfield IN an Action upon the Case for malitiously prosecuting of an Indictment of Perjury against him of which he was acquitted upon Not guilty pleaded it appeared upon the Evidence that the Defendant was a Justice of the Peace and procured some as Witnesses to appear against him and his own name was endorsed upon the Indictment to give Evidence The Court agreed that this did not make him a Prosecutor for if a Iustice of the Peace knows any person that can give Evidence against one that is indicted he ought to cause him to do it But it was proved on the Defendant's side That this Indictment was drawn up by an Order of the Sessions Wherefore Keeling Chief Justice said That the Plaintiff deserved to be bound to his Good Behaviour for bringing of this Action Horne versus Ivie IN Trespass for taking of a Ship and Sails the Defendant justified by a command from the Governours and Society of the Trade into the Canaries who were Incorporated by that name and had the sole Trade granted to them with a Forfeiture of all such Goods as should be imported hither from thence by any person not of their Company and that the Ship of the Plaintiff brought Goods from thence To this the Plaintiff Demurred His Counsel did not much insist upon the validity of the Patent because it was a Monopoly though it was said to be also against divers Statutes to Prohibit Merchants frèe trading to forein parts as 9 E. 3. cap. 1. 25 Ed. 3. cap. 2. 11 R. 2. cap. 7 and that there could grow no Forfeiture of
it would be yet here there was a precedent act of the Plaintiffs necessary viz. To choose an Arbitrator which he ought to have shewn before any Fault could be assigned in the Defendant in not bringing in of his Bill And to this the Court did not incline Sed Adjornatur Nota It was said Tho' every Innkeeper may detain an Horse until he is paid for his Meat yet he cannot sell him for that was good only by the Custom of London Anonymus A Custom was alledged in the City of Norwich That in regard they maintained a Common Key for the Unlading of such Goods as were brought up the River in Vessels to the said City that every Vessel passing through the same River by the said Key should pay a certain Sum. It was held a void Custom as to those Vessels which did not unlade at the said Key nor any other place in the City there being no benefit redounding to them from the Maintenance of the Key they only passing by and were bound for another place and therefore could have no Imposition upon them But if they had Received their Fraight at the said Key it might extend to them And Coleman said The last Session of Parliament there was Complaint made against the Governour of Gravesend who would have prescribed to have Two shillings and Six pence of every Boat that passed by the Fort there And it was held to be Vnreasonable Anonymus TRover and Conversion for a pair of Curtains and Vallence was held Insufficient for the uncertainty of what was meant by a Pair in this case Bernard versus Bernard ERror to Reverse a Judgment in the Court of Hull upon an Assumpsit where the Plaintiff declared upon two Promises the first was upon an Indebitatus infra Jurisdictionem Curiae for Money lent The Error assigned was That the Loan did not appear to be within the Jurisdiction but upon view of the Record it was adtunc ibidem The other Promise was That there being Communication between the Plaintiff and Defendant concerning a House which was said to be at Hull-Bridge which the Plaintiff sold him the Money being unpaid and the Defendant unable in Consideration that the Plaintiff would release to him the said Debt he Promised to deliver him up the Possession of the House by a certain Day Then he Avers That tho' he Released him yet the Defendant had not delivered him up the Possession licet saepius requisitus It was assigned for Error That the House was not expressed to be within the Jurisdiction for the performance of the Promise must be as well within the Jurisdiction as the Promise it self But it is not material tho' there be other foreign Circumstances in the Case as Assumpsit upon a Promise to Re-deliver an Horse at Hull which the Plaintiff lent the Defendant at Hull to Ride to Beverly This that Court had Conusans of tho' Beverly was out of the Jurisdiction And tho' the House were alledged to be at Hull-bridge that shall be intended a Vill by it self and no part of Hull And of that Opinion was Twisden but Keeling otherwise Another Error was assigned That there was no Request laid which ought to have been being a Collateral thing viz To deliver up Possession of an House Sed non allocatur For being to be done at a time certain there was no need of Request but if no time had been set he would have had time during his Life unless hastned by Request Another Error assigned was That the Style of Court was Placita coram Majore c. virture Literarum Patentium H. 6. yet the issuing out Process and filing Bail was Entred secund ' consuetud ' Cur ' And for this 1 Cro. 143. Long and Nethercote's Case was cited where the same Matter was held to be Error for the Court being Erected within time of Memory could have no Custom to warrant their proceedings Sed non allocatur For it is according to Law and the just Course of their Court. But Twisden said If it had been secund ' consuerud ' Cur ' de temps d'ont memorie ne court it had been Ist Girling versus Alders IN a Prohibition to the Court of the Honour of Eye the Case was One Contracted with another for divers parcels of Malt the Money to be paid for each parcel being under Forty Shillings and he levied divers Plaints thereupon in the said Court Wherefore the Court here granted a Prohibition because tho' they be several Contracts yet forasmuch as the Plaintiff might have joyned them all in one Action he ought so to have done and Sued here and not put the Defendant to an unnecessary Vexation no more than he can split an entire Debt into divers to give the Inferious Court Jurisdiction in fraudem Legis Heskett versus Lee. PAsch 21 Car. 2. Rot. 408. Error to Reverse a Common Recovery had in the County Palatine of Lancaster against an Infant The first Error was assigned in a Variance between the Writ and the Count the Writ was of Lands in Bikerstaffe and the Count was Bickerstaffe 5 Rep. 46. Isfeild for Iffeild but there the Court suffered it to be amended being the default of the Clerk Sed non allocatur quia idem sonant Another Error was assigned in the Entry of the Admission of the Guardian Which was thus Concess ' est per Cur ' quod Johannes Molineaux Armig ' sequarur pro Thoma Heskett Armig ' ut Guardian ' praedict ' Thomae in plito terrae versus Lee Whereas it was said it should have been ad comparendum defendendum and this is ad sequendum which is a Form proper only for the Demandant and so is the 2d Cor. 641. And the Reason why Infants are bound by Recoveries when Guardians are assigned them is Because if they suffer any Wrong they have an Action against the Guardian in whose default it was Whereas if the Infant should bring an Action in this Case and declare against Molineux That he was admitted as Guardian to defend for him if Issue were taken upon it by this Record the Tryal would be against him Again It is sequatur pro Thoma ut Guardians and ut is but similitudinary Another Error was assigned in the Entry of the Appearance which was praedict ' Thomas Heskett per praed ' Johannem Molineux qui specialiter admissus est per Cur ' ad sequend ' pro praedict ' Tho' venit in propria persona defendit jus suum Where it was said It must be taken that the Tenant appeared in Person and not the Guardian and a Recovery suffered by an Infant where he appears by Attorney or in proper Person is Erroneous Rolls 731. But notwithstanding these Errors the Court affirmed the Recovery For the Admission of the Guardian ad sequend ' is proper enough for it signifies no more than to follow the Cause And in many Cases the Tenant or Defendant doth Prosecute as in Voucher praying Tales carrying down Trials by Proviso
c. and in Replevin the Avowant is Actor and in Suffering of a Recovery the Tenant is the main Agent being to his use in no other be declared And it was an Error assigned in the Lord Newport and Mildmay's Case as appeareth by the Record yet it seems it was taken to be so plain as not fit to be insisted on Wherefore there is nothing of it in the Report of the Case 1 Cro. 224. yet there was all endeavour imaginable used to Reverse that Recovery and divers other Presidents there are of the same manner of Entry And if it can appear to the Court that there was a Guardian admitted the Form of the Entry shall not be so severely Examined as in the 4 Rep. 53. where there was no Entry of any Admission of the Guardian by the Court at all yet it appearing quod venit per Guardianum the Court would not Reverse the Judgment for Error And for the Book of the 2 Cro. 641. there were other Reasons which Reversed the Judgment and the Admission ad prosequendum was not mentioned until the Court upon the other Matters had Resolved the Reversal And the Books there cited do not at all prove it to be Error And ad sequend ' ur Guardianum is not at all amiss for Ut many times notes an Identity Seisitus ut de feodo makes Conusans ut Ballivus c. And for the Entry of the Appearance it may be taken that the Guardian came in proper Person and so it ought to be But if propria persona refers to the Infant he must have Reversed the Recovery during his Nonage And so Twisden saith it hath been resolved in this Court lately Vid. Roll's 1st Part 171 and 2d Part. 573. Anonymus SCroggs the King's Serjeant moved to have at Trial at Bar in an Indictment of Perjury and for some further Time urging that it was the King's Case The Chief Justice said The King was no otherwise concerned in it than in maintenance of the Common Justice of the Realm It was usually the Subjects Interest and His Prosecution and therefore must not deviate from the Course in Civil Causes and not to be resembled with Causes wherein the King is concerned in point of Interest Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit for Tythes of Wood. The Plaintiff suggested That he had a House in the Parish and that the Wood was cut for Fuel burnt in his House But the Court said that this would not serve unless it were expressed that the House was for maintenance of Husbandry by reason of which the Parson had Uberiores Decimas Barrett versus Milward al. A Scire facias was awarded against the Defendants upon a Recognizance which they entred into as Bail for a Plaintiff in a Writ of Error that he should prosecute it with effect or pay the Money if the Judgment were affirmed They plead That he did prosecute it with effect and that the Judgment was not yet affirmed The Plaintiff Replied Protestando that they did not Prosecute with effect Pro placito that the Judgment was affirmed by the Justices of the Common Bench and Barons of the Coif Et hoc paratus est verificare per Recordum To which the Defendants Demurred generally Because it was not alledged That there were Six Justices and Barons present when the Judgment was affirmed For 27 Eliz. c. 8. which gives them Authority requires that there should be Six at the least Sed non allocatur For the Defendant should then have pleaded Nul tiel Record ' for if there were not Six their Proceedings were coram non Judice Nota If a Certiorari be not Returned so that an Alias be awarded the Return must be as upon the first Writ and the other must be Returned quod ante adventum istius brevis the Matter was certified Gybbons versus North. IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff Declared That whereas at the Defendants Request he was bound with him in a Bond of 200 l he in Consideratione inde promised to save him harmless and obliged himself his Heirs and Executors in 200 l to the performance of it and the Money not being paid the Defendant did not save him harmless But per debitum legis processum he was forced to pay the Money The Defendant Demurred because he did not alledge That he did not pay him 200 l For obliging of himself in the penalty of 200 l to save him harmless He hath election either to save him harmless or pay 200 l But the Court gave Judgment for the Plaintiff for there is no Election in this case being no more than an ordinary Promise to Save harmless And this Action is brought upon the Plaintiffs Dampnification which is a Breach and he doth not demand the 200 l Also a Verbal Contract cannot create a Penalty to oblige the Heir Jordan versus Forett ERror to Reverse a Judgment given against an Executor in Debt in the Common Pleas where the Executor pleaded divers Judgments formerly obtained against him and the last he pleads thus That one Eliz. H. in eadem Curia implacitasset c. and Recovered in Trinity Term but expresses not in what Year and there upon a general Demurrer Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and it was assigned for Error That this Incertainty in respect of Time was good at least upon a general Demurrer But the Court affirmed the Judgment For if such Pleading should be allowed it would be very inconvenient to the Plaintiff and very difficult to find out the Record and then how should he plead that it was kept on foot by Fraud or such like But if it had been ascertained when the Plea commenced tho' no time alledged when the Judgment was obtained yet that would have been good for the Continuances would have directed to the finding of it Twisden said That the Course in this Court was a in Scire facias upon a Judgment to say quod cum recuperasset without alledging any Time But in the Common Pleas they set forth the Term. Putt versus Vincent IN Debt for 3900 l the Plaintiff declared upon Articles of Agreement wherein Putt Covenanted to Convey certain Lands to one Nosworthy and there are also certain Covenants from Nosworthy to the Plaintiff and from the Defendant Vincent who after Imparlance pleads that Nosworthy sealed the Deed and is still alive To which the Plaintiff Demurred And it was alledged by Jones That this being after Imparlance could not be pleaded it being only in Abatement and that he Commences his Plea Actio non as if it were a Plea in Bar. And the Court inclined that it was insufficient for both Causes But then it was said It appears by the Deed to which Nosworthy was a party that the Plaintiff could not sue the Defendant alone and so of his own shewing he could not have Iudgment But it was answered That it did not appear that Nosworthy ever Sealed the Deed. Et Adjournatur Postra Gifford versus
Perkins IN Debt upon a Bond entred into Eliz. Perkins who was the Plaintiffs Wife and he as her Administrator brings this Action The Defendant pleads That he delivered the Bond to one Eliz. Perkins his Sister quae obiit sola innupta absque hoe that he delivered it to Elizabeth Perkins the Plaintiffs Wife And to that the Plaintiff Demurres Specially For if it be taken that there are two of the name the Defendant should have pleaded non est factum for it amounts to no more Or at least he ought to have induced his Plea that there were two Elizabeth Perkins But this Traverse is designed to bring the Marriage in question which is not to be tried now Wherefore the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Twisden said If the Issue be Whether the Wife of such a Man or no This is to be tried per Pais For if she be a Wife de facto it serves upon the Issue But Loyalty of Matrimony is to be tried by the Certificate of the Bishop only 2 Cro. 102. Dightons Case A Mandamus was prayed to the Corporation of Stratford super Avon to restore Dighton the Town Clerk They returned their Letters Patents of Incorporation whereby they had Authority to Grant the Office of Town Clerk Durante bene placito and that he was amoved from his Office by the Mayor and Burgesses It was said that here appeared no Cause of amoval upon the Return which was manifestly needless having Authority to turn them out at their Pleasure But Twisden said It hath béen held that where any such like Power is to chuse one into a Iudicial Office as an Alderman whose place concerns Judicature that they cannot amove him without Cause But this was in a Misterial Office It was further moved That it did not appear that they had discharged him by any matter in Writing under Seal and it could not be by Parol Sed non allocatur for it is returned to be done by the Mayor and Burgesses and a Corporation cannot do any thing by Parol Post An Executor obtained Judgment in Debt in this Court and was afterwards upon an Information here convicted of Forging the Will It was also made void by Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court Whereupon the Court was moved to vacate the Judgment which they ordered accordingly and the Cause of Vacuteing thereof to be entred upon the Record Vide Ante in Paris's Case King versus Atkins IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition recited That whereas the Plaintiff was bound with the Defendant being an Excise-Man that he should render a true Account in the Exchequer that the Defendant should save him harmless at all times c. The Defendant pleaded non fuit damnificatus The Plaintiff replied That a Scire facias issued out against him c. To which the Defendant demurred because he did not alledge that he gave notice This being spoken to divers times the Court thought notice not requisite in this Case no more than upon a Promise to pay so much at the others Marriage or return into England vid. Hob. 112 113. 1 Bulst 12 and 13. Where it is held upon a Promise notice is not necessary otherwise upon a Bond because of the penalty Ante Chester versus Wilson TRin. 21 Car. 2. Rot. 498. The Case was two Ioyn-tenants the one Grants Bargains and Sells all his Estate and Interest to the other It was held clearly by all the Court That this amounted to a Release but it must be pleaded quod relaxavit for one Ioyn-tenant cannot grant to another Wilson versus Armorer IN Debt against the Heir upon the Bond of his Ancestor who pleaded riens per discent the Jury find a Special Verdict to this effect That the Father was seised of a Mannor in Fee and made a Feoffment of it excepting two Closes for the life of the Feoffor only and refered it to the Iudgment of the Court whether these Closes descended to the Defendant or not So that the Question was Whether the Closes were well excepted or passed by the Feoffment And it was argued by Levins for the Plaintiff That by these words the two Closes were Totally excepted and that the Law should reject the latter words because they cannot take effect according to the Parties intention to reserve to the Feoffor a particular Estate If one surrendred a Copyhold to the use of J. S. and his Heirs which Estate to begin after his death adjudged in 2 Rolls 261. a present Fee simple passed 3 Cro. 344. A Man said to his Son being upon his Land Stand forth Eustace my Son reserving and Estate for mine and my Wifes Life I do give you this Land to you and your Heirs Resolved there that this is a good Feofment Moor 950. Popham 49. A Man possessed of a Term in an House in the right of his Wife granted it excepting the Cellar pro usu suo proprio and held that by these words it was altogether excepted out of the grant 1 Anderson 129. Serjeant Turner è contra For that it is but one Sentence and cited 38 H. 6. 38. An Addowson was granted saving the Presentation to the Grantor during his life and held void and Pl. Com. 156. where it is said if a Termour granted his Term after his Death it is void But if in two Sentences as to grant his Term Habendum after his Death there the Habendum is only void Er Adjurnatur Postea Love versus Wyndham AN Action upon the Case upon an Issue directed out of Chancery upon a Special Verdict the Case was George Searl being seised of the Mannor of N. Demised the same to Nich. Love for 99 years if 3 Lives should so long live N. Love devised it to Dulcibell his Wife the remainder to Nich. his Son for life and if he the said N. the Son should dye without Issue then to Barnaby Love the Plaintiff The Executor assented and whether the Devise to Barnaby were good was the Question Jones for the Plaintiff this is a good possibility I shall make two points First If a Termor Devise first to one and then to another whether he may Devise it over Secondly Whether the Limitation here after the Death without Issue be a good Limitation over First He may make a third Limitation which is a Possibility upon a Possibility at least he may make 2 or 3 such Limitations over I can't certainly say where it will end It can't be denied but that a Termour may Devise first to one for life and after to another 8 Co. 95. But I say he may go further and that will appear by Reason and Authority First By Reason The Reason given why the Executory Devise in the first case is good is because 't is in Construction of Law as much as if he had Devised it to the last first if the first Man should dye within the Term and then had Devised that the first should hold during life and without such a transposition it cannot
constant Practice Secondly There was no good Trial for there is an Award of a Venire facias but no Writ certified But this was also Over-ruled for it is the Course of the Assizes not to make out any Writ Thirdly Issue is joyned by the Clerk of Assize which the Court said ought to be for he is Attorney General there Parker versus Welby THe Plaintiff brought an Action upon the Case against the Defendant and Declared that he Sued out a Latitat against a third Person directed to the Defendant being Sheriff who thereupon Arrested him and after let him go at large And then he Returned a Cepi Corpus paratum habuit ubi revera he had not his Body at the Day To this Declaration the Defendant Demurred supposing that no Action would lye for this False Return for the Statute of 23 H. 6. obliges the Sheriff to let to Bail and if he hath not the Body at the Day he is to be amerced But the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff For it shall be intended that he let him go without Bail and if he did not he ought to have pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. which is a Private Law And at the Common Law a man could not be let at large in such case without a Homine Replegiando Or else he might have pleaded Not Guilty and given the Statute in Evidence And so it is Adjudged in Layton and Gardiner's Case 3 Cro. 460. So Moor placito 996. 2 Cro. 352. and 3 Cro. 624. Where the Defendant pleaded That he let to Bail according to the Statute and the Plaintiff was barred Twisden cited a Case in this Court Paschae 21 Car. 1. Rot. 616. between Franklyn and Andrews where the Plaintiff Declared as in this Case And the Defendant pleaded the Statute and that he let him at large upon Sureties and traversed absque hoc that he returned his Writ Aliter aut alio modo To which the Plaintiff Demurred It was Resolved First That the Sheriff could Return nothing but Cepi Corpus And he was then amerced because he offered to make a Special Return Secondly That where the Sheriff let the parties out to the Bail and he made such Return that it was no False Return and therefore he should not have traversed Absque hoc that he Returned Aliter vel alio modo As in Maintenance where the Defendant Iustifies for that the party could not speak English and therefore he went with him to instruct his Counsel He shall traverse Absque hoc that he maintained Aliter because that he maintained Would not do tho' it be justifiable So in that case the Court ordered it to be Entred upon the Roll that Judgment was given for the Plaintiff quia Traversia fuit mala So here they Ordered it to be Entred because the Defendant did not plead the Statute of 23 H. 6. Hocking versus Matthews AN Action upon the Case was brought for Maliciously Impleading and causing him to be Excommunicated in the Ecclesiastical Court whereby he was taken upon an Excom ' Cap ' and Imprisoned until he got himself absolved The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty and found against him And it was afterwards moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Declaration was not good for no Action will lye for suing a man in the Spiritual Court tho' without cause no more than in Suing in the Temporal Courts For Fitz. N. B. is That a man shall not be punished for bringing the Kings Writs So Hob. Waterer and Freeman's Case And it hath been lately held that no Action will lye for an Indictment of Trespass tho' falso but an Action of the Case will lye for suing in Court Christian for a Temporal Cause But the Court in this Cause gave Judgment for the Plaintiff For tho' in an Action between party and party in the Ecclesiastical Court where if the matter goes for the Defendant he shall have his Costs no Action will lye if the Court hath Iurisdiction Yet where there is a Citation ex Officio and that is prosecuted malicously without ground the Party shall have his Action for in such Suit he can have no Costs And so is Carlion and Mills's Case Adjudged 1 Cro. 291. And this shall be so intended after the Verdict or otherwise the Defendant should have shewed it to be otherwise and Iustified And Rainsford said without Cause shall be understood without any Libel or Legal Proceedings against him Anonymus IN Debt upon an Obligation to perform an Award which was to pay the Rent mentioned in such an Indenture He that pleads performance of this Award needs not set forth the Indenture but refer generally to it But if it be to be paid in such manner and at such times as is expressed in the Indenture then it must be set forth at large The like of an Award of payment of Money given by a Will Wilson versus Armorer THe Case was Argued again this Term by Coleman for the Plaintiff who Argued that the Exception takes the two Closes wholly out of the Grant and that no modification can be annexed to it 3 Cro. 657. and Moor Pl. 747. A Lease was made for certain Lands excepting a Close and Covenants were for quiet Enjoyment of the Premisses The Lessee disturbed the Plaintiffs possession in the Close excepted yet he could not bring a Writ of Co-venant for by the Exception it is as much as if it had been never mentioned and in this Case the Livery being secundum formam Chartae could not work upon these Closes The Case of Hodge and Crosse cited in Hob. 171. was this A man gave Lands to another Habendum to him and his Heirs after the death of the Feoffor and Livery secundum formam Chartae Resolved a void Feoffment and relyed upon the Case in 1 Anderson 129. as full in the Point A Lease of an House excepting a Chamber pro usu suo proprio occupatione It was held that he might assign Weston ê contra This Exception is altogether void for it cannot be for the Life of the Feoffor only Bro. tit Reservation 13. and it shall not except the whole Fee against the Intention of the Parties for then the Ill wording of his Exception should give him above twice as much as otherwise be should have had and it is but one entire Sentence and taking it altogether it must have an effect which the Law doth not admit and is therefore to be wholly rejected As where a man grants his Term after his death the Grant is void Otherwise where he grants his Term habendum after his death for there the last Sentence is rejected Hob. 171. The Case of the Exception of the Chamber is not alike for excepting it for his own use are apt words to give him power to dispose of it at his pleasure Keeling Rainsford and Moreton held the Exception good for the entire Fee Twisden That it was wholly void because one Sentence Plus Postea Sympson versus Quinley
TRin. 20 Car. 2. Rot. 719. A Custom that Lands should descend always to the Heirs Males viz To the Males in the Collateral Line excluding Females in the Lineal was held good Which it was said was allowed anciently in the Marches of Scotland in order to the Defence of the Realm which was there most to be looked to tho' it is said in Davis's Reports That the Custom of Gavelkind which was pretended in Ireland and Wales to divide only between Males was naught But the former Custom was adjudged good in this Court Hill 18 Car. 2. Rot. 718. Foot versus Berkly BErkly had Iudgment in an Ejectment in Communi Banco and Execution of his Damages and Costs Foot brings Error and the Judgment is affirmed Whereupon Berkly prays his Costs for his delay and charges but could not have them For no Costs were in such case at the Common Law and the Statute of 3 H. 7. cap. 10. gives them only where Error is brought in delay of Execution so 19 H. 7. cap. 20. And here tho' he had not Execution of the Term yet he had it of his Costs If one hath Iudgment in a Formedon in Remainder and before Execution the Tenant brings Error the Judgment is affirmed yet he shall pay no Costs because none were recoverable at first 1 Cro. Ante. Weyman versus Smith A Prohibition was prayed to the Mayor and Court of Bristol Suggesting that a Plaint was Entred there for 66 l and that the Cause of Action arose in London and not in Bristol and so out of their Iurisdiction Note An Affidavit was also made thereof and this is upon Westm cap. 35. and so is F.N.B. 45. Vnless the party pleading in Bar or Imparling admits the Iurisdiction of the Court 2 Inst Tarlour and Rous versus Parner AN Account brought by the Plaintiffs as Churchwardens against the Defendant the former Churchwarden for a Bell c. The Defendant pleads That it lacked mending and that by the Assent of the Parishioners it was delivered to a Bell Founder who kept it until he should be paid To which the Plaintiff Demurred For this Plea is no bar of the Account but a good Discharge before Auditors But it was said on the other side That the Matter pleaded shewed that the Defendant was never Accountable therefore it might be in Bar. The contrary whereof is Adjudged in the same Case in terminis 1 Rolls 121. between Methold and Wyn and so was the Opinion of the Court here But then it was alledged that the Declaration was not good for there were two Plaintiffs and yet it is quod reddat ei compotum and it is de bonis Ecclesiae whereas it should have been bonis Parochianorum For the first the Court said that it should be amended for it was the default of the Clerk But the other was doubtful For the Presidents were affirmed to be both ways but they rather inclined that the Declaration was not good for that cause Anonymus AN Indictment of Forcible Entry in unum Messuagium vel domum Mansional ' quaere if not uncertain and other Lands and Tenements tent ' ad voluntat ' Dom ' secundum consuetudinem Manerii and doth not express what Estate For which the Court held it ought to be quashed for the Statutes 8 H. 6. and R. 2. extend only to Freeholds and the Statute in King James's time to Leases for years and Copyholds And here tho' he saith at the Will of the Lord according to the Custom of the Mannor yet 't is not sufficient because he saith not by Copy of Court Roll. And it was Adjudged in 1653 in this Court that none of the Statutes extended to Tenants at Will Martyn versus Delboe IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff Declared That he was a Merchant and the Defendant being also a Merchant was Indebted to him in 1300 l And a Communication being had between them of this Debt the Defenant promised him in Consideration thereof That he should have Share to the Value of his said Debt in a Ship of the Defendants which was then bound for the Barbadoes and that upon the Return of the Ship he would give him a true Account and pay him his proportion And sets forth That the Ship did go the said Voyage and returned to London and that after the Defendant with some other Owners had made an account of the Merchandize returned in the said Ship which amounted to 9000 l and that the Plaintiffs Share thereof came to 1700 l which he had demanded of the Defendant and he refused to pay it c. To this the Defendant pleads the Statue of Limitations and the Plaintiff Demurred Alledging that this Action was grounded upon Merchants Accounts which were excepted out of the Statute Tho' if an Action be brought for a Debt upon an Account stated between Merchants the Statute is pleadable as was Adjudged in this Court last Hillary Term between Webber and Perit yet here there being no Account ever stated between the Plaintiff and Defendant it is directly within the Statute And of that Opinion were Keeling and Rainsford But Twisden inclined otherwise because the Plaintiff declares upon an Account stated and tho' between Strangers yet he bringing his Action upon it admits it Et Adjornatur Nota Every Parish of Common Right ought to Repair the High-ways and no Agreement with any person whatever can take off this Charge which the Law lays upon them Crispe and Jackson versus The Mayor and Commonalty of Berwick IN Covenant after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was a Mis-Trial the Venire being awarded to an adjoyning County Which the Court after Hearing of Arguments in it Ruled it to be well enough but one of the Plaintiffs died before the Court had delivered their Opinions It is prayed notwithstanding that Judgment might be Entred there be no default in the Plaintiffs but a delay which came by the act of the Court and that it was within the Statute of this King That the death of the Party between Verdict and Judgment should not abate the Action and that it was in the discretion of the Court whether they would take notice of the Death in this case for the Defendant hath no Day in Court to plead there being no Continuances entred after the Return of the Postea 1 Leon. 187. Isley's Case Latches Rep. 92. And the Court were of Opinion that Judgment ought to be Entred and there being no Continuances it may be as if immediately upon the Return of the Postea Ante. Lion versus Carew THe Case was A Lease was made to two for 99 years if three Lives should so long live and this to commence after the end of a Lease for Life Reddend ' a certain yearly Rent and two Work-days in Harvest post principium inde reddend ' inde 3 l nom ' Harriotte post mortem of the Lessees or either of them and reddend ' two Capons at Christmass post
principium inde One of the Lessees died before the Lease for Life determined whereupon the Lessor brings Covenant for the 3 l and sets forth this Matter in the Declaration To which the Defendant Demurred supposing that the 3 l was not to be paid unless the Death had hapned after the Term had commenced And the Court having heard it spoken to divers times by Counsel on both sides by the Opinion of Twisden Rainsford and Moreton Iudgment was given for the Defendant For all the other Reservations but this were expresly post principium termini and Clauses in Companies are to expound one another as it is said in the Earl of Clanrickard's Case in Hobart It is in the nature of a Rent and Reservation which it is not necessary that it should be Annual And in Randall and Scories Case 1 Cro. such a Duty was distrained for and it shall attend the Reversion Rolls 457. And he that hath but an interesse termini is not to pay the Rent reserved for there is no Term nor no Reversion until it commences If A. lets to B. for 10 years and B. redemises to A. for 6 years to commence in futuro in the mean time this works no suspension of either Rent or Condition The Intention of the Parties is to be taken That it should not be paid until then However Reservations are to be taken most strongly against the Reserver As Palmer and Prowses Case cited in Suffeild's Case 10 Co. is The Reversion of a Lease for years was granted for Life reserving certain Rent cum reversio acciderit a Distress was made for the Rent arrear ever since the Grant Resolved that it was good for no more than was incurred since it fell into possession Keeling Chief Justice held strongly to the contrary For he said the words were so express in this Case that they have left no place for Construction which other Clauses or the Intention of the Parties may direct when the Expression is doubtful He took it for a Sum in gross for Distrained for it could not be being reserved upon the Death of the Lessees or either of them which was also the limitation of their Lease And that Interpretations were not to be made against the plain sense of words He relied upon Edriches Case 5 Co. where the Judges said They would not make any Construction against the express Letter of the Statute yet there was much Equity in that Case to incline them to it And he said As well as a Fine is paid upon the taking of such Lease before it begins why may not something be paid also when their Interest determines And in some Countries they call such Payments A fair Leave Miller versus Ward TRespass for breaking of his Close on the 1st of August and putting in his Cattel The Defendant Iustifies for Common which he prescribes for in this manner viz. That two years together he used to have Common there after the Corn reaped and carried away until it was sown again and the Third year to have Common for the whole year and that that Year the Plaintiff declares for the Trespass was one of the years the Field was own quod post grana messa c. he put in his Cattle absque hoc that he put them in aliter vel alio modo The Plaintiff Demurs which it was Ruled he might for the Defendant doth not answer to the Time wherein the Trespass was alledged and the Traverse will not help it for aliter vel alio modo doth not refer to the time Anonymus AN Administrator brings Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleads payment to himself Vpon which it was found for the Defendant Coleman prayed that he might have Costs As where an Executor brings an Action sur Trover and Conversion in his own time and found against him it was Ruled in Atkyes Case 1 Cro. that he should pay Costs and hereof his own knowledge he had no cause of Action the Money being paid to himself But the Court Resolved That there ought to be no Costs in this Case for the Action of Trover in his own time might have been brought in his own Name so it was needless to name himself Executor or Administrator but the Action here is meerly in right of the Intestate Harvey versus James AFter Verdict at the Assizes the Clerk delivered the Postea to the Attorney by whose negligent keeping it came to be eaten with Rats But the Court Examining the Clerk of Assize it appeared that he had Entred the Jurors Names Verdict and Tales in his Book and according to that the Court suffered the Verdict to be entred on Record Anonymus IN an Action of Battery against Baron and Feme the Jury find the Feme only Guilty and not the Baron It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That this Verdict was against the Plaintiff for he ought in this Case to have joyned the Baron only for conformity and he declaring of a Battery by both the Baron being acquitted he hath failed of his Action and so is Yelverton 106. in Drury and Dennys Case But here the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff and said that that in Yelvetron was a strange Opinion Anonymus A Certiorari was prayed to remove an Indictment of Manslaughter out of Wales which the Court at first doubted whether they might grant in regard it could not be tryed in an English Country But an Indictment might have béen found thereof in an English County and that might be tryed by 26 H. 8. cap. 6. vid. 1 Cro. Soutley and Prices Case and Chedleys Case But it was made appear to the Court That there was a great cause to suspect Partiality if the Tryal proceeded in Wales for the Party was Bailed already by the Justices of Peace there which Twisden said it was doubtful whether they had power to do for Manslaughter They awarded a Certiorari and took Order that the Prosecutor should be bound by Recognizance to prefer an Indictment in the next English Country Collect versus Padwell IN Debt upon a Bond to perform an Award which was That one should make a Lease to another before the 21 of October which was 2 or 3 Months after the Award and that the other upon the making of the Lease should pay him 50 l The Question was Whether notice in this Case ought to be given when he would make the Lease for otherwise it was said the other must have 50 l always about him or be in danger to break the Award And it was resolved by the Court That no notice was necessary Noell versus Nelson MIch 21. Car. 2. Rot. 745. Error to Reverse a Judgment given in the Common Pleas where the case was thus Nelson brings Debt against Noel as Executor of Sir Martyn Noel who pleads plene administravit The Plaintiff confesseth the Plea and prayeth Iudgment de bonis Testatoris quae in futoro ad manus Defendentis devenirint and upon a Suggestion of Assets afterwards he
had a Scire facias against Noell and Iudgment thereupon Noell brings a Writ of Error and assigned it in this that the Plaintiff confessing the Plea of fully Administred ought to have béen barred And it was argued by Wynnington for the Plaintiff and Sympson for the Defendant Wynnington Where an Executor pleads falsely or deceitfully Iudgment is to be given against him as upon â—he unques Administer come Executor Iudgment shall be de bonis propriis But where he Pleads truly it is the Reason the Plaintiff should be barred and the Plaintiff confessing his Plea It is as strong as if found by a Jury or rather more for Verdicts may be false and therefore Attaints are provided and such express confession as here is is much stronger than an implied Confession sur Demurrer Indeed if upon plene Administravit Assetts are found for part of the Debt Iudgment shall be for the whole 8 Rep. 134. Shipley's Case Because the Plea was false But if an Executor should be liable to be Sued and have Iudgment given against him when he had fully administred it would put a great inconvenience upon him as to be put to charge to defend the Suit and to be in Misericordia And whereas it was objected That if the Plaintiff should be barred in such Case he would yet have no advantage by Commencing his Suit of having his Debt paid before other Debts in pari gradu he answered this inconvenience is not to be matched with that that the Executor should be liable to besides the Law will ever favour the Executor for if an Executor be Sued and the Plaintiff Nonsuit he shall have Costs but an Executor Plaintiff shall pay no Costs upon a Nonsuit 3 Cro. 503. vid. Hob. 83. Lawneys Case Also a Man may be presumed to know whether an Executor hath Assetts or no for he may consult the Inventory And for the Cases that might be objected as that of the Warrantia Chartoe against an Heir who Pleads Riens per descent or that the Plaintiff is not impleaded the Plaintiff may pray Iudgment presently F. N. B. 134. He Answered 't is true the Writ may be brought quia timet for he may be after impleaded in an Action wherein he cannot Vouch yet if he be after impleaded in a Praecipe he must Vouch and this is a line real and the Heir merely in loco patris whereas when an Executor hath fully Administred the Executorship is as it were determined And for the Case where Debt is brought against the Heir who Pleads riens per descent the Plaintiff may pray Iudgment presently to have Execution of Assetts as shall afterwards descend he said he knew no particular Authority where it was so done but if it be so as it is said in Shipleys Case yet not to be resembled to this Case for the Heir is charged as for his own Debt and the Action is in the Debet Detinet Com. 443. and if the Heir Pleads riens per discent and found against him the Iudgment is general not so so of an Executor so where the Iudgment is sur nihil dicit Moor 522. Dier 81. 344. 2 Rolls 67. Tit. Heir so where he confesses the Action but if an Executor after pleading Plene Administravit confess the Action the Iudgment shall be de bonis Testatoris Hob. 178. And for the Opinion in Shipleys Case 8 Rep. which is according to the Iudgment here he said it was obiter but he relied upon Cro. Dorchester and Webbs Case where that Opinion is denied and said there that all the Presidents are that the Plaintiff is in such case to be barred Rastals Entries 323 324. Sympson contra The nature of the Plea is to be considered it both not deny the Cause of Action but goes only to take away the present effect of it remoto impedimento resurgit Actio vel Executio 34 H. 6. 23. Prisot saith If an Executor Pleads ne unques Executor and found against him Iudgment is to be de bonis propriis But otherwise If he Pleads Plene Administravit for then be doth not put the Party from his Action for ever He said the Case of the Action of Debt against the Heir was the same for he is bound only by reason of the Land descended 1 Rolls 929. If an Executor Pleads Plene Administravit and the Plaintiff takes Issue and found against him he is to be barred for he as the Book saith hath waived his advantage he cited also the Book of the Office of Executors 3 Cro. 887. supposed to be written by Doderidge lib. 7. cap. 15. and relied pricipally upon Shipleys Case 8 Co. 134. which is cited and allowed in Hob. 199. And upon a President in this Court Trin. 13 Jac. Rot. 1104. between Perryman and Westwood where Iudgment was just as in this Case and Mich. after Rot. 206. Vpon Suggestion of Assets a Scire facias was taken out and Issue taken and tried at Guild-hall before my Lord Coke where Assetts were found for part and Iudgment to Recover so much and the residue if Assetts should come after which as to the latter Iudgment was somewhat further than the principal Case Keeling Rainsford and Moreton Held clearly that Iudgment ought to be affirmed chiefly for the great inconvenience it would be to one that had Commenced an Action and yet his Debt should have no preference before others of the same sort and many times the Testator leaves a great Estate in Bonds and Specialties which yet are no Assetts until the Money is paid Whereas the Case of the Heir is much stronger in regard of the improbability of his having Assetts in futoro In 16 H. 7. 10. it is said if an Executor Pleads Plene Administravit it is but a Temporal bar A Rent is granted in Fee provided that it shall cease during the minority of the Heir the Wife brings Dower the Heir being under Age she shall have Iudgment sed cesset Executio Vid. Hutton 128. the case reported without any such Opinion Twisden stuck much to the Authority of Dorchester and Webbs Case but at length consented that Iudgment should be affirmed Note The Iudgment was in Misericordia and the Court doubted at first whether it were not Erroneous for that Cause but it appeared that the Executor did not come in primo die wherefore notwithstanding they affirmed the Iudgment Ante. Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 22 Car. II. In Banco Regis Prydyerd versus Thomas A Writ of Error was brought upon two Judgments given in an inferiour Court and they returned two Records betwéen the same Parties but it seems not those which the Plaintiff intended and this was complained of to the Court and it appeared that those which the Plaintiff brought his Writ of Error upon were not determined for Writs of Enquiry of Damages were returned but no Judgments entred Curia If there be divers Records betwéen the same Parties the inferiour Court may remove which they please they being
distress upon a Copyholder for a reasonable Fine the value of the Land must be set forth and the certainty of the Fine that the Court may judge of it Austin and Gervases Case Hob. 69 77. In Consideration that he should give him Bond for 10 l the Defendant promised c. and pleads that he offered him Bond for the said sum c. and upon Issue Non Assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff But he could not have Iudgment because the sum wherein he offered to become bound was not exprest so that it might appear to the Court to be sufficient Jones contra This differs from the Case in Hob. for there the sum being certain for which the Bond was to be given the Court may well judge what Penalty will secure it But it is not so in this Case for it doth not appear to what value the damnification may be so there is nothing as in the other Case whereunto to Proportion the Penalty of the Bond. The Court held that it would not have been good upon a Demurrer but being after a Verdict and the Statute of Jeofails made at Oxford which Twisden stiled an omnipotent Act they gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Lord Birons Case THe Lord Biron was Plaintiff in an Action and upon a Non-Suit five pounds Costs were taxed against him and he brought another Action for the same matter which was said to be meerly for vexation and that he refused to pay the Costs neither could he be compelled being a Peer and in Parliament time Wherefore the Court gave day to shew Cause why this Action should not stay until he had paid the Costs in the former Anonymus IF a Writ of Error be brought in the Exchequer Chamber and that being discontinued another is brought in Parliament this second Writ is a Supersedeas But if a Writ of Error be brought in Parliament and that abates and the Plaintiff brings a second this is no Supersedeas because it is in the same Court Prior versus Shears IN a Writ of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in the Palace Court in an Assumpsit where the Plaintiff declared sur indebitatus pro Naulo and upon Non Assumpsit c. had Judgment It was assigned for Error That it was not ascertained how the Defendant was indebted and that Fraight was usually contracted for by Charter party and if so the general Indebitatus would not lie for a Debt by Specialty Notwithstanding the Judgment was affirmed for for ought appears there was not any Deed in the Case and it shall not be intended and it is no more than the Common Action pro mercimoniis habitis venditis Note It was further objected That this appears to be for Marriners Wages for Sailing to some Foreign parts which must needs be out of the Jurisdiction of the Marshalsea and though the Argréement were made within it yet the thing being to be done elsewhere they could not hold Plea As if a Carrier should agree within the Limits of the Court to carry Goods from thence to York no Action could be brought there upon it which was agréed But the Court said here It doth not appear they were to Sail to any place out of the Jurisdiction and they have laid all the Matter to be infra Jurisdictionem Curiae And therefore the Judgment was Affirmed Hayman versus Trewant TRin. 22 Car. 2. Rot. 710. In an Action upon the Case for that the Defendant bargained with him such a day and year for the Corn growing upon such Ground affirming it to be his own whereas he knew it to be the Corn of J. S. and postea adtunc ibid. fraudulenter vendidit Warrant ' c. The Defendant pleads That the Plaintiff had another such Action depending for the same Cause and demands Iudgment of the Writ The Plaintiff Replies that that Action was commenced for another Cause and not for the same absque hoc that it was for the same Cause To which the Defendant Demurs specially because the Plaintiff having denied what the Defendant affirmed ought not to have added a Traverse but to have concluded to the Country As the Case of Harris and Phillips 3 Cro. 755. was Adjudged Where in an Audita Querela to avoid the Execution of a Recognizance the Plaintiff sets forth that it was defeazanced upon payment of divers Sums of Money at certain days and that he was at the place appointed and tendred the Money and that the Defendant was not there to receive it The Defendant pleaded Protestando that the Plaintiff was not there to pay it and that he was there ready to receive it absque hoc that the Plaintiff was ready to pay it Which being specially Demurred to the Court held the Plea naught and that there being an express Affirmative and Negative there should have been no Traverse for so they may traverse one upon another in infinitum Notwithstanding the Traverse was here held good which was allowed for putting the Matter more singly in Issue And it appears that Phillips's Case was Adjudged upon another matter For that the Plea in Bar was not entred as the Defendant's Plea but was entred thus Pro placito Bush a Stranger dicit Yelv. 38. Then it was moved That as the Plaintiff hath declared here it appears that the Warranty was subsequent to the Bargain For it is said that he bargained for the Corn knowing it to be the Corn of J.S. postea adtunc ibidem vendidit which is repugnant Sed non allocatur for where it is said first That he bargained that shall intended a Communication only and the Consummation of it after when the Warranty was given which is also said to be adtunc ibidem So alledged well enough Foxwith versus Tremaine TRin. 21 Car. 2. Rot. 1512. Five Executors bring an Action sur Indebitat ' Assumps The Defendant pleads in Abatement That two of them are under the Age of 17. and that they appeared by Attorney And to this the Plaintiffs Demur They who Argued for the Defendant made two Questions 1. Whether they ought all to joyn in the Action And it was said they ought not for one under Age cannot prove the Will And in Smyth and Smyth's Case Yelv. 130. it is Resolved they must be all Named so that their Interest may be reserved unto them but are not to be made parties to the Action And for this the Case between Hatton and Mascue which was Adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber was cited Where in a Scire facias it was set forth That A. being the Executor of B. made his Will thus I Devise all my Personal Estate to my two Daughters and my Wife whom I make my Executrix And that they had Declared in the Ecclesiastical Court that this made them all three Executrixes and that the Will was proved and that the Wife brought this Scire facias to have Execution of a Judgment obtained by A. the Testator And the Defendant Demurred because not
First A Sufficient Consideration Secondly A Deed as in Callard and Callard's Case in 3 Cro. and in Popham's Reports and hath been often Resoved since Thirdly A Seisin in the Covenantor of the Lands at the time of the Deed For a man cannot Covenant to stand seised to an Vse of Lands which he shall after purchase Fourthly A Clear and apparent Intent Fifthly Apt and proper Words And the two last things are wanting in our Case I agree the word Covenant is not necessary so there be other Words sufficient in Law and to declare the parties Intent for all Words will not serve A man Covenanted upon good Consideration that his Feoffees should stand seised It was Resolved that no Use should anise upon it 1 Cro. 856. So Sir Thomas Seymor's Case Where a Covenant was upon good Consideration to levy a Fine to certain Vses and no Fine was after levied It was Resolved that the Covenant did not raise any Vse Dyer 96. Therefore 't is usual to express in such Deeds of Covenant that if the Conveyances therein contained be not executed that then the party shall from henceforth stand seised And where it is said in Vivian's Case Dyer 302. One having given granted and released to his Brother and his Heirs certain Mannors and no Livery made that Plowden would have averred that the Deed was made pro Fraterno amore and so should raise an Use Vnder the Favour of the Court I deny that Opinion of Plowden to be Law And in Debb and Peplewell's Case it is said That the Land was enjoyed against the Release And in Moor pl. 267. One Covenanted in Consideration of Marriage to let his Land discend remain or come to his Daughter It was Resolved no Use did arise thereupon In this Conveyance there are not any Words that sound in Covenant the only word that looks towards an Use is the word Bargain and Sell. and in Ward and Lambert's Case in 3 Cro. 394. it is held That if one gives or bargains and sells Land to his Son it shall not amount to a Covenant to stand seised for want of apt words Now the other are all words of Common Law Give Crant Alien Enfeoff and Confirm There is also a clause of Special Warranty in the Deed and a Covenant to make further assurance by Fine Recovery c. as great a preparation at Common Law as could be And if the Parties intend the Land shall pass at the Common Law by Transmutation of Possession there shall no use arise Co. Lit. 49. Charter of Feoffment to the Son it shall raise no use if no Livery be made The word Dedi in this Deed imports a General Warranty which is not qualified by the Special Warranty after yet if the Land pass by way of use there can be only a Rebutter and so no use of the General Warranty The Authorities since have not béen concurrent with Debb and Poplewells Case but contrary to it And I rely upon the Cases of Pitfeild and Pierce and Forster and Forster in this Court which have been remembred on the other side but no answered And whereas it is said That the Habend is after the Death of them which conveyed the Land they are in that respect stronger than the Case at Bar for by that it appears they could not intend a Conveyance at the Common Law which doth not allow such kind of Limitations therefore it must be by way of use or no way Yet it was resolved they should not pass so It would introduce universal ignorance and carelesness in such as draw Conveyances if the Court should apply their Art to give them effect however they were penned and it is a Rule Politia legibus non leges Politiis adaptantur The Court after heaving the Case twice argued were all of Opinion That the Land should pass by way of Covenant to stand seized and Hale cited Hob. 277. who doth there commend the Judges who are curious and almost subtil to invent reasons and means to make Acts effectual according to the just intent of the parties They all held clearly That words proper for a Conveyance at Common Law would raise an Use as Demise and Grant have béen adjudged to amount to a Bargain and Sale without other words And they said Pitfields and Pierces Case was adjudged upon the absurd contrivance of the Conveyance and so Foster and Fosters Case in this Court and for that in that case the Deed was Articles of Agreement preparatory to what the party intended after and the case in Moor Pl. 267. where there was a Covenant in Consideration of Marriage to suffer the Land to remain descend or come to the Daughter no Use did arise there for the incertainty how it was intended the Daughter should take And they said That if they should not construe an Use to arise by such Conveyance as in the case at Bar it would overthrow all Conveyances by Lease and Release And for the Objection of the Warranty in the Deed it is well known there is so in most Conveyances to Uses Wherefore they gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Note This Iudgment was afterwards affirmed upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber Anonymus AN Indictment was brought for using of a Trade to which he had not béen bound an Apprentice It was moved to quash it because it was not alledged that he did not use the Trade 5 Eliz. for if he did he is excepted out of the Statute But the Court did not much regard that exception Tho' they said it had béen often allowed but it cannot here be intended it being so long since the Statute was made Secondly It was for using the Trade Aromatarij without an Anglicè so it could not be known what Trade was meant and tho' that word is often used for a Grocer yet it must be so Englished or else it shall not be taken for that Trade more than another And for this Cause the Court quashed the Indictment Note If a Man be taken upon a Warrant de securitate pacis or any criminal cause he is not to be charged with Actions unless the Court gives leave which they will rarely do The Case of the Heirs of the Earl of Southampton KIng James by his Leters Petents Enrolled in this Court granted to the E. of Southampton all Deodands within the Mannor of Ditchfield An Inquisition was certified here that a Deodand was forfeited within the said Mannor and Process went out thereupon The Court were moved in behalf of the Daughters and Heirs of the Earl whether they should be driven to set forth their Title in pleading for if so the charges would far exceed the value of the Deodand and it would be very inconvenient that every new Heir should be forced to plead upon every Deodand that happens But the Court said in regard the Letters Patents are here Enrolled and that it appeared by the Inquisition that this Deodand was forfeited within the Mannor it should suffice without pleading
Note directed to the Defendant whereby he required the Defendant to pay him who upon view of the Note in Consideration that the Plaintiff would accept of his Promise and forbear him a Fortnight promised to pay him the Money There after Verdict for the Plaintiff Judgment was Arrested because that was held no Consideration Sed non allocatur For Hale said When Assumpsits grew first into practice they used to set out the Matter at large viz. in such a Case as this Quod mutuo aggreatum fuit inter eos c. and they should be discharged one against the other but since it hath been the way to declare more concisely And upon the whole Matter here it appears that the Defendant agreed to this Transferring of the Debt of J. S. to the Plaintiff and that it was agreed that he should be discharged against J. S. And he said that the Case of Davison and Haslip hoc Termino ante was to the same effect And for Clipsham's Case that was said to be good Law for there it did not appear that the Defendant was at all Indebted to him that sent the Note Sir William Hicks's Case DEbt was brought against him by the Name of Sir William Hicks Knight and Baronet He pleaded in Abatement that he was never Knighted The Plaintiff moved that he might Amend an that he had put in Bail by the Name of Knight and Baronet so that he was concluded to alledge this Matter which the Court agreed if it were so But it was found to be Entred for William Hicks Baronet only So they said they could not permit any Amendment but the Plaintiff must of necessity Arrest him over again Fisher versus Batten A Bill was Exhibited in the Dutchy Court to be relieved against the Forfeiture of a Mortgage of Lands lying within the County of Lancaster The Defendant prayed a Prohibition Surmizing that the Lands in question were not the Kings Lands or holden of him and therefore he ought not to Answer in the Dutchy Court And the Court appointed to hear Counsel on both Sides whether or no this Prohibition were to be granted And it was Argued by Sir William Jones for the Prohibition That a Court of Equity must begin by Prescription or Act of Parliament That there can be no Prescription in this Case for both the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster began within time of Memory Henry Father of John of Gaunt was the first Duke of Lancaster and he was made so in Edward the Third's time and then Lancaster was made a County Palatine The Act of Parliament upon which this Case must depend is that of 1 Ed. 4. which takes notice that the Dutchy and County Palatine of Lancaster were forfeited to the Crown by the Attainder of H. 6. and Enacts That they shall be separate and distinguished from other Inheritances of the Crown and appoints a Chancellor for the County Palatine and a Chancellor for the Dutchy and that each should have his Seal so that the Chancellor of the Dutchy is not to intermeddle in the County Palatine which hath a Chancellor of its own for Matters there Counties Palatine had their Original from a Politick Reason and Lancaster Durham and Chester were made so probably because they were adjacent to Enemies Countries viz. the two first to Scotland and Chester to Wales so that the Inhabitants having Administration of Justice at home and not being obliged to attend other Courts those parts should not be disfurnished of Inhabitants that might secure the Country from Incursions 'T is true of a long time the Chancellorship both of County and Dutchy have been in one Person but 't is the same thing as if there were two for the several Capacities remain distinct in him The first Patent that made it a County Palatine Ordained that it should have Jura regalia ad Comitatum Palatinum pertinen ' adeo libere integre sicut Comes Cestriae Com. 215. infra eundem Comitat ' Cestriae dignoscitur obtinere c. So that by that the Jurisdiction ought to be exercised within the County They have shewn indeed a multitude of Presidents but I can hear but of One for the first Fifty years after 1 Edw. 4. most of the other are of Personal things and of the rest divers began in the County Palatine and were transmitted to the Dutchy Court As they may send Causes out of the Courts there to be Argued in the Kings Bench but doubtful whether the Court here can give Judgment They have very few Presidents of Causes which commenced Originally in the Dutchy Court which is but a Court of Revenue 4 Inst The Court of Requests had a multitude of Presidents but could not thereby gain it self any Jurisdiction 4 Inst 97. Holt's Case Hob. 77. A Bill was Exhibited to be relieved against the Penalty of a Bond which concerned an Extent of Lands within the County Palantine and a Prohibition was granted for the Dutchy Court is said there to have nothing to do but with the Kings Land and his Revenue Vid. Rolls accordingly Weston contra We cannot pretend to a Court of Equity by Prescription but we have Presidents of above Two hundred years last past as well of Bills retained which commenced Originally here as of those transmitted and that of Transmission is agreed on the other side which proves the Jurisdiction For if a Certiorari or Corpus cum causa should go out of the Kings-Bench Conusans of Pleas might be demanded and so to stop the Removing of the Cause out of the Inferiour Court We maintain our Jurisdiction upon the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. before which the County Palatine and Dutchy of Lancaster were distinct as they were 1 H. 4. by which Act they were both severed from the Possessions of the Crown But now 1 Ed. 4. makes one Body of these distinct Bodies and gives a superiority to the Dutchy over the County Palatine for that is annexed unto and made parcel of the Dutchy as the supream Name of Corporation The Words of the Act are That our Liege and Sovereign Lord King Edward the Fourth and his Heirs have as parcel of the Dutchy the County of Lancaster and County Palatine and there is a Chancellor and Seal appointed for the County Palatine and a Seal also for the Dutchy and a Chancellor there for the keeping thereof and Officers and Counsellors for the Guidance and Governance of the same Dutchy and of the particular Officers Ministers Tenants and Inhabitants thereof So that the Act having Constituted a Chancellor indefinitely over the Dutchy and not circumscribing his Power it is not reason to exempt any part of the Dutchy and that the County is by force of this Act. In the 4 Inst 119. it is said that seeing there hath been time out of mind a Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be also in the Exchequer a Court of Equity So the Book of the 2d of H. 8. and Rolls Tit. Prohibition to the
here to forbear to Sue generally but to stay a Suit against the Defendant whom he could not Sue To which it was answered That after a Verdict it shall be intended there was cause of Suit as Hob. 216. Bidwell and Cattons Case And Attorney brought an Assumpsit upon a Promise made to him in Consideration that he would stay the Prosecution of an Attachment of Priviledge and there held that it need not appear that there was cause of Suit for the Promise argues it and it will be presumed And here 't is a strong intendment that the Bond was made in Common Form which binds the Heirs But Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Court said it might be intended that there was cause of Action if the contrary did not appear which it doth in this Case for the Bond cannot be intended otherwise than the Plaintiff himself hath expressed it which shews only that the Ancestor was bound And whereas it was said by the Plaintiff's Counsel that this would attaint the Jury they finding Assumpsit upon a void Promise Hale said there was no colour for that conceit The Plaintiff having proved his Promise and Consideration as 't was laid in the Declaration which is the only thing within their charge upon Non Assumpsit modo forma Bulmer versus Charles Pawlet Lord Saint John IN an Ejectment upon a Tryal at Bar this question arose upon the Evidence Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail to J. S. joyn in a Fine J.S. dies without Issue whether the Conusee should hold the Land for the Life of the Tenant for Life Serjeant Ellis pressed to have it found Specialy tho' it is resolved in Bredons Case that the Estate of the Conusee shall have Continuance but he said it was a strange Estate that should be both a Determinable Fee and an Estate pur auter vie and he cited 3 Cro. 285. Major and Talbots Case where in Covenant the Plaintiff sets forth that a Feme Tenant for Life Remainder in Fee to her Husband made a Lease to the Defendant for years wherein the Defendant covenanted with the Lessors their Heirs and Assigns to repair and they conveyed the Reversion to the Plaintiff and for default of Reparations the Plaintiff brought his Action as Assignee to the Husband And resolved to be well brought because the Wives Estate passed as drowned in the Fee The Court said Bredons Case was full in the point but the Reason there given Hale said made against the Resolution for 't is said that the Remainder in Tail passes first which if it does the Freehold must go by way of Surrender and so down but they shall rather be construed to pass insimul uno flatu Hob. 277 In Englishes Case it was resolved it Tenant for Life Remainder in Tail to an Infant joyn in a Fine if the Infant after Reverse the Fine yet the Conusee shall hold it for the Life of the Conusor 1 Co. in Bredons Case and he resembled it to the Case in 1 Inst a Man seized in the right of his Wife and entituled to be Tenant by the curtesie joyns in a Feoffment with his Wife the Heir of his Wife shall not avoid this during the Husbands Life Nevertheless he told Ellis That he would never deny a Special Verdict at the request of a Learned Man but it appearing that he Plaintiff had a good Title after the Life should fall the Defendant bought it of him and the Jury were discharged Sacheverel versus Frogate PAs 23 Car. 2. Rot. 590. In Covenant the Plaintiff declared That Jacinth Sacheverel seized in Fee demised to the Defendant certain Land for years reserving 120 l Rent And therein was a Covenant that the Defendant should yearly and every year during the said Term pay unto the Lessor his Executors Administrators and Assigns the said Rent and sets forth how that the Lessor devised the Reversion to the Plaintiff an for 120 l Rent since his decease he brought the Action The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Indenture wherein the Reservation of the Rent was yearly during the Term to the Lessor his Executors Administrators and Assigns and after a Covenant prout the Plaintiff declared and to this the Defendant demurred It was twice argued at the Bar and was now set down for the Resolution of the Court which Hale delivered with the Reasons He said they were all of Opinion for the Plaintiff For what interest a Man hath he hath it in a double capacity either as a Chattel and so transmissible to the Executors and Administrators or as an Inheritance and so in capacity of transmitting it to his Heir Then if Tenant in Fee makes a Lease and reserves the Rent to him and his Executors the Rent cannot go to them for there is no Testamentary Estate On the other side if Lessee for a 100 years should make a Lease for 40 years reserving Rent to him and his Heirs that would be void to the Heir Now a Reservation is but a Return of somewhat back in Retribution of what passes and therefore must be carried over to the Party which should have succeeded in the Estate if no Lease had béen made and that has béen always held where the Reservation is general So tho' it doth not properly create a Fee yet 't is a descendible Estate because it comes in lieu of what would have descended therefore Constructions of Reservations have been ever according to the Reason and Equity of the thing If two Joynt-teants make a Lease and reserve the Rent to one of them this is a good to both unless the Lease be by Indenture because of the Estoppel which is not in our Case for the Executors are Strangers to the Deed. 'T is true if A. and B. joyn in a Lease of Land wherein A. hath nothing reserving the Rent to A. by Indenture this is good by Estoppel to A. But in the Earl of Clare's Case it was resolved That where he and his Wife made a Lease reserving a Rent to himself and his Wife and his Heirs that he might bring Debt for the Rent and declare as of a Lease made by himself alone and the Reservation to himself for being in the Case of a Feme Covert there could be no Estoppel altho' she signed and sealed the Lease There was an Indenture of Demise from two Joynt tenants reserving 20 l Rent to them both one only sealed and delivered the Deed and he brought Debt for the Rent and declared of a Demise of the Moiety and a Reservation of 10 l Rent to him And resolved that he might Between Bond and Cartwright which see before and in the Common Pleas Pas 40. Eliz. Tenant in Tail made a Lease reserving a Rent to him and his Heirs It was resolved a good Lease to bind the Entail for the Rent shall go to the Heir in Tail along with the Reversion tho' the Reservation were to the Heirs generally For the Law uses all industry imaginable to conform
against the rest which therefore was not affected by the Error The fourth was overruled for where the Party is present the Iudgment is always quod committitur as appeared by the Presidents Fifthly the Variances from the Statute were not held to be material for in Old writings 't is written Sea of Rome and declaring in Conscience and in my Conscience are the same The sixth Error was also disallowed for the words of the Statute are shall incur the danger and penalty of Praemunire mentioned in 16 R. 2. which doth not necessarily bind up to the Process Vid. 16 R. 2. 5. which makes this very clear but means that such Iudgment and Forfeiture shall be and it appearing that the Parties were present there was no need of any Process But as to the third Exception which was taken to the Venire they said they would be advised until the next Term and they told the Prisoners who were Quakers and had brought a Paper which they said contained their acknowledgment of the Kings Authority and Profession to submit to his Government and that they had no exception to the matter contained in the Oath but to the Circumstance only and that they durst not take an Oath in any Cause which they prayed might be read but it could not be permitted that their best course were to supplicate his Majesty in the mean time for his Gracious Pardon Radly and Delbow versus Eglesfield and Whital IN an Action sur 13 R. 2. cap. 5. 2. H. 4. cap. 11. for suing the Plaintiff in the Admiralty for a Ship called the Malmoise pretending she was taken piratice whereas the Plaintiff bought her infra corpus Com. It seems there was a Sentence of Adjudication of her to be lawful Prize in Scotland in April 1667. as having carried bellicos apparatus i.e. Contraband Goods in the late Dutch War and the Plaintiff bought her here under that Title The Libel was That the Ship belonged to the Defendants and about January 1665 was laden with Masts c. and had Letters of safe conduct from the Duke of York to protect her from Concussion c. and that certain Scottish Privateers did practise to take the said Ship and after the Defendants took her and being requested refused to deliver her and that ratione lucri cessantis damni emergentis they suffred so much loss c. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty to this Action and upon the Tryal would not examin any Witnesses but prayed the Opinion of the Court who said there was good Cause upon the Libel which now they must take to be true in the first instance for the Admiralty to proceed In 43 Eliz. it was resolved 1 Cro. 685. Yelv. 125. Sty 418. If Goods are taken by Pirates on the Sea tho' they are sold afterwards at Land yet the Admiralty had Conusans thereof for that which is incident to the original matter shall not take away the Iurisdiction and that is Law tho' there were another Resolution in Bingleys Case 1 Rolls 531 Hob. 78. 3 Jac. 7 Ed. 4. 14. and 22. Ed. 4. If Goods are taken by an Enemy and retaken by an Englishman the property is changed Otherwise if by Pirates And if in this Case the taking were not Piraticè it ought to have béen alledged on the other side Had the Sentence in Scotland béen pleaded in the Admiralty the Court would have given deference to it as if a Man had a Judgment in Communi Banco and should begin a Suit for the same in Banco Regis This might be made a good Plea to the Suit but not to the Iurisdiction for for ought appeared this might have been the first Prosecution and no Proceedings might have béen in Scotland This came to be tryed at the Nisi prius before Hales who was of the Opinion ut supra then But because it was a cause of weight he ordered it to be tryed at the Bar. And because 't was for his satisfaction and for a full Resolution the Jury was paid between the Parties Note A Proctour sworn a Witness said when this Cause was in the Admiralty there was a provisionate Decree as they call it or primum Decretum which is a Decree of the Possession of the Ship and upon that an Appeal to the Delegates but my Lord Keeper being informed that no Appeal to them lay upon it because it was but an interlocutory Decree upon hearing of Counsel he superseded the Commission When a Ship is so seized upon security given 't is the course of the Admiralty to suffer her to be hired out Watkins versus Edwards PAsch 22 Car. 2. Rot. 408. An Action of Covenant was brought by an Infant per Guardianum suum for that he being bound Apprentice to the Defendant by Indenture c. the Defendant did not keep 5 Eliz. c. 4. maintain educate and teach him to his Trade of a Draper as he ought but turned him away The Defendant pleads That he was a Citizen and Freeman of Bristol and that at the General Sessions of the Peace there there was an Order made that he should be discharged of the Plaintiff for his disorderly living and beating of his Master and Mistress and that this Order was Enrolled by the Clerk of the Peace as it ought to be c. To this the Plaintiff Demurrs The First question was Whether the Statute extends to all Apprentices or only such as are imposed upon their Master by the Justicies and compellable to serve And Hale and Moreton inclined That it did not extend to all Apprentices Twisden and Rainford contrary Secondly Whether they had power to discharge the Master of his Apprentice as they might è Converso Hale conceived they could not But cause the Servant to have due Correction in case the Master complained of him Twisden Rainsford and Moreton Contra. Hankworthy's Case For he may be so incorrigible that the Master cannot keep him without standing in continual fear and in Mich. 21 and Hill 2. 22 Regis nunc upon the removal of an Order of Sessions from York it was resolved That the Master might be eased of his Apprenetice by the Sessions upon just cause And Twisden said Shelton Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex informed him that such Orders are frequently made Thirdly The great question was whether the Defendant ought not to have applied himself to one Justice first as the Statute directs that he he might if he could have settled the business and if not then to go to the Sessions and not to go thither per saltum as upon the Statute of the 18 Eliz. cap. 3. The Sessions cannot make an Order for keeping of a Bastard but upon an Appeal from the two Justices which are first to make an Order Hale This case differs for the 18 Eliz. gives the first Men power to make an Order which shall bind the Parties until it is avoided by Appeal but this Statute of 5 Eliz. gives no Iurisdiction to
c. adjudged the paying the 10 l was a Condition precedent 5 or 15 H. 7. 10. is our Case in Point if the Plaintiff had alledged that he had offered to work and the Defendant had hindred him it had been good The want of the Averment is not helped by the Verdict for 32 H. 8. extends not to Declarations or Avowry's but only to Pleading if otherwise there had béen no need of 21 Jac. cap. 13. to cure the want of averring the Parties Life Twisden Contra. There is no need of the Averrment there being Reciprocal promises upon which the Parties have mutual remedies and relyed upon the case 1 Roll. 46. Rainsford agreed with Hale Et Ajornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 23 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Harwoods Case HE was committed to Newgate by the Court of Orphans and upon an Habeas Corpus it was returned That the City of London is an ancient City and that time out of mind the Mayor and Aldermen have had the custody of Orphans within the City until the Age of 21 or Marriage and that there hath been time out of mind a Court of Record called the Court of Orphans holden before them having Conusance of all matters concerning Orphans and that they had power to give Licence to Marry a Woman which was their Orphan or to deny it upon reasonable cause and if any one did Marry such Orphan without Licence first had from the said Court that they might impose a reasonable Fine upon him and if he should refuse to pay it or to give Security to commit him to Prison It was also returned That Harwood did Marry such an Orphan without Licence first obtained whereupon he being present in Court they fined him 40 l and he refusing to pay it or give Security was committed To this return First it was objected That this Custom shall not bind Strangers in 1 Cro. 689. Deanes Case who was imprisoned for refusing to find Sureties for the Good Behaviour which was demanded of him because he called an Alderman Fool. It was returned That if a Freeman commit such an Offence c. So in Andrews Case in Hutton 30. one was Imprisoned for not giving Security for the payment of a Legacy devised by his Testator to an Orphan he is returned to be a Freeman Secondly This Custom as returned is unreasonable for it would oblige Strangers at what distance soever from London who cannot take notice who are Orphans of the City yet they should incur a penalty by Marrying them without leave from the City and they have not returned that Harwood Married the Orphan within the City and therefore it must be intended that he did not and in all other Points most advantagiously for him in regard he cannot shew the truth of his Case by pleading to the Return In an Action upon the Statute of Labourers the Plaintiff declared That he retained a Servant at London and that the Defendant retained him within the Term he had contracted with him for The Defendant pleaded that he found him vagrant in another County and there retained him and held that it was a good plea for he was not bound to take notice of a retenier by the Plaintiff when it was in another County 17 E. 4. 7. b. The difference is taken between Customs general such as Gavelkind and private particular Customs the one everyone shall take notice of but not the other 3 Cro. Launder and Brooks Case The Court of Orphans is a particular Iurisdiction and not to be extended all over England and it appears by the Books that they may have a Ravishment of Ward F.N. B. 142 B. Hob. 95. which therefore seems to be their proper remedy rather than the course they have now taken Thirdly The Custom is unreasonable that they should impose the Fine who are to have it and so to be Iudges and Parties Fourthly It was alledged That the Fine was unreasonable which is not to be proportioned to the Portion the Orphan is to have which was shewn in the Return to be 800 l but to the crime for it doth not appear that the City is to have the value of the Marriage or any benefit by it and in this Case there was no disparagement for his quality deserved such a Portion and he had the consent of her Friends But notwithstanding these Exceptions to the Return it was resolved by all the Court that he should be remanded As to the 1 that it is not returned Harwood is a Freeman the Court resolved that it is not material for in many Cases Strangers are bound by the Customs of London as that of Foreign bought and Foreign sold was resolved to be a good Custom 15 Car. 2. between Hutchins and Players in Communi Banco 2. Tho' it appears the Marriage was in a Foreign County and not shewn that he had Notice it is all one for if that might be an excuse the Government of Orphans by the City of London would be utterly insignificant for it would be only to seduce the Orphan out of the Liberties of the City and whatever practice there were to disparage her in a Marriage it would be dispunishable by them and Notice in this case is impossible to be given but most easie to be taken for what more proper than for a Man to inform himself of the Condition of her whom he intends to make his Wife and if Notice were requisite it must be given to all the Men in England capeable of Marriage and in what manner should that be by fixing it like a Proclamation to some notorious place in the County Yet it would be then hard to maintain that a Man was bound to take notice of such a thing the Statute of this King that takes away the Court of Wards saves and confirms the Iurisdiction of the Court of Orphans in London which being in a general Law is within every mans Notice for the Case of taking away a Mans Servant in a Foreign County to that he was retained in is not like to this for it he be detained after demand made he which first retained him may have an Action and so is at no loss but here there is no remedy by undoing the Marriage and therefore 't is fit the rashness of it should be punished This Custom concerning Orphans is not confined to the Walls of London in many particulars All the Children of a Freeman tho' he dies and they were born out of London shall yet be Orphans If a Legacy be bequeathed to a City Orphan in any Foreign County the Executor c. shall be compelled to give Security to the Court of Orphans for the payment of it Et vid. Luch's Case in Hob. 247. The interest of the City adheres to the person of the Orphan where ever he is as a Citizen of London shall have his personal Priviledges in all places as exemption from Toll Prisage Quaere the last per Hale And as well as they may have a Ravishment
de gard in what County soever the Orphan was taken so they may punish an unlicensed Marriage Wallers Case 22 Jac. was the same with this which was resolved for the City It appears by the Return that Harwood was present in Court and Hale said they could not award Process into a Foreign County 3. It doth not appear by the Return that the Mayor and Aldermen are to have the Fine and then it shall not be so intended But in Eastwick and Langhams Case which Langham was fined for refusing the Office of a Sheriff being a Freeman it was held they might set the Fine tho' they were to have it themselves 4. It was held the Fine was not excessive But in regard there was no disparagement by the Marriage it was propounded by the Court that upon the submission of Harwood to the Court of Orphans that they should do well to remit the Fine St. Aubin versus Cox A Prohibition was prayed to the Court of the Compter in Woodstreet London to an Action of Debt there commenced for that the Defendant had pleaded before any Imparlance taken that the Cause of Action did arise at a place out of their Jurisdiction and offered to have Sworn his Plea and they refused to accept this Plea Vpon this Matter a Prohibition was granted for Inferiour Courts have not Cognizance of Transitory things which arise in places out of their Jurisdiction as F. N. B. 45. is But then 't is not sufficient to surmize such Matter for a Prohibition but a Plea to that effect must be tendred in the Inferiour Court and that before any Imparlance taken whereby the Jurisdiction would be admitted and it must be upon Oath and then if refused a Prohibition shall be granted or upon such Refusal a Bill of Exceptions may be made and Error assigned Fitz. N.B. 21. N. The King versus Serjeant and Annis THey were Indicted of Perjury committed in their Evidence given upon an Indictment of Barretry against Nurse the Record of which was recited in this Indictment and therein it appeared that the Venire was made Returnable coram J. S. J. N. Justiciariis praedictis and at a day certain and Judgment given and Error brought and assigned that the Venire being Returnable coram Justiciariis praedictis none but the same Justices could proceed and not those who late the next Assizes by virtue of a New Commission And therefore the Proceedings before them were coram non Judice and so no Perjury could be committed Secondly The Venire should not have been Returnable at a Day certain but ad proximas Assisas because 't is uncertain when the Assizes begin and if they should fall out to begin upon the very Day yet it would not help the Error in the first award of the Venire Sed non allocatur For the Statute of 1 2 E. 6. enables New Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer to proceed where the former left before whom the Matter commenced And for the other Exception it makes the Proceedings only Erronious and while the Record stands unreversed the Perjury may be well assigned It was said at the same Assizes that the Judges may Adjourn to a Day certain but if there be a Continuance over to the next Assizes there must be no day expressed But Inferiour Courts cannot make a Continuance ad proximam Curiam but always to a Day certain Stanlack's Case UPon an Inquisition super visum Corporis before the Coroner it was found that he died of a Meagrim at Greenwich Sir Edward Thurland moved for a Melius Inquirendum producing several Affidavits That Stanlack was Riding in the High-way and a Coach with six Horses rushing by him cast him from his Horse and killed him and that divers offered to prove this before the Coroner and he would not hear them And if this Enquest should stand the King would lose his Deodand and alledged that there were several Presidents of this Nature as in one Michael Bartholomew's Case and Toom's Case who Hanged himself at Hackney about 15 years since The Court said in those Cases it was proved that there was Practice with the Coroner to suppress the King's Evidence and so the Inquisition was set aside upon a Malê se gessit If a Coroner omits to enquire this Court as Supream Coroner throughout England may Enquire or may make Commissioners to Enquire or Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer may Enquire but then it is not Super visum corporis and therefore may be Traversed But Hale said Where a Coroner hath Enquired no Melius Inquirendum can go as upon an Office found after the Death of the King's Tenant For unless they could take some Exception to the Inquisition to quash it the Coroner could not Enquire again but if the Misdemeanour of the Coroner were somewhat more clearly made out the Court said they would set the Inquisition aside and cause a New one to be made Maynard's Case HE being produced as a Witness in an Action of Trover against Reynell Corey and others for 12000 l which the Defendants were charged to have conveyed away which was the Money of Mr. Luttrell lately deceased and belonged to Mrs. Luttrell now Plaintiff as Executrix He Swore that the Defendants had the Money and carried it out of the House wherein Mr. Luttrell died and upon his Evidence principally the Jury found the Defendants Guilty Now the last Easter Term which was about a year and an half since the Trial Maynard made an Affidavit in the Kings-Bench that Mrs. Luttrell had Arrested him amongst the rest for the Taking away of this Money and he being unable to put in Bail and apprehensive of the Ruin that lying in Prison would bring upon him he applied himself to Mrs. Luttrell who promised him Favour so that he would accuse Reynell and the other Defendants with the taking of the Money and be a Witness against them and that he was Examined before a Justice of the Peace one A. who did much urge him to depose against Reynell in this Matter And that by their Threats and Promises he was brought to give False Evidence and that what he said in his Testimony relating to the Defendants taking away the Money was untrue After this Affidavit made he was Indicted of Perjury in what he Witnessed in the Action of Trover and confessed the Indictment Mrs. Luttrell thinking this matter might disparage her Verdict brought an Information against him of Perjury committed in his Affidavit to which he pleaded Not Guilty but before the Trial made an Escape so that at the Day the Enquest was taken by Default The Court were at first in doubt whether they should proceed upon the Information the King having taken his Confession upon the first it seemed contradictory and repugnant to prosecute him upon this But in regard the Affidavit charged Mrs. Luttrell and others with having suborned him to perâ—ure himself he might be tryed upon that as another distinct Perjury if so be they should be
clear of having practiced with him And upon the tryal of this Information it did appear that he had charged them falsly and so found Guilty Another Matter was moved That the Indictment alledged the Perjury to be committed in Middlesex whereas it appeared by the Affidavit produced that it was taken at Justice Twisden's Chamber in the Inner Temple wherefore it ought to have been tryed in London where the Oath was taken and tho' the Affidavit were Filed in Court that would not help it But the Court agreed if it had been in an Indictment it had been a good Objection for there the Offence is local but otherwise they said it had been held in an Information And Twisden said That if a Recognizance were taken at a Judges Chamber in London and after Filed in Court the Scire facias upon it shall go first into Middlesex However the Court offered to have this Matter found Specially but there being no Counsel for Maynard and this Matter stirred only per amicum Curiae it went off Austin's Case IN an Indictment for Erecting of Posts and Rails in an High-way it was held necessary to prove that the party Indicted did set them up for a Continuation of them for not suffering them to be removed would not serve Hale If there be no Special Matter to fix it upon others the Parish where the High-way is ought to Repair it of Common Right Sed Quaere Why not the County as in the Case of Common Bridges 2 Inst 701. Vide postea Butcher versus Cowper IN an Indebitat ' Assumpsit the Defendant pleads in Abatement that the Promise was for carrying the Goods of the Defendant to a certain place and if there were any such Contract it was made with the Plaintiff and a Stranger Vpon which it was Demurred because to plead If there were any such Contract is not good and more like an Affidavit to change a Venue than Pleading and he ought to have averred that the Stranger was alive Besides the Defendant had taken an Imparlance and therefore could not plead in Abatement Wherefore it was Adjudged for the Plaintiff Smith versus Butterfield IN Trespass Quare clausum fregit bona asportavit the Defendant pleaded Not guilty to the breaking of the Close and Iustifies the taking of the Goods at a time varying from that alledged in the Declaration and concludes Quae est eadem transgressio upon which it was Demurred because he did not traverse the Time before and after and it was Adjudged for the Plaintiff Toll versus Dawson IN Debt upon a Bond Conditioned to perform an Award The Defendant pleaded Nullum fecerunt arbitrium The Plaintiff Replies and sets forth the Award which did express the Bond of Submission to be Dated the 7th of February whereas it was dated the 10th of February and for that Misrecital the Defendant Demurred But the Court held clearly that it did not hurt the Award and so if the Submission had been of divers particular matters yet if they had medled only with the things submitted it had been well enough Proctor versus Newton IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Condition which was to perform Covenants in an Indenture which recited that the Defendant had sold to the Plaintiff a certain House and there was a Covenant that the Plaintiff pacifice gauderet domum praedict ' absque legali interruptione disturbantia sive impedimento of the Defendant or any claiming from or under him Vpon this Covenant the Plaintiff assigned the Breach thus That J.S. habens jus titulum virtute concessionis from J. N. ante tempus confectionis of the Bargain and Sale to him did enter and expel him Vpon which it was Demurred because not shewn that J.S. had a lawful Title and therefore not well applied to the Condition which is so expresly penned 2 Cro. 315. Hale Habens jus implies it was a lawful Eviction Twisden doubted because it may be J. N. Dissessed the Defendant before the Bargain and Sale and made a Lease to J. S. Et Adjornatur Freeman versus Boddington ERror of a Judgment in an Assumpsit against Baron and Feme Hill 21 22. Rot. 126. in Com. Banco The Error assigned was That the Feme was an Infant and appeared by Attorney whereas the Court ought to have admitted her per Guardianum But if the Wife be of Age then the Baron makes an Attorney for her and himself and the Entry is per Attornatum of the Baron and Feme and not the Baron only And for this Cause the Judgment was Reversed And Hale said that the Baron could not disavow the Guardian made by the Court for his Feme Lewyn versus Forth THe Case was Magdalen Colledge in Oxford being seised of an House and a Mill demised it to Lewyn for 31 years Covenant Lewyn Let the Mill to J.S. for five years and after demised the House and Mill to Forth by Indenture for 31 years Forth Covenanted to Repair the Premisses durante termino praedict ' 31 annorum J. S. refused to attorn and whether Forth were bound to Repair the Mill was the Question because it was alledged that the Covenant was to Repair during the Term and nothing in the Mill passed during the five years for want of Attornment But it was Resolved that he was bound to Repair For Hale said Tho' the Lease did not commence in point of Interest yet it did in point of Computation and this Covenant was to Repair during the 31 years Zouch versus Clay TRin. ult Rot. 787. In Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded Mo. 619. That at the time that he sealed and delivered the Bond there was a Space left wherein afterwards the Name of J.S. was put in who also sealed and delivered it supposing that the adding another Obligor bound joyntly and severally with him 1 Cro. 627. was an Alteration material to avoid the Bond Mo. 547. and relyed upon Pigot's Case in the 11 Co. But the Court held that the Bond remained the same as to him and he could not take advantage of this matter and 't is the common practice of Sheriffs to make their Bonds for Appearance in this manner Sands versus Rudd IN Debt upon a Bond Conditioned to give Security by a certain Day as the Chamberlain of London shall approve The Defendant pleaded that there was no Chamberlain of London at the Day Vpon which it was Demurred and Adjudged for the Defendant Parsons versus Perus HIll ult Rot. 1051. In an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case appeared to be thus Two Women were Joynt-tenants in Fee one of them made a Charter of Feoffment to J. S. and Livery within the View and after before it was Executed married him And it was Objected that this was not a good Feoffment None will deny but that the Death of either party makes a Livery within View if not executed by Entry ineffectual And in Mo. 85. Dyer 5. If
of Kin was upon the Presumption That the Intestate intended to prefer him But now the Presumption is here taken away the Residuum being disposed of to another and to what purpose should the next of Kin have it when no benefit can accrue to him by it and 't is reasonable that he should have the management of the Estate who is to have what remains of it after the Debts and Legacies paid And the Averment That there is no Residuum is not material for being once out of the Statute upon Construction of the Words of the Will there is nothing ex post facto can bring it within it And there are certain Administrations which have been always Ruled to be out of the Statute as Administrations during Minority pendente lite which need not be granted to the next of Kin and granting it to the Husband comes not within the Words of the Statute But because in this case Administration had been granted so long before the Residuary Legatee came in and the Administrators by Decrees in Chancery had got in great part of the Estate and still there were Suits depending there for obtaining of the rest which were near their Effect which would be abated and set aside if the Administration were now Repealed The Court proposed an Accommodation as most useful to either of the Parties and advantagious to the Estate which was accepted The Civilians said That a Legatee that had got Administration tho' it were after Repealed upon a Citation should yet retain for his Legacy Otherwise upon an Appeal for there the Administration is avoided ab initio Vid. Blackman's Case 6 Co. Bedniff Ux ' versus Pople Ux ' A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit for Defamation in the Ecclesiastical Court for Words spoken to the Servant of the Plaintiff viz. Go tell thy Mistress Whore she is a Whore and I will prove it It was said they were common Words of Brabling and not importing any such Slander for which Suit could be there 3 Cro. 393. Dimmock versus Fawcet 3 Cro. 456. Pewe and his Wife versus Jeffryes Hale These cannot be said to be Words of Heat as if spoken when the Parties are Scolding together but were uttered deliberately in the Parties absence to her Servant Formerly they would Prohibit unless the Words implied some Act to have been done Vid. Eaton versus Ayloff 3 Cro. 110. But 't is Reason the Suit should proceed in this Case seeing it is for matter of Slander which is punished by publick Pennance Therefore Suit lies in London for calling Whore because by the Custom there Whores are to be Carted Wherefore the Court denied a Prohibition Road versus Wilmott IN False Imprisonment the Defendant Iustified by a Capias directed to him upon a Suit commenced against the Plaintiff in an Inferiour Court. To which the Plaintiff Demurred because it was not shewn that a Summons was issued first and Inferiour Courts can Award no Capias but upon a Summons first Returned To which it was Answered That this being admitted yet it is but an Erroneous Process in the Execution of which the Officer is excused who is not to be punished when the Court proceeds inverso ordine Hale said It was a great Abuse in those Courts their ordinary Practice being to grant a Capias without any Summons so that the Party is driven to Bail in every trivial Action and that tho' upon a Writ of Error this Matter is not assignable because a Fault in the Process is aided by Appearance c. yet False Imprisonment lies upon it and the Officer cannot Iustifie here as upon Process out of the Courts of Westminster For suppose an Attachment should go out of the County Court without a Plaint could he that executes it Iustifie Yet a Sheriff may Iustifie an Arrest upon a Capias out of the Common Pleas 10 Co. 76. 3 Cro. 446. tho' there were no Original But Ministers to the Courts below must see that things be duly done Wherefore the Plaintiff must have Judgment Monk's Case A Debt was recovered against him in this Court and the Money levied by the Sheriff which he did not deliver but was ordered to bring it into Court until a difference that arose about it was determined Monk being indebted to the King a Writ was issued out to enquire what Goods and Chattels he had The Kings Attorney moved that they might have leave to find this Money the Court conceived that the Money being but as a Depositum there they might find it and that the Court did not protect it from the Inquisition as when Goods are under an Attachment they cannot be distrained but they would not make any direction for the finding of it Blackamore versus Mercer IN Judgment against an Executor a Fieri facias issued out to the Sheriff with a Scire fieri inquiry and a Devastavit was found according to the common course the return whereof was quod diversa bona quae fuerunt restatoris c. habuit quae elongavit in usum suum proprium convertit It was objected against this Return That it was not said Devastavit for in some Cases an Executor may justly convert the Goods to his own use Hale said antiently when the Sheriff returned a Devastavit which was not found by any Inquisition and to which there was no answer it was necessary to insert the word Devastavit But otherwise in a return upon this Special Writ for if the case be that he hath not wasted the Goods but only eloigned then so as the Sheriff cannot come at them the Executor is chargeable upon this Writ de bonis propriis and this Return answers the Writ Perrot versus Bridges IN Trespass quare clausum fregit and threw down his Fences The Defendant pleaded Not guilty to all but the breaking of the Fences and for that he justifies for that he was possessed of certain Corn in the place where as of his proper Goods and made a breach in the Fence as was necessary for the carrying of it away The Plaintiff Demurrs Specially because he did not shew by what Title he was possessed of the Corn. And the Court were of Opinion that for that cause the Plea was insufficient for if a Man enters upon anothers Land and sows it 't is his Corn while he that hath right re-enters so if Tenant at Will sows the Ground and then determins his own Will he cannot break the Hedges to carry the Corn away And Twisden said if the Sheriff sells Corn growing by a Fieri facias the Vendee cannot justifie an entry upon the Land to Reap it until such time as the Corn is Ripe Anonymus IF an Administrator brings an Action the declaring hic in Curia prolat ' of the Letters of Administration is but matter of Form tho' it hath béen held otherwise For Hale said 't is not part of the Declaration as a Specialty is upon which Debt Covenant c. is brought but
only shewn upon the Declaration to enable the Plaintiff to bring his Action Note This is aided by a late Act of Parliament Jay versus Bond. IN Trespass the Defendant pleads that Ante Quinden ' Sancti Martini usque ad hunc diem praed ' Jay Excommunicatus fuit adhuc existit protulit hic in Cur ' literas Testamentarias Episcopi Sarum quae notum faciunt universis quod scrutatis Registeriis invenitur contineri quod Excommunicat ' fuit c. pro contumacia in non comparendo to a Suit for Tythes c. in cujus rei Testimonium praed ' Episcopus Sigillum apposuit It was objected that such a kind of Certificate of Excommunication as this is was not allowable for it ought to be positive and under the Seal of the Ordinary whereas this is only a relation of what is found in their Register Sed non allocatur for tho' such a form of pleading would be altogether insufficient in our Law yet their course is sometimes to certifie Excommunication sub sigillo Ordinarij and sometimes per literas Testamentarias as here Hale said to plead Letters Patents without saying sub magno sigillo is naught and that because the King has divers Seals Note The entry was here quod Defendens venit dicit c. Hale doubted whether he ought not to have made some kind of defence tho' no full defence is to be made when Excommengment in the Plaintiff is pleaded Owen versus Lewyn THe Plaintiff declared in Action upon the Case upon the Custom of the Realm against a Common Carrier and also sur Trover and Conversion Hale said so he might for Not guilty answers both but if a Carrier loseth Goods committed to him a General Action of Trover doth not lye against him Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davenant against the Bishop of Salisbury IN Covenant The Plaintiff declared that the Bishop of Salisbury the Defendants Predecessor being seized in Fee demised unto him certain Lands for 21 years reserving the antient Rent c. and Covenanted for him and his Successors to discharge all publick Taxes assessed upon the Land and that since the Defendant was made Bishop a certain Tax was assessed upon the Land by vertue of an Act of Parliament and that the Plaintiff was forced to pay it the Defendant refusing to discharge it unde Actio accrevit c. The Defendant demurred first to the form for that 't is said that the Predecessor Bishop was seized and doth not say in jure Episcopatus But Hale said the Old Books were that where it was pleaded that J. S. Episcopus was seized that it implies seizin in the right of the Bishoprick which is true if he were a Corporation capable only in his politick capacity or as an Abbot c. but in regard he might also be seized in his natural capacity the Declaration was for this Cause held to be ill The matter in Law was whether this were such a Covenant as should bind the Successor as incident to a Lease which the Bishop is empowred to make by the 32 H. 8. For 't is clear if a Bishop had made a Covenant or Warranty this had not bound the Successor at the Common Law without the consent of the Dean and Chapter and if it should be now taken that every Covenant would bind the Successor then the Statute of 1 Eliz. would be of no effect But Hale said admitting this were an antient Covenant and if so it should have been averred to have been used in former Leases to discharge ordinary payments as Pentions or Tenths granted by the Clergy then it might bind the Successor by the 32 H. 8. But it were hard to extend it to new charges And we all know how lately this way of Taxes came in But the Court said that the Declaration being insufficent for the other matter they would not determine this But they held that however this Covenant should prove it would not avoid the Lease Vid. Gee Bishop of Chicester and Freedlands Case 3 Cro. 47. Note Hale said that antiently when the Sheriff returned a Rescous upon a Man he was admitted to plead to it as to an Indictment But the course of the Court of latter times has been not to admit any Plea to it but to drive the party to his Action upon the Case as upon the return of a Devastavit c. Cole versus Levingston IN Ejectment upon a long and intricate Special Verdict the Chief Justice said never was the like in Westminster Hall these following Points were resolved by the Court and declared by Hale as the Opinion of himself and the rest of the Judges First That where one Covenants to stand seized to the use of A. and B. and the Heirs of their Bodies of part of his Land and if they die without Issue of their Bodies then that it shall remain c. and of another part of his Land to the use of C.D. and E. and the Heirs of their Bodies and if they die without Issue of their Bodies then to remain c. that here there are no cross Remainders created by Implication for there shall never be such Remainders upon construction of a Deed tho' sometimes there are in case of a Will 1 Rolls 837. Secondly As this Case is there would be no cross Remainders if it were in a Will for cross Remainders shall not rise between three unless the words do very plainly express the intent of the Devisor to be so as where black Acre is devised to A. white Acre to B. and green Acre to C. and if they die without Issue of their Bodies vel alterius eor ' then to remain there by reason of the words alterius eor ' cross Remainders shall be Dier 303. But otherwise there would not Gilbert v. Witty and others 2 Cro. 655. And in this case tho' some of the Limitations are between two there shall be no cross Remainders in them because there are others between three and the intent shall be taken to the same in all The Dean and Chapter of Durham against the Lord Archbishop of York IN a Prohibition the Archbishop pleaded a Prescription that he and his Predecessors have time out of mind been Guardians of the Spiritualties of the Bishoprick of Durham Sede vacante and Issue joyned thereupon and tried at the Bar this Term. Hale said De jure communi the Dean and Chapter were Guardians of the Spiritualties during the vacancy as to matters of Jurisdiction but for Ordination they are to call in the aid of a Neighbouring Bishop and so is Linwood But the Usage here in England is that the Archbishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties in the Suffragan Diocess and therefore it was proper here to joyn the Issue upon the Usage There was much Evidence given that antiently during the vacancy of Durham the Archbishop had exercised Jurisdiction both Sententious and other as Guardian of the Spiritualties
to Bernard to make his Wife a Joynture it shews that it was intended he should have but an Estate for Life which needed such a Power and not an Estate Tail for then he might have made a Joynture without it I Answer That Tenant in Tail cannot by virtue of such Estate make a Joynture without discontinuing or destroying his Estate Sed Judicium pro Quer ' There being Justice Twisden and Justice Rainsford against the Chief Justice Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 24 25 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court for that they Cited one out of the Diocess to Answer a Suit for a Legacy But it was denied because it was in the Court where the Probat of the Will was For tho' it were before Commissioners appointed for the Probat of Wills in the late Times yet now all their Proceedings in such cases are transmitted into the Prerogative Court And therefore Suits for the Legacies contained in such Wills ought to be in the Archbishop's Court for there the Executor must give account and be discharged c. Note When a man is in custodia Marescalli any man may Declare against him in a Personal Action and if he be bailed out he is still in custodia to this purpose viz. quoad Declarations brought in against him that Term For the Bail are as it were Delegated by the Court to have him in Prison Hob. Error is not well assigned That there was no Bail filed unless added That the Defendant was not in custodia Debt IN an Action of Debt upon a Sheriffs Bond the Case was this A man was Arrested upon a Latitat in placito Transgr ' ac etiam bille pro 40 l de debito And the Condition of the Bond given to the Sheriff was to appear at the Day of the Return of the Writ to answer to the Plaint in plito debito And it was urged that this made the Bond void by the Statute of 23 H. 6. for the Condition should have been to Appear at the Day to Answer in the Action upon which the Process went out and that was in this Case but an Action of Trespass and the adding the Ac etiam debiti c. is but to satisfie the late Act and for Direction to the Sheriff to what Value he shall require Bail And it was usual to Endorse the Cause of Action before the Statute upon the Latitats that the Sheriff might insist upon Bail accordingly So this is a material Variance from the Statute and not like some of these which are remembred in Beaufage's Case in the 10 Co. and Dyer 364. And to this the Court inclined And Hale Cited a Case between Button and Low adjudged Mich. 1649. An Attachment went out of Chancery to answer Coram nobis in Cancellaria ubicunque c. and the Sheriff took a Bond Conditioned to Appear Coram Rege in Cancellaria ubicunque c. apud Westmonasterium And for the addition of Westminster the Bond was held to be void Anonymus THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the Archbishop's Court to stop their Proceedings in a Cause belonging to the Jurisdiction of Durham upon a Suggestion that the Dean and Chapter of Durham Sede vacante have Cognizance there as Guardians of the Spiritualties And the Court granted a Prohibition for the Right of Jurisdiction was tryed between the Archbishop and Dean and Chapter the last Term and found against the Archbishop and therefore he was concluded by the Verdict until the Record was reversed by Error or Attaint Thodie's Case THody and two others were Indicted for that Conspiratione inter eos habita they enticed J. S. to play and cheated him with False Dice Thody pleaded and was found Guilty the others not having pleaded It was moved that Judgment might not be Entred against him until the others came in for being laid by way of Conspiracy if the rest should chance to be acquitted no Judgment could be given against him And so is 14 H. 6. 25. Hale said If one be Acquitted in an Action of Conspiracy the other cannot be Guilty But where one is found Guilty and the other comes not in upon Process or if he dies hanging the Suit yet Judgment shall be upon the Verdict against the other And so is 18 E. 3. 1. and 24 E. 3. 34. Wild said The difference was where the Suit was upon Conspiracy wherein the Villanous Judgment was to be given and where the Conspiracy is laid only by way of Aggravation as in this Case Hale said It would be the same in an Action against two upon the Case for Conspiracy but not in such Actions where tho' there be a Charge of Conspiracy yet the Gift of the Action is upon another matter But the Court said They would give him two or three days for the bringing in of the other two and defer the Entry of the Judgment in the mean time Methyn versus the Hundred of Thistleworth THe Case was moved again by North Solicitor He urgrd for the Plaintiff That the Issue being Whether they took the Felon upon Fresh Suit It being not found that there was any actual Taking or that the Fresh Suit continued until Sir J. Ash found the Felon in the presence of Sir P. Warwick Also it was found that Sir J. Ash was a Justice of Peace and therefore it was his duty to Apprehend him To this it was Answered That the Statute of Winton upon which the Action is founded and not upon the 27 of Eliz. and therefore it is ill if it concludes contra formam Statutorum doth not say shall Take but shall Answer the Bodies of the Offenders which is Answer them to Justice And therefore if the Felon be taken upon another account and the Country finding him in Prison cause him to be Indicted this satisfies the Statute Goldsb 55. Again it was more decent for Sir John Ash being concerned as an Inhabitant of the Hundred to leave this Matter to the other Justice of the Peace for it has been known that Justices of the Peace have been Censured in the Star-Chamber for being too forward to interpose in their own business But if it were an omission of the Duty of his Office that could not be Objected to him as an Inhabitant having done enough to satisfie the Statute of Winton Wild said That the Defendant should have Demurred because the Issue is ill joyned viz. absque hoc that he took him super eadem recenti insecutione For if he were not immediately taken upon Fresh pursuit it were sufficient but the Verdict finding Fresh Suit was made it may be taken by Intendment which shall help out a Special Verdict that it was directed this way and continued until the finding of him in the presence of Sir P. Warwicke Et sic Judicium pro Def. Ante. Dacres versus Duncomb IN Trover after Imparlance the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff with two others brought Trover for the
a Hoyman Common Carrier or Inholder 'T is objected That the Master is but a Servant to the Owners Answer The Law takes notice of him as no more than a Servant 'T is known that he may impawn the Ship if occasion be and sell bona peritura 2 Cro. 330. Hob. 11. He is rather an Officer than a Servant In an Escape the Gaoler may be charged tho' the Sheriff is also liable for respondeat superior But the Turnkey cannot be sued for he is but a meer Servant By the Civil Law the Master or Owner is chargeable at the Election of the Merchant 'T is further objected That he receives Wages from the Owners Answer In effect the Merchant pays him for he pays the Owners fraight so that 't is but handed over by them to the Master if the Fraight be lost the Wages are lost too for the rule is Fraight is the mother of Wages Therefore tho' the Declaration is that the Master received Wages of the Merchant and the verdict is That the Owners pay it 't is no material variance Objection 'T is found that there were the usual number of Men to guard the Ship Answer True for the Ship but not with reference to the Goods for the number ought to be more or less as the Port is dangerous and the Goods of value 33 H. 6. 1. If Rebels break a Gaol so that the Prisoners escape the Gaoler is liable but it is otherwise of Enemies so the Master is not chargable where the Ship is spoiled by Pirates And if a Carrier be robbed by an Hundred men he is never the more excused Ante. Cox versus Mathews THe Case was moved again And Hale said that if a Man Builds a House upon his own ground he that hath the Contiguous ground may Build upon it also tho' he doth thereby stop the Lights of the other House for cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum Poph. 170. and this holds unless there be Custom to the contrary as in London But in an Action for stopping of his Light a Man need not declare of an antient House for if a Man should Build an House up-his own ground and then grant the House to A. and grants certain Lands adjoyning to B.B. could not Build to the stopping of A's Lights in that Case 1 Cro. Sands and Trefuses 415. But the Case at Bar is without question for he declares That the Defendant fixed Boards to the Windows of the Plaintiff's House Anonymus UPon a motion to set aside an Inquisition taken before the Coroner super visum corporis certified into this Court that J.S. killed himself and was Non compos mentis Hale said such an Inquisition that finds a Man Felo de se is Traversable but no Traverse can be taken to make a Man Felo de se but fugam fecit is never Traversable Clue versus Baily IN Replevin the Defendant made Conusans as Bailiff to J. S. who demised the place where under certain Rent c. The Plaintiff Traverses the Demise and concluded hoc paratus est verificare To which the Defendant demurred generally And the Court were in doubt whether this ill conclusion of the Plea were not helped upon a general Demurrer Hale It were well the Causes of Demurrer were always assigned Specially and not to say only incertum dubium caret forma c. The old way was when Pleadings were drawn at the Bar to make the exception immediately and the other Party might mend if he pleased or might Demurr if he durst venture it And tho' now they are put in Paper yet such a Course should be observed for Demurrers were not designed to catch Men This not concluding to the Country seems to be but matter of Form and the Demurrer should have been quia non bene concludit Here the Defendant pleads that J. S. demised the Land for Life and without expressing the place of the Demise because of necessity it must be upon the Land Blake versus .... ERror of a Judgment in Replevin in the Mannor Court of Hexam in Northumberland where the Defendant avowed for Damage fesant The Plaintiff replied that J. S. was seized of the Mannor of Tallowfield in D. and that time out of mind he had Common c. in the place where and shewed himself to be Tenant and justified the putting in of his Beasts for Common and the Prescription being traversed it was found for the Avowant The Errors assigned were First In the Venire which was quia nec the Plaintiff nec Defendant aliqua affinitate attingunt instead of qui nec Hale said it was aided by the Statute of 8 H. 6. that helps Error in Process But Twisden said that Statute did not extend to inferiour Courts Another Error insisted on was that the Avowant did not shew that the Mannor of Tallowfield was infra Jurisdictionem Curiae But the Venire was extra vill ' Manerium de Tallowfield infra Jurisdictionem Curiae But the Court held that that was not sufficient to intimate that it was within the Jurisdiction but must have been shewn in pleading And Hale said seeing the Plaintiff had omitted to do it the Avowant might in his Rejoynder have alledged Tallowfield to have béen within the Jurisdiction as where one pleads a Plea without a place the other is not bound to Demurr but for his expedition may shew the place in his Replication Then VVild said this seems to be aided by the Statute of 21 Jac. which Enacteth That if the Jury comes out of any one of the places it sufficeth and here the Jury came as well out of the Vill where the Beasts were taken shewn to be within the Jurisdiction as the Mannor of Tallowfield Hale That will not serve in this Case for the Court could not Award a Venire to a place out of the Jurisdiction nor Jurors could not be returned out of such a place to try a Cause there Another Error assigned was that the Award of the Venire was praeceptum est per seneschallum and not said in eadem Curia To which it was answered That being on the same day upon which the Court was said to be held it must be intended so VVild held the Judgment ought to be reversed for the last Cause Twisden Principally for the first for he held that the Statute of the 8 H. 6. Aided not Process in inferiour Courts therefore where in the Award of the Venire it has been per quos rei veritas melius Scire poterit instead of Sciri the Judgment has been reversed Hale said that it ought to be Sciri for so it is in the Register and in the Statute of Eliz. that sets the Estate of Jurors at 4 l per ann But for the second Error he held that the Judgment ought to be reversed Whaley versus Tancred TRin. 23 Car. 2. Rot. 1513. In an Ejectment the Case was this Lessee for years makes a Feoffment and levies a Fine
Specie when the Estate is determined The Case of Captain C. A Captain of a Company in Colonel Russel's Regiment of Foot Gaurds and a Serjeant of his Company were brought into Court upon the Prosecution of the Sheriffs and other Citizens of London and the Offence alledged and moved against them was this That one Danbert a Butcher and Freeman of London who had Broke having Listed himself a Souldier in this Company and being afterwards Arrested in London for Debt and laid in the Counter and thereof he having given the Captain private Notice the following Design was resolved and executed for his Rescue viz. There being a Priviledge belonging to the Freeman of London that they may by a Customary Precept or Warrant called a Duci facias but by the Common People called a Horse remove themselves from any other Prison where they are in London to Ludgate where it seems they have better Accommodation there being Maintenance allowed to the Prisoners of that place Such an one Danbert got and gave Notice to the Captain at what time he should be carried from the Counter to Ludgate thereby Before this time the Captain commanded this Serjeant to take twenty or thirty Soldiers with him and Way-lay the Prisoner and Rescue him from the Bayliffs and Officers of the Counter as they were bringing him along Accordingly the Serjeant and Soldiers went and lay in or near an Alehouse about Popes-head Alley in Ambuscade till the Prisoner should be brought by And when they had Notice from one who they had placed as Centinel that he was coming they sallied out and drew their Swords for the Serjeant had given them order so to do and if any opposition were made they should kill the first Man And by this means they Rescued him and carried him away Hereupon Complaint being made to the Captain He Answered That his Soldiers had done well and he would Justifie it The Court asked him what he had to say in his Iustification He said That he did not know the Law but he ever thought that a Soldier could not be Arrested without leave of his Officer and that there was an Agreement to that purpose between the late Lord General and the former Lord Chief Justice and that he knew one that had done the like thing and nothing was said to him for it Hale Chief Justice to whom the rest agreed said The more wrong has been done It seems you are grown very Dead-strong but you ought to know that every Officer and Soldier is as liable to be Arrested as a Tradesman or any other person whatsoever and you ought to give full Obedience to the King's Commands signified by his Writs or Process Wild said That that may be served upon you when you are in the Head of your Company Hale said further You are the Kings Servants and intended for his Defence against his Enemies and to preserve the Peace of the Kingdom not to exempt your self from the Authority of the Laws And indeed it were a vain thing to talk of Courts and Laws if Military Men shall thus give the Law and controll Proceedings And for that Agreement you speak of I know nothing of it and if there were any such thing it could be nothing but a Civility Whatever you Military Men think you shall find that you are under the Civil Jurisdiction and you but gnaw a File you will break your Teeth e're you shall prevail against it This is an Outragious Offence and the Punishment has formerly gone high Men have heretofore lost their Heads for Matters of such nature and one of the Crimes of the late London Apprentices was the breaking of Prisons and delivering of Prisoners for which they had Iudgment of High Treason by the Advice of all the Judges The Captain and Serjeant were Committed to Newgate and being brought up at another time Hale asked Why an Information against these Persons was not Exhibited And told the City Counsel that if the Sheriffs did not prosecute this business they the Court would Prosecute them for this was a matter of great Example and ought not to be smothered And further said If that Men will take upon them to Rescue all Soldiers that are Committed it may be within the reach of High Treason because of the Vniversality of the Design against the King's Athority But this being but for one particular it cannot be Treason but 't is a rank Misdemeanour And be Ordered that as many of the rest of the Soldiers should be Prosecuted as their Names could be learned There must be one more to make a Riot tho' however 't is a Misdemeanour Wild said Tho' they cannot find out another Name yet if it be set forth and made out that there were others 't is enough to make a Riot Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 25 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis NOte When a Prohibition is moved for that a Copy of the Libel is denied to be delivered The Court requires that Oath should be made of the Denial and the Prohibition is but quousque a Copy be delivered Anonymus AN Indebitat ' Assumpsit was brought for Money Lent The Defendant pleads a Tender which being offered at first before Action brought and acknowledged by the Plaintiff he can never recover any Costs The Plaintiff Replies That before the Tender he brought an Assumpsit in the Sheriffs Court upon a Plaint upon the same Cause of Action which was removed hither The Defendant Rejoyns that upon that Plaint he declared for a greater Sum. To which the Plaintiff Demurred For tho' there be a Variance in the Sum yet it might be averred to be the same Cause of Action And so the Court agreed And Hale put this Case A. in Consideration that B. would marry his Daughter promised to pay 100 l and in an Action brought the Plaintiff was barred and in another Action brought The Promise was laid to pay the 100 l at Request and held it could not be averred to be the same Anonymus Note Where Error is assigned in a Matter contrary to the Record in nullo est Erratum is a Demurrer So where Matter of Fact is insufficiently alledged But if a Matter of Law and Matter of Fact together well set forth be assigned which ought not to be there in nullo est Erratum will be a Confession of the Matter of Fact and not serve as a Demurrer for the Doubleness Wherefore in that case the Defendant must Demur Anonymus ONe having Rent payable Half yearly for a Term whereof about six years were to come was content to Release it upon a Bond Conditioned for the payment of the like Sum with the Rent and at the same times And in Debt upon the Bond after failure of Payment upon a Reference to the Secondary to state what was really due He asked the Opinion of the Court whether there should be any deduction for Taxes And the Court said it was Equitable they should be allowed in regard the Money in the
excused yet 't is merely void as to the Party Et Ad jornatur Norton versus Harvey THe Case was an Executor being possessed of a Term let part of it reserving a Rent and died And the Question was whether his Executor should have the Rent or the Administrator de bonis non It was argued for the Executor that this Rent is meerly due by the Contract and not incident to the Reversion and the Administrator is in Paramount it being now as if the Testator had died Intestate and therefore before the Statute of this King such Administrators could not have had a Scire facias upon a Judgment obtained by the Executor tho' in the Case of Cleve and Vere 3 Cro. 450 457. 't is held that he may have a Liberate where the Executor had proceeded in the Execution of a Statute so far as an Extent for there the thing is executed and not meerly Executory as a Judgment If a Man that hath a Term in the right of his Wife le ts part of it reserving a Rent the Wife surviving shall not not have the Rent On the other side it was said that this case differed from that because the Reservation here is by him that had the whole Right executed in him Another objection against the Action was that here in the Declaration being in Covenant for Non payment of Rent there is not any demand alledged But that was answered because the Covenant was to pay such a Sum for the Rent expresly but if the Condition of a Bond be for performance of Covenants expressed in such a Lease one of which is for payment of Rent in that case the Bond will not be forfeit without a demand and of that Opinion were the Court and that the Executor should have the Rent but when recovered Hale said it should be Assets in his Hands And accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Silly versus Silly DOwer of 300 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Pasture 100 Acres Meadow The Tenant pleaded Non Tenure The Jury found him Tenant as to 320 Acres of Land and as to the rest that he was not Tenant And the Iudgment was that the Demandant should recover the 320 Acres Error was assigned in this Court that the Verdict and Judgment were for more Acres of Land than were demanded But on the other side it was said Land was a general word and might include Meadow and Pasture Curia In a Grant Land will extend to Meadow Pasture c. but in Pleading it signifies Arable only and here in regard they are distinguished in the Count the Verdict and Judgment must be reversed for the whole Tho' Hale said antiently such Iudgment would have been reversed but for the surplusage Vid Post Batmore Vxor versus Graves TRover for a 100 Loads of Wood upon a Special Verdict the Case was this Copyhold Land was surrendred to the use of J. S. for years Remainder to the Brother of the Plaintiff's Wife who died before the Term expired and so was not admitted any otherwise than by the admission of the Tenant for years And it was resolved First That the admittance of him that had the Estate for years was an admittance for him in the Remainder 4 Co. 23. a. 3 Cro. 504. Fine sur Grant and render to A. for Life Remainder to B. Execution sued by A. serves for B. So an Attornment to Tenant for Life serves for him in Remainder and this brings no prejuduce to the Lord for a Fine is not due until after admittance and the Lord may Assess one Fine for the particular Estate and another Fine for the Remainder But Wild said he need not pay it until his Estate comes in Possession after a Surrender the Estate remains in the Surrender before admittance of the Cestuy que use yet where Borough English Land was Surrendred to the use of J. S. and his Heirs and he died before admittance It was held that the younger Son should have it Secondly It was resolved that the Possession of the Tenant for years was so the Possession of him in Remainder as to make a Possessio Fratris But then it was moved that the Conversion was laid after the Marriage and so the Feme ought not to have joyned with her Husband in the Action But the Court held that in regard the Trover was laid to be before the Marriage which was the inception of the cause of Action the Wife might be joyned as if one has the Custody of a Womans Goods and afterward Marries her she may joyn in Detinue with her Husband for in case of Bailment the Proprietor is to some purposes in Possession and to some out of Possession Hale said in this case the Husband might bring the Action alone or joyntly with his Wife And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anonymus IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to save the Obligee harmless from another Bond. The Defendant pleaded Non damnificatus The Plaintiff replies that the Money was not paid at the day and he devenit onerabilis and could not attend his business for fear of an Arrest The Defendant rejoyns that he tendred the Money at the day absque hoc that the Plaintiff devenit onerabilis to which it was Demurred and the Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Money not being paid at the day the Counter Bond is forfeited Vid. 1 Cro. 672. 5 Co. and the Traverse in this case is naught The Mayor and Commonalty of London versus Dupester IN Debt for a Duty accruing to the City for Timber imported called Scavage The Declaration was that they were and had been a Corporation time out of mind and their Customs were confirmed by Act of Parliament Temps R. 2. c. The Defendant tendred his Law and Co. Entries 118. was cited where in Debt for an Amerciament in a Court Baron tho' the imposing of it was grounded upon a Prescription yet Wager of Law was admitted But notwithstanding in this case the Court overruled the Wager of Law for here the Duty it self is by Prescription and that confirmed by Act of Parlimant Debt for a Duty growing by a By-Law if the By-Law be Authorised by Letters Patents no Wager of Law lies So in Debt for Toll granted by Letters Patents 20 H. 7. Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 26 Car. II. In Banco Regis Silly versus Silly THe Case was moved again And the Court said that the Demandant might have taken Judgment for the 300 Acres only habito nullo respectu to the rest and released all the Damages But this was not proper for an Amendment the Mistake being in the Verdict but if it could have been amended in the Common Bench the Court might here have made such Amendment Ante. Burfoot versus Peal A Scire facias was brought against the Bail who pleaded that the Principal paid the Debt ante diem impetrationis Brevis
Discretion tion of the Court to grant Restitution even after a Traverse put in yet now since the Statute of Eliz. where such Plea is tendred the Court cannot grant a Restitution tho' they would in this Case if by Law they might for the party that made this Entry had lost the Land just before by Verdict in an Ejectment and by this means the effect of it should be disappointed Note The Indictment wanted Vi armis for it was pacifice intravit sine Judicio disseisivit à possessione expulit amovit But on the other side it was said First That the Entry being pacifice it was not the course to lay it Vi armis Secondly That 37 H. 8. cap. 8. supplied the defect of Vi armis in an Indictment But as to the latter the Court were of Opinion that the Statute supplied only the lack of the words gladiis baculis cultellis as are mentioned in the Statute Vid. the Stat. Anonymus A Suit for a Pension may be in Ecclesiastical Court tho' by Prescription but if it be denied to be time out of mind then a Prohibition is to go so that the Prescription may be tried at Law as in a Modus decimandi mutatis mutandis It was said by the Court that two might joyn in a Prohibition tho' the Gravamen was several but they must sever in their Declarations upon the Attachment Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 26 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Error the Writ was Teste the 30th of November last and Retornable in Parliament the 13th of April next the Day to which the Parliament was Prorogued The Defendants Counsel desired the Rule of the Court for the taking out of Execution supposing this Writ of Error was no Supersedeas and alledged that the late Rule made in the House of Lords did not extend to their Case for that was That all Causes there depending should not be discontinued by the intervening of a Prorogation but this Case will not be there depending before the Return of the Writ In 3 H. 7. 19. the Court of Kings-Bench would not allow a Writ of Error into the Parliament until some Error was shewn to them in the Record lest it should be brought on purpose to delay Execution In Bulstrode's Reports a Writ of Error Returnable the second Return of the Term was held to be no Supersedeas because it seemed an affected delay that it was not made Returnable the first Return Hale It has been taken that a Prorogation determined a Cause depending in Parliament by a Writ of Error but the Lords have lately Declared otherwise But that comes not to this Case the Writ not being Returned A Writ of Error Returnable ad proximum Parliamentum is not good but otherwise if they are summoned or prorogued to a Day certain If the Day of the Session had been a Year hence it would be hard a Writ of Error should stay Execution and the same Reason where the whole Term intervenes A Writ of Error did bear Teste 10 Nov. and was Returnable 1 Nov. proximè futur ' and the Record was sent into the Exchequer Chambet and a Mittimus Endorsed upon the Roll here And it was Resolved that Execution might be taken out because of the long Return Secondly That tho' there were Mittimus upon the Roll yet the Record remained here until the Return of the Writ to all purposes And the Opinion of the Court was that the Writ of Error was no Supersedeas But they would make no Rule in it because they said it was not Iudicially before them but the party might take out Execution if he thought fit And then if the other Side moved for a Supersedeas they should then Resolve the Point Note Hale said in an Assumpsit for Money upon the Sale of Goods upon non Assumpsit the Defendant might give in Evidence an Eviction of the Goods to mitigate the Damage and in all Assumpsits tho' upon certain Contracts the Jury may give less Damages than the Debt amounts unto as he said was done in a Case where a man promised to give a Straw for every Nail in every Horses Shoe doubling every time and they gave in Damage but the Value of the Horse tho' as the Bargain was made it would have come to above 100 l Lomax versus Armorer A Writ of Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment in Dower given in the Court of Newcastle The Error assigned was because the Proceeding was by Plaint and no Special Custom certified to maintain it As in London and Oxford they have Assizes of Fresh Force by Plaint The Court held it to be Erroneous for this Cause but would not determine whether it might not be good upon a Special Custom 1 Rolls 793. Pl. 11. Anonymus A Mandamus was granted to the Archdeacon of Norwich to Swear a Churchwarden upon surmize of a Custom That the Parishioners are to choose the Churchwardens and that the Archdeacon refused him notwithstanding that he was Elected according to the Custom The Archdeacon Return'd that non sibi constat that there is any such Custom which Form is not allowable for it ought to be positive whereupon an Action might be grounded and that by the Canon the Parson is to choose one c. The Court said that Custom would prevail against the Canon and a Churchwarden is a Lay Officer and his Power enlarged by sundry Acts of Parliament and that it has been Resolved that he may Execute his Office before he is Sworn tho' it is convenient he should be Sworn and if the Plaintiff here were Sworn by a Mandate from this Court they advised him to take heed of disturbing him Noy Rep. 139. Anonymus AN Assumpsit was brought against an Executor for that the Testator being Indebted to the Plaintiff he did ad requisitionem of the Defendant come to Account with him upon which there appeared to be so much due to the Plaintiff which he promised to pay After Verdict the Judgment was de bonis propriis and it was moved that it ought to have been de bonis testatoris For the Accounting with him is little more than telling him what is due and this might make an Executor afraid of Reckoning with any of his Testators Creditors The Court said that the Accounting upon the Defendants Request which was more than the Plaintiff was bound to have done was a Consideration and after a Verdict they must intend an express Promise But Hale said If upon the Evidence it had appeared that there was no Intention to alter the Nature of the Debt as in case an Executor should say stay a while until the Testators Estate was come in and I will pay you he should direct the Jury to find against the Plaintiff that would in such case charge an Executor in his own Right Termino Paschae Anno 27 Car. II. In Banco Regis NOte In an Indebitat ' Assumpsit a man Promises in Consideration that
taken strictly and here upon the first Fine the Earl of Leicester had no Estate left in him Mich. 6 Car. 1. in Communi Banco the Case of Ingram and Parker which tho' it may not be a clear Authority for me yet I am sure it does not make against me The Case was Catesby levied a Fine to the use of himself in Tail with Remainders over reserving a Power to himself and his Son to Revoke by Deed c. as in our Case and his Son after his decease by Deed intended to be Enrolled conveyed to one and his Heirs and after levied a Fine and it was held no Revocation First Because he having an Estate Tail in him the Deed might operate upon his Interest Secondly Because it was but an inchoation of a Conveyance and not perfected and they held it no Revocation and that the Fine levied after tho' intended to be to the Vses of the Deed yet should extinguish the Power Hale Chief Justice Vpon the close and nice putting of the Case this may seem to be no Revocation for 't is clear that neither the Deed nor Fine by it self can revoke but quae non valent singula juncta prosunt The Case of Kibbett and Lee in Hob. 312. treads close upon this Case where the Power was to Revoke by Writing under his Hand and Seal and delivered in the presence of three Witnesses and that then and from thenceforth the Uses should cease It was there Resolved that a Devise of the Lands by Will with all the Circumstances limited in the Power should Revoke yet the Delivery was one of the Circumstances and the Uses were to cease then and from thenceforth Whereas a Will which could have not effect while his Death did strongly import that the meaning was to do it by Deed and yet there the Will alone could be no Revocation for clearly he might have made another Will after and so required other Matter viz. his Death to compleat it And in that Case there is another put That if a Deed of Revocation had been made and the party had declared it should not take place until 100 l paid there the operation of it would have been in suspence until the 100 l paid and then it would have been sufficient yet there it had been done by several Acts and of several Natures the Intention in things of this nature mainly governs the Construction In Terries Case it was Ruled That if A. makes a Lease for years to B. and then Levies a Fine to him to the end that he might be Tenant to the Praecipe for the suffering of a Recovery that after the Recovery suffered his Lease should revive 'T is true in the Case at Bar if the Fine had been levied first and then the Deed of Uses made afterwards the Power had been extinguished by the Fine and so no Revocation of that which had no being could have been by the Deed. Twisden What if before the Fine levied the Intent had been declared to that purpose Hale I doubt whether that would have helped it I cannot submit to the Opinion in Parker and Ingrams Case cited viz. That the Deed not being Enrolled should make no Revocation For in case of a Power to make Leases for life it has been always held by the best Advice that the better way is to do it by Deed without Livery tho' Livery by the Common Law is incident to a Lease for life and so Adjudged in Rogers's Case for Lands in Blandford forum in Moor's Rep. where Tenant for life hath power to make Leases for life and makes a Lease by Livery 't is there held a Forfeiture tho' I conceived not because by the Deed the Lease takes effect and so the Livery comes too late Therefore the omission of Enrolling the Deed in that case does not seem to be material but if that Opinion be to be maintained it is because the party had such an Interest upon which the Deed might enure without Execution of his Power and so rather construed to work upon his Interest But that Reason does not satisfie because such an Estate as was intended to be conveyed could not be derived out of his Interest therefore it should take effect by his Power according to Clere's Case in the 6 Co. So by the whole Court here the Deed and Fine taken together were Resolved to be a good Execution of the Power and Judgment given accordingly Richardson versus Disborow A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court where the Suit was for a Legacy and the Defendant pleaded That there was nothing remaining in his hands to pay it and that he had fully Administred And producing but one Witness to prove it Sentence was given against him and after he Appealed and because their Court gave no regard to a single Testimony he prays a Prohibition But it was urged on the other Side That it being a Matter within their Cognizance they might follow the Course of their own Law And tho' there are diversities of Opinions in the Books about this Matter yet since 8 Car. 1. Prohibitions have been been denied upon such a Surmize Hale Where the Matter to be proved which falls in incidently in a Cause before them is Temporal they ought not to deny such Proof as our Law allows and it would be a great Mischief to Executors if they should be forced to take two Witnesses for the payment of every petit Sum And if they should after their Death there would be the same Inconvenience In Yelv. 92. a Prohibition was granted upon the not admitting of One Witness to prove the Revocation of a Will Which is a stronger Case because that entirely is of Ecclesiastical Cognizance Wherefore let there go a Prohibition and let the party if he please Demur upon the Declaration upon the Attachment Hob. 188. 1 Cro. 88. Popham 59. Latch 117. Pigot versus Bridge IN Debt upon a Bond Conditioned for performance of Covenants and the Breach assigned was in the not quietly enjoying the Land demised unto him The Defendant pleads that the Lease was made to hold from Michaelmas 1661 to Michaelmas 1668 and that paying so much Rent Half yearly he was to Enjoy quietly and shews that he did not pay the last half years Rent ending at Michaelmas 1668. To which the Plaintiff Demurred supposing that the words being to Michaelmas 1668. there was not an entire Half year the Day being to be excluded and that it was so held in the Case of Umble and Fisher in the 1 Cro. 702. Cur ' contra 'T is true in pleading usque tale Festum will exclude that Day but in case of a Reservation the Construction is to be governed by the Intent Anonymus NOte per Hale Debt doth not lye against the Executor of an Executor upon a Surmize of a Devastavit by the first Executor For First 'T is a Personal Tort for which his Executor cannot be charged Secondly 'T is such an Action of Debt as would
Mandate is to intimate to him that the party is Instituted Secondly To oblige the Archdeacon to Induct under the penalty of an Ecclesiastical Censure But if it be granted that the Archdeacon's Authority in this matter is only derivative yet that being Executed by the Mandate quoad the Guardian of the Spiritualties what remains to be done remains only to the Archdeacon who shall finish what hath proceeded so far already If a Venire be awarded to the Coroners because of Kindred in the Sheriffs Family tho' a New Sheriff comes in before it be Returned yet the Coroner shall proceed in the Execution thereof The Sheriff seized Goods by a Scire facias and before they were sold a New Sheriff was made and then he sold them and it was Resolved that the Sale was good in the 2 Cro. 73. Ayre and Aden's Case Sed Nota The Court said that if the Did Sheriff had Returned That the Goods had remained in his hands pro defectu emptorum a Distringas should have gone to have them delivered to the New Sheriff and then a Venditioni exponas should have gone to the New Sheriff Vid. Yelv. 44. In the 2 Cro. 48. the Executors of the Bishop of Carlisle were admitted to proceed in a Suit commenced by the Testator in the Ecclesiastical Court because the Suit was well commenced and the Court were possessed of the Cause Where Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer have given Judgment and a New Commission granted which determines the Old yet the former Judgment may be Executed Bro. tit Commission 13. So by the Sitting of the Kings Bench the Commission at the Old Baily being in the same County is superseded and yet Execution is done in Term time But the Court said That was by the Statute of 2. E. 6. Again Induction is but a Formality and therefore shall not be so strictly Examined Where the Queen granted to two the Stewardship of a Mannor it was held that admission by one of them was sufficient Mo. 107. Noy's Reports Quaere that Case the Archdeacon having received a Mandate for Induction makes a Precept omnibus literatis infra Archidiaconatum to Induct and a Clerk who did not belong to the Archdeaconry made the Induction and this was held to be well enough Saunders contra The only Question is Whether the Archdeacon Inducts by his own Authority or derivative from the Bishop For if by the latter then the Induction cannot be good 'T is clear that the Archdeacon is but Minister Episcopi and in his Precept to those of the Clergy to Execute he does as a Sheriff doth who makes a Precept to his Bayliffs recites his Mandate If the Sheriff makes Execution after the Kings death if he hath no notice thereof he is excused in Trespass but the Execution shall be avoided It appears by the making of the Statute of 2. E. 6. of Executing Judgments given by Commissioners after such time as the Commission is expired is a great Doubt and yet there the thing was Executed in a great part But here 't is but one single Act whereof no part was done before the New Bishop was made In Sir Randolph Crew 's Case in the 3 Cro. 97. it appears that Commissioners to Examine Witnesses could not proceed after Notice of the Demise of the King But here 't is Objected That the Verdict finds that the Archdeacon had no Notice I Answer That the Consecration of a Bishop is a publick and notorious Act. And all the Court were of Opinion that the Induction was wholly void and gave Judgment for Woolly the Defendant and said It was a Ministerial Act in jure Episcopi and like a Letter of Attorney to deliver Seisin which cannot be Executed but in the Life of him that made it Ante. Quaere Whether this Judgment was not afterward Reverst in the Exchequer Chamber Ent versus Withers THe Case was Debt against an Executor upon a Bond of the Testator and it was brought in the Debet and Detinet suggesting a Devastavit in the Executor The Defendant Demurred For altho' such Action will lye if there has been a Judgment against the Executor yet no such Action has been upon a Bond and 't is hard upon such a Surmize to Charge the Executor in his own Right But on the other side it was said That this differs not in Reason from the Case of a Judgment and upon Nil debet the whole Matter shall be brought in question as Whether the Bond was Sealed c. And in a Case between Merchant and Driver tryed at Guild-Hall before my Lord Hale where it was brought as this because the Plaintiff could prove no actual Wasting as is necessary in this Case he was Nonsuited But Hale took no Exception to the Action But the Court said That they would extend these Actions no further than they had been already Resolved and they would not agree that an Executor should be held to Bail upon a surmize of a Devastavit and so Judgment was given for the Defendant Ante. Pierce versus Win. ERror out of the Grand Sessions of Wales The Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A Devise to one and to the Heirs Males of his Body with a Proviso That if he does attempt to Alien then immediately his Estate shall cease and another shall Enter The Devisee in Tail made a Feoffment and he in Remainder Entred and Judgment was given in the Grand Sessions for the Feoffee against him in the Remainder And the Errors were assigned in the Matter in Law And to maintain the Errors it was said That it must be agreed of all hands that a Tenant in Tail could not be restrained from Aliening by Fine or Recovery and also that in this Case a bare Attempt would be no breach according to Corbett's and Sir A. Mildmay's Case c. and also that a Tenant in Tail might be restrained to Alien by Feoffment or other Act which was torcious and would make a Discontinuance and here this Proviso imports as much and therefore the Feoffment will be a breach for that is an Attempt and more For First In Conveyances the Intention of the words of a Condition and the Substance is regarded and the Form of the words not so precisely followed As a Feoffment upon Condition That the Feoffee shall give the Land in Frank marriage with the Daughter of the Feoffor This cannot be strictly pursued yet the Feoffee must make a Gift as near as may be Co. 1 Inst 217. So upon Condition to give the Land to a Layman in Frankalmoign But this Rule holds especially in Wills where the Intent is chiefly looked at A Devise of all his Rents will pass Reversions upon Leases and tho' the words be here Proviso if he does attempt to alien 't is as much as to say Proviso if he doth alien c. Secondly Whether the Feoffment shall determine the Estate quasi by Limitation so that the Remainder man shall take immediately by Executory Devise and that
is very clear For tho' in M. Portington's Case in 10 Co. 't is said that the word Condition shall not in a Will be taken as a Limitation yet the Current of the Authorities since are otherwise But here the Court held the Condition void for a man cannot be restrained from an Attempt to Alien For non constat what shall be judged an Attempt and how can it be tryed And when the express words are so there shall not be made another sort of Condition than the Will imports And so the Judgment was affirmed Osborn versus Beversham DEbt for Rent incurred at two Half years As to one of them the Defendant pleaded non debet And as to the other Actio non because he says He was ready to pay it at the Day and Place and has been ever since profert in Cur ' the Rent ideo petit Judicium de damnis To which the Plaintiff Demurred For that he did not say quod obtulit for where the Time and Place of Payment is certain Semper paratus is no Plea without an Obtulit For the Defendant it was said That the Plaintiff ought to reply to a Demand 1 Inst 34. 'T is a good Plea for the Heir in Dower to save his Damages to say That he was always ready Rastal's Entries 159. Semper paratus is pleaded without an Obtulit So 1 Rolls 573. no mention made of a Tender But then another Fault was found that it was pleaded in Bar whereas it ought to have been only in Bar of Damages and not to the Action and this was agreed to be fatal But the Court held the Plea to be naught for the other Cause also Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was A man Devised his Land to J. S. after the death of his Wife And after Argument the whole Court were of Opinion that J.S. not being Heir to the Devisor there should go no implied Estate to the Wife for an Heir shall not be defeated but by a necessary Implication Anonymus AN Action for Words for that the Defendant said of the Plaintiff He would have given Dean Money to have Robbed Golding's House and he did Rob the House After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the first part of the words import only an Inclination and not that he did give any Money And the words He did Rob the House shall be referred to Dean as the last antecedent and not the Plaintiff But the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff as was Adjudged where the words were He lay in wait to Rob. Vid. Cockain's Case in the 1 Cro. and in the 4 Co. And the Court said the Words might be construed That the Plaintiff offered Dean Money and he refusing it that the Plaintiff robbed the House himself Smith versus Tracy THe Case being moved again the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Half-Blood should come in for Distribution upon the new Act For as to the granting of Administration the being of Guardian c. the Half-Blood may be taken nearer of Kin than a more remote Kinsman of the Whole Blood Mo. 635 Ro. Rep. 114. Ante. J 's Case J. Brings his Habeas Corpus The Return was that he was Committed by J. S. J. N. T. K. to whom and others a Commission of Bankrupt was awarded for refusing to answer a Question put to him concerning the Bankrupt's Estate c. and so Commissus fuit in custodia by a Warrant to the Officer Virtute Commissionis praedictae haec est causa captionis seu detentionis c. The Counsel for the Prisoner took three Exceptions to the Return First For that there did not appear a sufficient Authority For the Commission is said to be granted to them and others and then they could not act without the rest for the Return does not express any Quorum c. in the Commission Secondly Instead of Commissus in custodia it ought to be Captus for that is the usual Form For this is as if the Commitment were by the Officer that makes the Return Thirdly Haec est causa captionis seu detentionis is uncertain for it ought to be detentionis And upon the first and last Exception the Prisoner was Discharged by the Court but at the same time was told by the Court That he must answer directly to such Questions as were put to him in order to the discovery of the Bankrupts Estate or else he was liable to be Committed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 29 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Harrington's Case AN Information was preferred against him for that he maliciously and traiterously intending to stir up Sedition and to create a Disturbance between the King and his People upon Discourse of the late Rebellion and those Persons which were Executed at Charing-Cross for the Murder of the late King in praesentia audita quamplurium utteravit propalavit haec verba pernitiosa sequentia viz. Gubernatio nostra consistebat de tribus statibus si eveniret Rebellio in Regno nisi foret Rebellio contra omnes Status non est Rebellio Vpon Not Guilty pleaded he was found Guilty of speaking the precedent Words and Not guilty as to other Words contained in the Information It was moved in Arrest of Judment that Gubernatio signified the Exercise and Administration of the Government and not the State of it which Regimen doth Again That it was Consistebat and so might relate to the Britons or Saxons Time or to the late mutations of the Form of Government amongst us and that to put the words in Latin without an Anglicè was not to be allowed for the Translation might either aggravate or mitigate the Sense And that such a President might be prejudicial as well to the King as the Defendant But those Exceptions finding little weight with the Court his Counsel proceeded to justifie or at least to extenuate the Words alledging That the Relation was so great between the King and People that to raise a Rebellion against the King must also affect the other States and this whether the King be taken as some would have it as one of the Three Estates or as others that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal make two of the Estates and the Commons the third and the King as Chief and Head of all as is the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords and Commons call themselves the Queens Obedient Subjects Representing the Three Estates of the Realm of England and so is the 4 Inst 1. But the Court supposing that the Words did tend to set on Foot that Position upon which the War Levied in 1641. by the Two Houses against the King was grounded were much displeased that the Counsel would pretend to defend them or put any tolerable Sense upon them It was also insisted upon by the King's Counsel and agreed by the Court that the Ancient Presidents and many latter also were to express the
Anonymus IN Trespass for Fishing in his several Piscary and for taking 20 Bushells of Oysters there such a day continuando piscationem praedictam from the said day to the time of the Action brought Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Fishing in the continuando was altogether incertain not expressing the quantity or quality of the Fishes as it ought according to Playters Case 5 Co. And of this Opinion were Wild and Jones But the Chief Justice inclined to think it well enough and said Playters Case had not been very well approved of of late years and that is that 't is necessary to express the kind of the Fishes which has béen held since needless and he knew not why it might not be as well as an indebitatus Assumpsit pro diversis mercinoniis But the other Judges said tho' it was reason it should be as the Chief Justice said yet they knew not how to depart from the Authorities in the Point and that Playters Case had remained mishaken Sed Adjornatur Anonymus IN Debt for Rent against an Assignee of a Lessee The Defendant pleaded That before the Action brought he assigned over to J. S. and thereof gave notice to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff replied That he still kept the Possession and had made the Assignment by fraud to disappoint him c. To which it was demurred for it was said that fraud was not averrable in this case neither by the Common Law nor any Statute But the Court inclined that it might for if such a practice should obtain the Lessor might be hindred perpetually of his Action of Debt by making Assignments to persons unknown An Executor confesses a Judgment which is lawful for him to do yet this may be avereed to be entred or kept on foot by fraud and that by the Comman Law which hates all frauds Sed Adjornatur Postea Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Councel of the Marches for that they proceeded upon an English Bill there against the Defendant supposing that he had promised upon a Consideration to pay the Debt of a Stranger because 't is in the nature of an Action upon the Case and consists meerly in Damages And altho' many Presidents were shewn of their Proceeding in such of Actions and the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap. 26. that they should determin such Cases as were heretofore accustomed and used c. as should be assigned to them by the Kings Majesty and it was pretended that this was within their Instructions yet the Court granted the Prohibition For where Damages are uncertain they cannot be set in a Court of Equity but by a Jury In Debt because the demand is certain the Courts here have sometimes assessed Damages without a Writ of Enquiry but never in Trespass or Actions upon the Case which lie wholly in Damages Anonymus AN Habeas Corpus The Return was read and spoken to and the Prisoner ordered to be remanded Twisden said the Return should have been first Filed and the Prisoner committed to the Marshalsey for otherwise the Court have no power over him Vid. Mo. 839. and he cited 1 H. 7. Humphry Staffords Case who being brought to the Bar upon an Habeas Corpus by the Lieutenant of the Tower was committed to the Marshalsey and afterwards remanded to the Tower but the other Judges differed as to the Commitment and said it was not necessary to keep the Prisoner in the Marshalsey until the Matter was determined but he might be sent from time to time to the same Prison and brought up by Rule of Court until he is either Bailed Discharged or Remanded And so they said it was lately done in the Earl of Shaftsbury's Case Gilmore versus .... UPon a Special Verdict the Point was whether a Promise made upon such Consideration as by the Act of 29 Car. 2. to prevent Frauds and Perjury's is requisite to be in Writing signed by the Party to be charged therewith being made before the 24 of June last but the Action brought after be within the restraint of the Act which saith That from and after the 24 of June no Action shall be brought upon such Promise c. And it was resolved that the Case was not within the Act which did not extend to any Promise made before the 24 of June The King versus Sir Thomas Fanshaw SIr Thomas Fanshaw and others were indicted for not Repairing of a Bridge which it was alledged they were bound to Repair Ratione Tenurae of such Lands Sir Thomas Fanshaw pleaded That he was not bound to Repair Ratione Tenurae and found that he was In Arrest of Judgment it was said that the Verdict was not pursuant to the Indictment for therein 't is alledged that Sir Thomas Fanshaw and others were bound to Repair Ratione Tenurae and the Verdict is that Sir Thomas Fanshaw Ratione Tenurae c. Reparare debet Parietem praedict ' modo forma prout per Indictamentum praedict ' supponitur Sed non allocatur for each of them may be bound to Repair for their respective Lands and they must get Contribution by the Writ de onerand ' pro rata portione Secondly It was said that 't is Ratione Tenurae and not said Suae and this was said to be naught Noy's Rep. 93. Sed non allocatur for the Presidents are generally so Parkers Case A Mandamus to restore an Attorney to his liberty of practising in a Court within the County Palatine of Chester was Returned That the Court was holden before the Chamberlain Vice-Chamberlain Baron or the Deputy of the Baron and that at a Court before the Barons Deputy he spoke contemptuous words of him whereupon he suspended him from his Practice quod non aliter amotus fuit Vpon exceptions offered to the Return The Court held it a good cause of Suspension and ordered a Submission to him that received the affront in open Court before that he should be restored Anonymus THe Case upon the Averment of Fraud upon an Assignment by the Assignee of a Lessee was now moved again and by Twisden Wild and Jones against the Opinion of Scroggs Chief Justice Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff viz. That Fraud in such Case might be averred Ante. Anonymus IN Ejectment it was debated whether Confession of Lease Entry and Ouster would serve where there ought to have been an actual Entry upon the Title as the in case of a Condition broken or the like And the Opinion of the Court inclined that it would not tho' my Lord Hale was said to be of another Opinion Ante. Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Dutton versus Poole CUjus principium ante Michael ' 29 Car. 2. It was now moved again to stay the Iudgment by Sanders who argued that the Action could not be maintained by the Plaintiff for the Father whose the Wood was could only bring it for
it will be agreed he might have released it or by cutting of the Wood might have taken away all the right of Action Again it does not appear by the Record that the Defendant was here and so no benefit by the forbearing to cut the Wood. Rookwoods Case cited on the other side 1 Cro. 163. 1 Leonard 192. is that the Promise was made to the younger Brothers and the Consideration that they would consent but here the Plaintiff who was to have the Money had no share in the Consideration or Meritorious Act as where the Father promises J. S. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will give him 1000 l the Son may bring the Action because the Consideration moves from him Hetlys Rep. 20. the Case was to this effect A Man promises a Woman whom he was to Marry upon a certain Consideration that if he had a Son by her he should have a Term whereof the Woman was then possessed and if it were a Daughter she should have the Moiety of the Goods c. they Intermarry and after the death of the Husband the Daughter born between them brings an Action against the Executor of the Husband and resolved that it would not lie tho' they did not think the Agreement made with the Wife to be discharged by the Intermarriage but only suspended which is a Quaere in my Lord Hobart Yet the Daughter being no Party to the Promise or to the Consideration could not bring an Action The Case of Norris and Pine before cited is stronger for there he that made the Promise had a benefit for it was in Consideration of Marriage On the other side it was said that tho' it doth not appear that the Defendant was Heir yet it may be intended after Verdict however 't is not nudum pactum for if the Defendant had no benefit yet there was a restraint upon the other and that is Consideration enough And for the objection of releasing that holds where J. S. promises J.N. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will pay him 1000 l J.N. may Release but 't is doubtful whether he can after Marriage because then 't is vested in the Son as Scroggs Chief Justice said 1 Roll. 31. The Uncle of an Infant delivered J.S. 12 l who promised to pay the Infant when he came of Age and the Action was well brought by him after his Age. So Goods sold to A. to pay 10 l to B. B. may Sue Vid. 1. Roll. 32 Starkey and Mills The Court said it might be another Case if the Money had béen to have been paid to a Stranger but there is such a nearness of Relation between the Father and Child and 't is a kind of Debt to the Child to be provided for that the Plaintiff is plainly concerned And so by the Opinion of them all viz. Scroggs Wild Jones and Dolben Judicium pro Querente Ante. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London for that an Action was there Commenced to which the Defendant pleaded That the cause of Action did not arise within the Jurisdiction and offered to swear his Plea but it was refused The Counsel for the Plaintiff objected against the Prohibition that the Plea came too late for it was after an Imparlance But it being proved by Affidavit that the Plea was tendred within two days after the Declaration was delivered and that immediately upon delivering the Declaration there is an Imparlance of course The Court granted the Prohibition and said that the other side might Demurr if they thought fit for the liberty of the Subject was infringed by bringing him within a private Jurisdiction when the Matter arises out of it and Attorney's in such places are sworn to advise no Plea to the Jurisdiction nor that none shall be put in by them And whereas 't was said that the Party had not prejudice for he might remove his Case by Habeas Corpus The that the Court answered coming by Habeas Corpus Bail must be put in above tho' the Cause otherwise did not require it Note It appeared here that there was no defence made in this to the Jurisdiction and Co. Inst was quoted that defence should be made tho' not full defence But the Court said it was not necessary and that Presidents were otherwise especially where the Court have no Jurisdiction of the matter otherwise where not of the person James versus Richardson IN Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A. devised the Lands to B. and his Heirs during the Life of J. S. and after to the Heirs of the Body of R. D. now living and to such other Heirs was should after be Born the Devisee for Life levied a Fine in the Life of him to whose Heirs the Remainder was limited but he had a Son at the time of the death of the Testator The question was Whether it was a Contingent Remainder the consequence whereof was to be destroyed by the Fine and that it was vested in the Son Scroggs Chief Justice Wild and Jones held it a Remainder vested by reason of the words now living which was a sufficient Designation of the person that was to take in a Will tho' improper to call him Heir But Dolben Contra for by this Construction the Heirs Born after are excluded and the Son would take but an Estate for Life tho' it were devised to the Heirs in the Plural Number Note Vpon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber this Iudgment was reversed Hillary 31 32. Car. 2. Termino Paschae Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Mandamus was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to grant the Probat of a Will under Seal c. The Case was the Executor named in the Will had taken the usual Oath but after a Caveat entred and then Refused and another endeavoured to obtain Letters of Administration the Executor came after to desire the Will under Probat and contested the granting of Administration Which was Adjudged against him supposing that he was bound by his Refusal And after an Appeal to the Delegates this Mandamus was prayed and granted by the Court for having taken the Oath he could not be admitted to Refuse and the Ecclesiastical Court had no further Authority and the Caveat did not alter the Case Note The Oath was taken before a Surrogate yet it was all one Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes upon the Suggestion that the Lands out of which they were demanded say out of the Parish and the Bounds of Parishes are tryable at the Common Law But the Court denied the Prohibition because it did not appear that a Plea thereof had been offered in the Ecclesiastical Court Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit against J. S. Lessee of a Rectory out of which a Pension was demanded It was suggested that the Lord Biron had three parts in four of this Rectory upon which the Pension was chargeable and that
the Suit against one alone ought not to be as in an Assize for a Rent-charge all the Ter-Tenants are to be named and here the party has an Election to Sue a Writ of Annuity and if so be must have named all that had been chargeable Curia 'T is true in our Law it were a good Plea in Abatement but perhaps their Law and Course is otherwise And here they have Jurisdiction and may proceed according to their own Rules or if not you may have an Appeal Whereupon a Prohibition was denied Anonymus IN an Habeas Corpus and Certiorari for the Body of J. S. who had been Imprisoned for not paying of a Fine of 20 l set at the Quarter Sessions The Return was that he being Constable and demanded by the Court to Present an High-way which was sworn before him by Two Witnesses to be out of Repair said in Contempt of the Court That he would not Present it For which and certain other contemptuous words the Fine was set The Counsel for the Prisoner moved that it might be Filed Which was done The Court were of Opinion that the Fine was not well set for Constables are to Present upon their own Knowledge and the Two Witnesses should have been carried to the Grand Jury for the Constable was not obliged to Present upon their Testimony This Court is to judge of their Fines whether without Cause or to mitigate them when excessively imposed and for the Contemptuous Words the Return is ill because not expressed what On the other side it was prayed that the Return might be amended for he had spoken Opprobious Words but that could not be admitted after the Filing And so the party was discharged Anonymus IT was moved to quash an Order of Sessions for the Keeping of a Bastard Child First That it doth not appear that the Child was born within the Parish Secondly 'T is to allow so much Weekly until the Child is Eight years of Age whereas the Statute gives power to make a Weekly allowance while the Child shall be chargeable Thirdly The Order was at Eight years old to pay 5 l for the Binding of it out But the Court would not quash it for they said it was implied by saying it would be chargeable to the Parish that it was born there and 't was apparent it would continue Chargeable for so long as they appointed the Allowance and they might Order 5 l to be paid in the end Sed Quaere For a Sum in gross ought not to be set but a Weekly allowance And the Court said they must shew that respect to Justices of the Peace who served the Country at their own charge as not too nicely to examine their Orders Anonymus ERror upon a Judgment by Nihil dicit given in the Common Pleas where the Action was for Words which in the Declaration were laid thus That the Defendant said Quidam J. S. which was the Plaintiffs Name innuendo the Plaintiff was c. The Error assigned was that there was no Averment that these Words were spoke of the Plaintiff for there might be more of the name But Holt for the Defendant said the Innuendo would help that fault and he cited the Case of Rebotham and Venlecke in the 3 Cro. 378. where the Plaintiff Declared that he had made an Oath before a Judge upon certain Articles exhibited for the Good Behaviour and the Defendant to Scandalize him said He made a false Oath Innuendo the said Oath before the Judge where it was held that the Innuendo was sufficient to ascertain what Oath was meant But the Court Reversed the Judgment in this Case and said that not saying in the Declaration that the Words were spoken of the Plaintiff it was not sufficient to bring that in by an Innuendo which ought to have been Averred and it is the worse because 't is said quidam J.S. which imports another person than the Plaintiff Anonymus ERror to Reverse a Judgment given in the Kings-Bench in Ireland in a Prohibition where the Issue was Whether he had Prosecuted in the Court Christian after the Prohibition and it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed to 100 l and 6 d pro misis custagiis And now the Error was assigned in the Judgment given which was That the Plaintiff should recover damna praedicta per Juratores assess ad 100 l nec non pro misis custagiis de incremento per Cur ' adjudicat ' 20 l omitting the 6 d Costs given by the Jury On the other side it was said That damna praedicta in the Judgment included all and the saying 100 l was but a Miscomputation Et Adjornatur Postea Hill 33 34 Car. 2. How versus Whitfield A Fine of certain Lands to the use of J. S. for Life and after to his Executors and Assigns for 80 years with Power to the Lessee and his Assigns to lett Leases for 21 years reserving the ancient Rent After several mean Assignments the Assignee of an Executor of an Assignee made a Lease for 21 years which in the Special Verdict was found to be made of the said Lands inter alia reserving proinde six shillings per annum and found that six shillings was the ancient yearly Rent for the Land The Court seemed to be of opinion that an Assignee after so many Removes might execute this Power for it was coupled with an Interest and annexed to the Estate tho' to be construed strictly but in regard the Lease was made of the Land inter alia reserving proinde c. in case the Reservation should be taken to be for the whole Land then it was not the ancient Rent reserved for this and upon that they doubted Et Adjornatur Postea Anonymus AN Indictment was quashed for want of Addition For the Court said no Process ought to go out thereupon because the party cannot be Outlawed Anonymus IN an Habeas Corpus the Return was that the party was taken upon an Excom ' Cap ' It was moved that the party might be discharged because upon Search it appeared that the Writ had not been Enrolled in this Court for so it ought to be by the Statute of the 5th of the Queen tho' the Writ issues out of Chancery The Court doubted whether they could Discharge him upon a Motion or that he should be driven to plead this Matter And it was said the Course had been both ways Vid. Parker's Case 3 Cro. 553. But the party was afterwards Discharged ut opinor Herne versus Brown A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court The Libel sets out That a Tax had been made for the Repairs of a Church where the Defendant inhabited and was to make him pay his proportion To which they required his Answer viz. Whether he had paid c. The Suggestion was that the party had tendred his Answer but the Court had refused it because it was not upon Oath and that the Ecclesiastical Court
meant by the name of Son As to Beckford's Case the Words are full to carry all and therefore it had been impertinent to have wrote over the Will again So where a man has two Sons named John it may be well averred that he meant the younger Son for nothing in the Will is inconsistent with such meaning The Court took time to deliver their Opinions And afterwards the Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court That neither the Republication nor Parol Declaration could operate as a Devise to R. c. the Grandson Pepis's Case A Mandamus to restore him to his Place of Recorder of the Town of Cambridge The Return was That they were Incorporated by the Name of Mayor Aldermen c. with a Power to chuse a Recorder Habend ' pro termino vitae aut ad voluntat ' eligentium That Mr. Pepis was Chosen Recorder ad voluntat ' eligentium and that afterwards by the Votes of the greater number of the Electors he was removed and the Lord Allington constituted a Recorder under their Common Seal c. Vpon this Return it was moved for Mr. Pepis that altho' they had alledged a Power to Chuse a Recorder at Will yet they should have shewn Cause for his Removal being a Judicial Office which the Court takes notice of and that none had such a Power but the King to remove Judges ad libitum Again A Corporation aggregate cannot determine their Will but under their Common Seal and that is not shewn here Curia Where a Recorder is at Will they may remove him at pleasure as it is in Blagrave's Case and several other Cases As to the other Point it does not appear that he was Constituted under their Common Seal perhaps then they must have determined their Will under their Common Seal but now 't is well enough my Lord Allington is Constituted under their Common Seal which Act removes the other so it was adjudged against Mr. Pepis Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Prohibition was prayed to the Court of Admiralty upon a Suggestion that the Suit was there upon a Contract made upon the Land The Case was thus A Bargain was made upon the Land with severl Seamen to bring up a Ship from a Port in England to London for a certain Sum to them to be paid And for the Prohibiton 't was alledged that this being upon the Land and a Contract with divers joyntly for a Sum in Gross it could not be within the ordinary Rule of Mariners Wages which is permitted to be Sued for in the Court of Admiralty in favour of the Mariners because they may all joyn in that Court and not be put to the inconvenience of Suing severally as they must at Law but as this Contract is they are to sue joyntly at Common Law But the Prohibition was denied for this must be taken as Mariners Wages And therefore tho' the Contract were upon the Land yet they have Jurisdiction Besides the Party comes after Sentence and therefore in the Courts discretion whether they will then grant a Prohibition Note A Rump Act was made to enable Mariners to Sue for Wages in the Admiralty but yet the Law was taken to be so before Vid. 3 Cro. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court where the Libel was for these words You are a Whore and Ply in Moorfields And the Suggestion was that the words were spoken in London where an Action lies for such words and for that Cause a Prohibition was granted otherwise Suits might have been in the Court Christian for such words tho' not singly for the word Whore being a common word of brabling otherwise where joyned with words which shew the intent to Defame in that kind Anonymus AN Indebitat ' Assumpsit was brought for Goods sold and delivered The Action was laid in London and a Motion was made to change the Venue upon an Affidavit that the Sale was in Kent But on the other side it was said the delivery was in London and that were the Matter consists of two parts in several Counties the Plaintiff shall have his Election to which the Court agreed Anonymus A Man Covenants with his intended Wife to give her leave to dispose of so much by her Will and then they Intermarry the Husband having given Bond to a third person for the performance of these Covenants after the death of the Wife the Husband is Sued upon the Bond for not permitting her Will to be performed And upon Oyer of the Condition it was insisted on for the Defendant that these Covenants were discharged by the Marriage and so the Bond likewise loseth its force Vid. Hob. 216. Et Adjornatur Anonymus A Motion was made to quash an Inquisition of forcible Entry it was Inquisitio capta per Juratores super Sacramentum suum coram T. S. J. N. Justiciariis c. qui dicunt super Sacramentum praed ' And it was objected That qui dicunt c. referring to the last antecedent it was that the Justices say Sed non allocatur for super Sacramentum praedict ' makes it certain Note The Caption of an Indictment may be amended the same Term it comes into Court Anonymus AN Indictment for not taking upon him and executing the Office of a Constable to which he was chosen by the Leer The question was Whether a Tenant in antient Demesne were obliged to that Office And the Court held that he was Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 31 32 Car. II. In Banco Regis Anonymus IN Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the case was thus A Lease was made A. and B. for their Lives Remainder to the first Son of A. c. Remainder to the Heirs of A. B. conveys his part to A. The question was Whether the Contingent Remainder to the first Son were destroyed Holt argued that it was For a Contingent Remainder must have some particular Estate of Freehold to support it and by the Release of B. his Estate was gone and there became an intire Fee in A. For by whotsoever means a Joynt tenant for Life conveys his Moiety to his Companion it does not enure by Grant of the Estate but by Release as Eustace and Scawens Case 2 Cro. 696. A. and B. Joynt tenants for Life A. Levy's a Fine to B. B. dies there shall be no Occupancy of the Moiety of A. during the Life of A. Jones 55. and the Case of Lewis Bowels 11 Co. is not to be objected where an Estate for Life was made to B. and F. the Remainder to their first Son that they should have in Tail Remainder to B. and F. in Tail here tho' an Estate in Tail is executed in B. and F. until a Son Born yet after upon the Birth of the Son the Contingent Remainder shall vest and split and divide the former Estate 2 Co. 60.61 but here the Fee becomes executed by several Conveyances but there the Estate
given pro Quer. Termino Paschae Anno 34 Car. II. In Banco Regis Clayton versus Gillam IN Trespass for breaking and entering of his Close and Feeding c. and laying thereon certain pieces of Timber c. Et continuando Transgressionem praed ' After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that one of the Trespasses viz. The laying of Timber could not be with a Continuando But it was resolved by the Court that continuando transgressionem praed ' shall be referred only to the Trespasses which may properly be said with a continuando But if the continuando had been expresly laid for that Trespass all would have been naught as it was resolved in a Case in this Court between Letchford and Elliot 16 Car. 2. The Earl of Shaftsbury versus Cradock IN an Action of Scandalum Magnatum for saying That the Earl was a Traytor c. The Action being laid in London where the words were supposed to be spoken It was moved in behalf of the Defendant that the Venue might be changed into some other Country and Affidavits were read that the Plaintiff had a great interest in the City and an intimacy with the present Sheriffs so that the Defendant could not expect an indifferent Tryal there and thereupon the Court did think fit to take the Cause out of London and gave the Earl the Election of any other County but he refused to Trie it elsewhere and would rather let the Action fall Curtis versus Inman IN Debt for the Penalty forfeited by the Statute of 5 Eliz. for using the Trade of a Grocer having not been Bound an Apprentice It was moved that the Action lies not in this Court because 21 Jac. cap. 4. Enacts That Actions popular shall be brought before Justices of Assize of the Peace c. But a Case was cited which was adjudged in this Court Hill 20 21 Car. 2. between Barns and Hughes which see before that such Action would lie But the Court notwithstanding in this Case said they would hear Arguments The Earl of Shaftsbury versus Graham al. IN an Action upon the Case in the nature of a Conspiracy the Declaration was That the Defendants did conspire to indict the Plaintiff of High Treason and for that purpose did Sollicit one Wilkinson and endeavoured to Suborn him to give false Testimony against the said Earl and an Indictment was offered at the Sessions at the Old Baily in London by the Defendant in pursuance of the said Conspiracy which Indictment the Grand Jury there found Ignoramus c. It was moved in behalf of the Defendants that whereas the Conspiracy was in the Declaration alledged to be in London that the Court would change the Venue and an Affidavit of the Defendants was produced That the Conspiracy alledged in the Declaration if there were any such was in Surry and not in London Note Wilkinson at the time of the supposed Conspiracy was a Prisoner in the Kings Bench and Affidavits were produced likewise to shew that the Plaintiff had such Interest with the present Sheriffs of London that an indifferent Jury was not like to be returned and that several Persons named to be material Witnesses for the Defendant durst not come to the Tryal if it were in London for fear of their Lives in regard they had been so affronted and abused when they were produced to prove the before mentied Indictment at the Old Baily and several other matters were alledged But it was insisted upon by the Counsel for the Earl That First The Venue uses not to be changed in Case of a Peer who is one of the Comites Regis and shall not be forced to Travel into another County to trie his Case as a Common Person Secondly That the present Case was local viz The preferring the Indictment at the Old Baily and where the Cause of Action ariseth in two Counties the Plaintiff hath his Election to bring it in either 7 Co. Bulwers Case But the Court declared that they were satisfied that no indifferent Tryal could be had in London they remembered they were affronted themselves when they were at the Old Baily upon the before mentioned Indictment And they resolved that they had a power to alter the Venue in the case of a Peer as it had been done about six years since in a Scandalum Magnatum brought by the Earl of Salisbury in this Court. And also they said that the Cause of Action here was Transitory viz. The conspiring and that the preferring of the Indictment was but in aggravation of Damages and the Action would lie altho' none had been offered or if preferred by other Persons than the Conspirators 'T is true when the matter ariseth in several plates the Plaintiff has Election but if there be like to be no indifferent Tryal in the place where it is laid 't is usual with this Court to change the Venue But the Court said they would not confine the Plaintiff to Surry if he could shew them cause that that was not an indifferent County Vid. 42 Ed. 3. 14. Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 34 Car. II. In Banco Regis Denison versus Ralphson IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in consideration of a Sum of Money paid by the Plaintiff did promise to deliver to him ten Pots of good and Merchandizable Pot Ashes and that not regarding his Promise and to defraud him he delivered him ten Pots of Ashes not Merchandizable but mixed with Dirt c. And declared also that pro quadam pecuniae summa c. the Defendant vendidit to the Plaintiff ten other Pots of Ashes Warrantizando c. that they were good and Merchandizable and that he delivered them bad and not Merchandizable knowing them to be naught and to this Declaration the Defendant Demurred And it was argued by Sanders That here were Causes of Action of several Natures put into one Declaration and they required several Pleas viz. Non Assumpsit and Not guilty and therefore ought not to be joyned Thompson for the Plaintiff cited a Case between Matthews and Hoskin An Action against a Common Carrier and declared upon the Custom of the Realm and that he had not delivered the Goods and declared also in a Trover and Conversion upon the same matter and after Verdict upon motion in Arrest of Judgment the Action was adjudged well brought 16 and 17 Car. 2. Hill in this Court. So an Action against one for twenty shillings upon the Hire of an Horse and declared further that he abused him and held good Curia Those Cases were after Verdict Causes upon Contract which are in the Right and Causes upon a Tort cannot be joyned for they do not only require several Pleas but there is several Process the one Summons Attachment c. the other Attachment c. These upon the Contract lie for and against Executors the other not but these seem to be both upon the Contract viz. That
feeds to their damage it will be a Surcharge and an Action upon the Case will lie against him The Lord cannot improve but he must leave them sufficent and there can be no reason why the Owner should not have the Surplusage if any be I know they will cite an Authority against me in the Case between Webb and Littleburgh which was in C. B. 1654. There I confess the Declaration was grounded upon a Prescription much like to this and the Plaintiff had a Verdict and the Court would not arrest Iudgment upon it The Answer that I must give to that Case is grounded upon the difference between a Demurrer and a Verdict The Court may intend that after a Verdict which may help it for I allow an exclusion of the Lord upon a Special Case disclosed in pleading and that Special Matter may be supplied by the Verdict Besides I must observe that it was a Case of small consequence that concerned the Lord only for his Costs for he hath enjoyed his feeding against that Verdict ever since I can say it upon my own knowledge for I know the Parties and know the Place it was at Elinswell near Bury St. Edmonds in Suffolk The Iudges listen to Exceptions after a Verdict but will give Judgment if there be any possibility to maintain it I may add that this was a Popular Times when all things tended to the licentiousness of the Common People I shall Conclude praying Judgment against this Prescription for these Reasons It is a new and unheard of way of Pleading and against the Rule of Law joyning Freehold Tenants in the generalty which have no relation one to another and annexing an entire Interest to several Estates and mixing Prescription and Custom which are of contrary Natures and are great Absurdities It is against Reason to oust the Owner of all the feeding which for ought appears is all the Profits without any Special Matter or Recompence appearing in Pleading There is great inconvenience in admitting of such a Prescription new Inventions bringing unknown Consequences No inconvenience in ousting Tenants of this Prescription seeing that they claim the same Usage the ordinary way and the Lord can do them no wrong either by feeding or improvement In this Case the Court of Common-Pleas had been divided in Opinion upon the Matter in Law as appears by Vaughans Reports and therefore Sir Henry North thought not fit to wave the Matter of Law in the Kings-Bench altho' he had so good a Case upon the Fact that if it had been no prejudice he would joyn Issue and try the truth of this Prescription at the Bar whereupon the Demurrer was by consent waved and the Cause tried at the Bar and the Verdict passed for Sir Henry North with the approbation of the whole Court Afterwards another Action was brought to trial in the Exchequer at the Bar and it appearing to the Court that there had been Proposals towards an Agreement a Juror was withdrawn and my Lord Chief Baron Hale gave the Tenants advice to comply with this saying Redime te captum quam queas minimo So that the Matter of Law was never adjudged against Sir Henry North but the Matter of Fact tried for him and the main Question upon the Act of Level never came in Question which may extend to this great Waste altho' both the other Points were against Sir Henry North. Afterwards there was another Action brought to trial in the Exchequer and after a full evidence of about 4 or 5 hours the Plaintiff not daring to stand the Verdict was nonsuited THE CASE OF Sir Robert Atkyns AGAINST HOLFORD CLARE Under-sheriff of the County of Gloucester TERMINO Sancti Hillarij Anno 22 23 Car. II. In Scaccario AN Action upon the Case was brought by the Plaintiff Vid. Co. Entr. 439. a Quo Warranto brought for these Hundreds setting forth That he was seised of the Seven Hundreds of Crochon Bright Reppesgate Bradley c. in the County of Gloucester and had Return and Execution of Writs there That the Defendant knowing of it did Execute several Writs there to the Plaintiffs damage c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded Issue is taken and this Special Verdict is found viz. They find the Patent of 11 May 5 Johannis whereby the King restores to the Abbot and Convent of Canons Regular in Cirencester certain Lands granted to them by his Brother Richard the First and also grants That no Sheriff of Gloucester or his Bayliff do intromit in aliquo within the Seven Hundreds except for Pleas of the Crown and Summons which the Abbot c. should receive from the hands of the Sheriffs and execute They find the Patent of 20 Decembris 17 E. 3. wherein the King reciting that Richard the First by Patent granted to this Abbot and Convent the Mannor of Cirencester and the Seven Hundreds and the Return of Writs in them that thereby they had used and enjoyed Retorna Brevium tanquam pertinentia ad Septem Hundred ' praedict ' Reciting also that by a Presentment made it was seised into the Chancery and that He Edward the Third for a Fine of 300 l grants that they should hold the Mannor Hundreds Vills c. quod haberent in Villis Hundredis praedictis c. absque impedimento retorna Brevium Infangthief c. tanquam pertinent ' Hundredis praedictis c. of the King and his Successors c. and confirms the Patent of King John They find that the Abbot c. were seised prout Lex postulat till 4 Febr. 27 H. 8. when the Monastery was dissolved and all came to the Crown They find the Statute for vesting of these Lands c. belonging to the Monastery in the King and the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 20. whereby it is Enacted That all Liberties c. which the late Owners of Monasteries had used c. shall be revived and be really and actually in the King his Heirs c. and shall be in the Rule Order Survey and Governance of the Court of Augmentations and that the same Liberties c. shall be used and exercised by such Stewards Bayliffs c. as the King his Heirs c. shall name and appoint c. and that the said Stewards Bayliffs c. shall be attendant and obedient to all the King's Courts for all Returns of Writs c. as the Officers of the late Owners should have been c. and that no Sheriff Under-Sheriff c. should intromit meddle in with or upon the Premisses otherwise or for other cause than they lawfully might have done before the same Premisses came to the possession of the King They find that Edward the Sixth being seised by descent from Henry the Eight Anno primo of his Reign per Lit ' Patent ' ex gratia advisamento Concilii sui dedit concessit cuidam Tho. Seymour Mil ' Dom ' Seymour de Sudley omnia illa Hundreda de Crochen c. nuper Monasterio
Usage in England is that the Archbishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties in the Suffragan Diocess 225 234 Blasphemy Blasphemous Words not only an Offence to God and Religion but a Crime against the Laws State and Government and Christianity is parcel of the Laws of England 293 Bond. See Obligation What Bond a Gaoler may not take of his Prisoner 237 The Condition of a Bond or Covenant may in part be against the Common Law and stand good in the other part ibid. C. Certiorari PRisoners cannot be removed by Certiorari from a Country Gaol till the Indictment be found below 63 Lies to remove an Indictment of Manslaughter out of Wales to be Tryed in the next English County 93 So of Murder 146 Challenge What is good Cause and where Cause shall be shewn 309 Where the Kings Council shall shew Cause ibid Chancery Tryals directed out of Chancery the Course 66 Answer in a Court of Equity Evidence at Law against the Defendant 212 Churchwardens Bring Account against their Predecessor for a Bell whether it shall be said to be de bonis Ecclesiae or de bonis Parochianorum 89 Whether they may refuse to take the Oath to present and how to proceed 114. 127 General VVords to present Offenders do not extend to the Church-warden himself but relate only to the rest of the Parish 127 May make Rates themselves if the Parishioners are Summoned and refuse to meet 367 Common See Pasture Where Common is claimed for Beasts Levant and Couchant on certain Land no other Beasts ought to be put on the Common but those of the Tenant of the Land to which it is appendant or those which he takes to compester his Land 18 A Man cannot prescribe for Common by a Prescripeion that is unreasonable 21 Common apurtenent for Beasts Levant and Couchant how pleaded 54 Common in another Mans Soyl how to be claimed 383 A Commoner cannot prescribe to exclude his Lord 394 The Comencement of Commons 395 In a Title of Common for Beasts Levant and Couchant the Levancy and Couchancy is not Traversable 385. Nor material among Commoners 397 Condition What Words make a Condition what a Limitation and what Conditional Limitation 202 203 Conspiracy If one be acquitted in an Action of Conspiracy the other cannot be guilty but where one is found guilty and the other comes not in upon Process or Dyes yet Judgment shall be against the other 238 Indictment lies for Conspiring to charge with a Bastard Child and thereby also to bring him to disgrace 305 Constable See Attorney Tenant in Antient Demesne not excused from serving Constable 344 Contingency See Grant Remainder Conveyance Contingent Estates what and how destroyed 215 334 Whether a Descent in Tayl prevents a Contingent Remainder 306 Contract A Verbal Contract cannot create a Penalty to oblige the Heir 76 Conveyance The Modern VVays of Conveyancing to prevent the disappointing Contingent Estates 189 VVhere a Conveyance is good before Inrolment and where not 360 Difference between a Conveyance at Common Law and a Conveyance to Uses 373 378 Copyhold See Pasture Admittance of Tenant for years is an Admittance of him in the Remainder 260 VVether Copyholder for Life in Reversion after an Estate for Life in being can Surrender to a Lord Disseizor 359 Coroner VVhere a Melius Inquirendum shall be granted after a Coroners Inquisition super visum Corporis 182 A Coroners Inquisition that finds a person Felo de se non Compos may be Traversed 278. And quasht 352 Corporation VVhat they can do without a Deed and what not 47 48 Costs See Assault and Battery Treble Costs in an Action on the Stat. 8 H. 6. of Forcible Entry 22 Costs where payable in a VVrit of Error 88 VVhere payable by an Executor 92. and Administrator 110 116 If an Executor be sued and the Plaintiff Non-suit he shall have Costs but an Executor Plaintiff shall pay no Costs upon a Non-suit 94 Costs and Damages not to be given in an Action Popular 133 Costs de Incremento 337 362 Covenant VVhat Collateral matters shall be implied upon a Covenant 26 44 45 Thô a Covenant be made only to a Man his Heirs and Assigns yet if a Breach be in his Life time his Executors may bring the Action for Damages 176 VVhere a Covenant shall bind notwithstanding a subsequent Act of Parliament 175 176 Covenant with an Intended VVife whether discharged by subsequent Marriage 344 Courts See Jurisdiction Inferiour Courts cannot make a Continuance ad Proximam Curiam but always to a Day certain 181 Customs See Prescription To maintain a Common Key for the unlading of Goods and therefore every Vessel passing by the said Key to pay a certain Sum a void Custom as to those Vessels which did not unlade at the said Key 71 A Custom that Lands shall descend always to the Heirs Males tho' of the Collateral Line Good 88 D. Damages See Costs NOne but the Courts at Westminster can increase Damages upon View 353 Date See Lease Demurrer The old way of Demurring at the the Bar 240 Devastavit See Executor Return Devise Whether a Termor may Devise in Remainder and limit a Possibility upon a Possibility 79 To Dr. V. during his Exile from his Country what Estate passes 325 Divers parcels of Lands being devised whether these words the said Lands pass all the parcels or only the last mentioned 368 A Devise of Lands to two equally to be divided makes them Tenents in Common 376 Discents The various Kinds of Discents or Hereditary Successions and the Rules whereby they are to be governed 414 The Discent from a Brother to a Brother thô it be a Collateral Discent yet it is an immediate Discent 423. And therefore two Brothers Born in England shall Inherit one the other tho' the Father be an Alien 429. Secus in Cases of Attainder 416 417 If the Son purchase and have no Kindred on his Fathers side but an Alien his Estate shall discend to the Heir on the part of his Mother 426 Distress Whether in Distress for Rent Horses may be severed from a Cart 36 An Information lies not against a Landlord for taking excessive Distress of his Tenents 104 Hindring the Carrying off a Distress a provocation to make killing no more than Homicide 216 Dower The regular proceedings therein 60 Whether a Suit for Dower may be commenced by Plaint in an Inferiour Court without special Custom 267 E. Ecclesiastical Persons PRivilidges from Offices 105 Death of a Parson c. doth not make such a Non-residence as shall avoid a Lease 245 What Leases they may make and what not 245 246 Clergy Men are liable to all publick charges imposed by Act of Parliament in particular for reparation of the Highways 273 Of the Induction of Clerks by whom to be made 309 319 Election Where a thing depends upon Election what course is to be observed 271 Entry Where in Ejectment actual Entry is necessary 332 Error See Executors To reverse a Judgment
the Statute are to King James and in administring the Oath King Charles is named 171 172 The Ecclesiastical Court may make Defendants answer upon Oath as the Chancery doth 339 Obligation If two be bound joyntly and one be sued he cannot demur unless he aver the other is living And if there be two Obligees one cannot sue unless he avers the other is dead 34 A Release of one Joint Obligee of all Actions c. upon his own account does not discharge the Obligation 35 I do acknowledge to E. H. by me 20 l upon demand for doing the Work in my Garden Adjudged upon Demurrer to be a good Bond 238 Office and Officer Whether acceptance of a second Grant of an Office be a surrender of the first 297 An Act begun by one Officer and left imperfect what remains for his Successor 319 320. Outlawry Reverst for want of the Words pro Comitatu and why 108 P. Pardon See Witness WHere good without mentioning the Indictment 207 Parliament See Error The Three Estates See King Pasture Custom for Copyholders to have sole Feeding in a Certain Waste it is not needful to alledge that the Beasts were Levant and Couchant Here also a Copyholder may license others without Deed to put on their Beasts 165 Peace See Indictments Ac. Case Formality of Words where necessary in the Proceedings of Justices of Peace 39 Justices of Peace their Proceedings in relation to Bastard Children 48 59 210 310 336 Upon a Forcible Entry 308 Order of Sessions final in relation to a settlement of the Poor 310 King's Bench may judge of Fines imposed at Sessions and mitigate them 336 Perjury See Indictment One gave Evidence at a Trial and afterwards made Affidavit that he was perjured and suborn'd for which Affidavit an Information of Perjury was exhibited against him and he found guilty of Perjury in swearing he was perjured 182 Pleading See Escape Trespass In Debt upon Obligation the Defendant pleads that he delivered it as an Escrow plea nought 9 Where the Defendant pleads in Abatement and the Plaintiff Demurs if it be adjudged against the Defendant it shall be quod respondeat ulterius But if any thing be alledged in Abatement where upon Issue joyned it goes for the Plaintiff there he shall have Judgment to recover his Debt 22 In Actions laid by way of Reciprocal Promise there needs no Averment of Performance 41 178 Double Plea what 48 272 Trespass quare Arbores succidit Declaration insufficient because not exprest what kind of Trees 53 The like of Fishes 272 329 In Battery absque hoc quod moderate castigavit no direct Traverse to the Defendants Justification 70. Yet good after a Verdict ibid. A Plea in Abatement shall not be admitted after Imparlance 76 136 184. Exception 236 A Traverse designed to bring a Colateral matter in question not allowed 77 Executor pleads plene Administravit the Plaintiff confesseth the Plea and prays Judgment de bonis Testatoris quae in futuro ad manus defendentis devenerint 94 Where the Plaintiff denies what the Defendant affirms whether he ought to traverse or conclude to the Country 101 In Trespass where the Defendant claims a Way what Justification is sufficient what not 13 Incertainty in the Declaration or Plea where naught 106 114 120 278. What shall be said a Departure in Pleading what not 121 Where one Declares against one upon a Deed and it appears that another was bound with him it shall not be intended that the other sealed unless averr'd on the Defendants side 136 137 Deed delivered as an Escrow how to be pleaded 210 An apt Issue is not formed without an Affirmative and a Negative 213 To declare that a Bishop was seized in fee and not say in Jure Episcopatus not binds Successor 223 In Debt for Rent semper paratus is no good plea without saying quod obtulit 322 The effect of an Innuendo 337 The Statute for discharge of poor Prisoners how to be pleaded 356 Several Freeholders cannot joyn or be joyned in a Prescription to claim an Intire Interest in another mans Soyl 384. Nor can Freeholders and Copyholders joyn 390 Powers See Rocovery Of Power to Lease where well persued 294 340 Of Power of Revocation See Revocation Whether the Power of Revocation is extinguished by a Fine 368 371 Prescription See Appurtenant Common Grant The Nature and Rules of Prescription 386 Diversity between Prescription and Custom 389 The Owner of the Soyl can by no Prescription or Custom be excluded out of his own Soyl at all times of the year 390. But he may be excluded for a certain time and as to some kind of Profits 391 Prohibition Where it lies to the Admiralty 1 146 To the Ecclesiastical Court where a Parson sues for calling him Knave 2 Whether it lies where a Bishop sues for a Pension in his own Court 3 Whether it lies upon Suggestion that the Proprietors and Occupiers of such a Mannor or any parcel thereof pay a Groat to the Parson for Herbage-Tythes ibid. Lies for citing a man to answer in the Ecclesiastical Court and not delivering a Coppy of the Articles 5. And if the Party be excommunicate a Prohibition with a Mandamus to absolve him ibid. 252 Not lies to the Ecclesiastical Court for calling Impudent Whore 7. Or Whore and Bawd 61 220. Denied to the Ecclesiastical Court for calling Old Theif and Old Whore 10. Secus in London 343 352 In Prohibition on a Suit for Tythes what Suggestion is to be proved within six months 107 To the Ecclesiastical Court to stay a Suit there for Apparators Fees Suggesting there were no such Fees due by Custom 165 To Woodstreet Compter London for refusing to admit a Plea to their Jurisdiction before Imparlance 180 The Defendant in the Ecclesiastical Court pleads that the Tythes belong to another which Plea is refused Prohibition lies 248 335 Granted to the Ecclesiastical Court where Custom and Prescription comes in question tho the Principal Cause belongs properly to that Court as Church-Wardens Rates Tythes Mortuaries 274 Whether it lies to the Ecclesiastical Court for refusing to admit a Proof by one Witness 291 No Precedent for a Prohibition quia timet 313 To the Council of the Marches 330 Proof See Record Where Proof is to be made upon a Writ of Enquiry and where not 347 Q. Queen A Reservation to the Queen of England does not exclude a Queen Dowager 151 One who hath been a Queen not properly called nuper Regina in her Life time 152 Qui tam. See Error Action Judgment arrested because Issue was joyned only on behalf of the Informer and not also for the King 122 Quo Warranto Against certain Persons of the City of Worcester claiming to be Aldermen 366 R. Record If a Record be lost it may be proved to Jury by Testimony 257 Recorder See Mandamus What Causes may be sufficient to remove a Recorder 144 145 Recovery Where a Fine is Levyed to Lessee for years with an Intent
the Avowant mode forma as he hath set forth 211 The Avowant demurs generally The Plaintiff joyns 212 4. The Plaintiffs declare against three Defendants for taking and detaining their Cattel 224 One of the Defendants avows the other two make Conizance as his Bayliffs The Avowant says That the Father being seized in Fee of the third part of a certain Messuage c. of which the Locus in quo was parcel demised the same for 99 years if A. B. and C. or either of them should so long live reserving Rent That the Lessee entred That the Father being seized of the Reversion died seized and a discent to the Avowant as Heir at Law who distrained for Rent arrear 225 Super praedictam tertiam partem c. And avers That C. is still living In Bar to the Avowry the Plaintiffs Confess the seisin of the Father of one third and that J. S. was seized of the other two parts who licensed the Plaintiffs to put in their Cattel upon the Locus in quo which they did 226 The Defendants demur to the Bar. The Plaintiffs joyn in Demurrer 227 S. Scire facias 1. AGainst a Ter-tenant 101 The Judgment recited in the Writ to the Sheriffs of London The Plaintiff obtulit se at the Return The Sheriffs Return That there were no Tenants of any of the Defendants Lands at the time of the Judgment or at any time since quibus Scire fac ' possunt 101 A Testatum Scire fac ' to the Sheriff of Norfolk The Plaintiff and a Ter-tenant appear at the Return The Sheriff Returns That he had summon'd P. S. who was then Tenant of Lands which were the Defendants at the time of the Judgment and that there are no other Tenants to whom c. The Ter-tenant salvis sibi omnibus exceptionibus c. Imparls The Plaint revived continued and adjourn'd by Act of Parliament 3 Febr. 1. W. M. A further Imparlance The Plaintiff prays Execution 102 The Ter-tenant pleads in Abatement of the Writ and alledges that there are other Tenants of other Lands in Surrey belonging to the Defendant at the time of the Judgment and prays Judgment and that the Writ may be quasht The Plaintiff demurs to the Plea The Ter tenant joyns in demurrer 103 Sheriff Action against him Vid. Actions on the Case 3. Plea to his Bail Bond. Vid. Debt 5. Slander Vide Action on the Case 7. Special Verdict Vid. Trover 2. T Trespass 1. TRespass against the Defendant simûl-cum G. F. for taking Vi armis and Impounding his Cattel quousque finem fecit of 11 l c. contra pacem c. 90 The Defendant as to the Vi armis and contra pacem pleads Not guilty And as to the residue of the Trespass he pleads a Seizure by virtue of a Fieri facias out of the Common Pleas and the Sheriffs Warrant thereupon and that the Cattel were appraised at 11 l being the true Value and detain'd until the said Sum was paid to the Sheriffs Baily for the use of the said Sheriff pro deliberatione averiorum prout bene licuit which was the residue of the said Trespass absque hoc that he is guilty before or after the said taking 91 92 The Plaintiff demurs and assigns for Cause that the Traverse is ill as to Time and that the 11 l ought not to have been paid to the use of the Sheriff by the Law of the Land The Defendant joyns in Demurrer 93 2. Trespass for Assault Battery Wounding and Imprisonment 189 As to the Vi armis vulnerationem the Defendant pleads Not guilty and Issue thereupon At to the residue of the Trespass he pleads that he obtained Judgment against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas in an Action of Indebitatus Assumpsit which Judgment was afterwards set aside and vacated but before it was vacated a Ca. sa was sued out thereupon directed to the Sheriff who made his Warrant to the Bayliff of the Liberty 190 The Bayliff takes the now Plaintiff thereupon and had him in Custody until he paid the Money quae sunt idem Resid ' Transgr ' Insult ' Imprisonat ' and Traverses that he is not guilty of any other Trespass c. The Plaintiff replies That the now Defendant then Plaintiff in the Judgment was an Attorney whose Duty is to enter Judgments fairly and honestly and that he in deceit of the Court entred the Judgment when he ought not to have done it 191 And that afterwards on the Examination and Consideration of the said Entry the said Judgment was by the said Court adjudged void ab initio 192 The now Defendant Plaintiff in the Judgment confesseth the Matter and saith that he appointed the Judgment to be duly Entred but by default of the Clerk it was entred irregularly Absque hoc that it was Entred by the said now Defendant falso fraudulenter in deceptionem Curiae ibid. The Plaintiff demurs The Defendant joyns 193 Trover 1. TRover brought by an Assignee of Commissioners of Bankrupts 63 The Declaration sets forth the Bankrupt to be possest of such and such Goods which came to the hands of the Defendant 63 That the Bankrupt exercised the Trade of a Vintner and became Indebted to several Persons That he departed from his Dwelling-House and became a Bankrupt That the Creditors Petition'd the Lord Chancellor The Commission sued out 64 The Commissioners find him a Bankrupt and make Assignment to the Plaintiff 65 A Conversion of the said Goods by the Defendant 66 The Defendant demurs to the Declaration The Plaintiff joyns in Demurrer 66 2. Against the Sheriffs of London and others for 225 l in Money numbred and divers Goods 156 The Defendants as to part of the Goods which they set forth in particular plead That the Plaintiffs formerly brought an Action of Trespass upon the Case in the Kings-Bench against the now Defendants for taking and carrying away the Goods now sued for 159 That upon Not guilty pleaded the Issue came to a Trial and the Jury found a Special Verdict 160 Which they recite at large That the Owner of the Goods became a Bankrupt That a Judgment was recovered against him for 1000 l and a Fieri facias issued out which being delivered to the Sheriffs of London they seized the Goods in Execution That after Seizure and before Sale a Prerogatie Process issued out against the Goods which is recited in haec verba 161 The Return of the said Process 163 The Goods taken by Inquisition inventoried appraised and sold and the Money delivered to the King's Debtor 164 A Commission of Bankrupts sued out The Commissioners assign to the Plaintiffs The Assignees possest And then they Conclude Si utrum super tota Materia the Defendants are guilty the Jurors know not if the Court shall adjudge them guilty they find for the Plaintiffs if not for the Defendants 165 After several Continuances the Loquela remaining sine die was revived and continued by Act of Parliament
one hath to his Liberty Whoever excites the People to the disobedience of a Law commits the Highest Offence under High Treason I do not mean every Law as if one which should cause a Trespass to be done should be so guity but Laws which are of a publick Nature As to the Retorn I think it is the most insufficient I ever yet saw The certainty of the sum ought to have been expressed in which he and his Sureties should have been bound for otherwise the sum required might be so great that any Person might be constrained to remain in Prison There may may be lawful inciting to the breach of the Law as a Counsel or Attorney advising an Action which is not maintainable and sometimes it may be upon some particular design as in Dier 168. Bronker being made Sheriff one Hyde dissuaded him from taking the Sheriffs Oath because of the difficulty of the Articles B. was condemned in 100 l fine and 5 weeks imprisonment for refusing of the Oath and H. in 20 l and 5 weeks imprisonment for inciting him to it and the reason was because Hyde knew it to be an Offence and that makes it differ from the case of a Counsel or Attorney but the Offence was the less because the incitement was upon a particular reason and not against the Law quatenus a Law In the Retorn here they don't say that they found he was guilty but only that they found cause to suspect him Now what Remedy can be had in such a Case can an Issue be taken whether they had cause to suspect him or no Put the case one who had been fined 10 l for an Offence against this Act in which case the Statute allows of an Appeal had come to Mr. Rudyard to know what he should do and he had advised him to bring an Appeal at the Quarter Sessions this is no Offence and yet 't is an abetting to such as meet and perhaps might be a cause of suspition to a Iustice of Peace I do not see that the Retorn is good in any part of it and therefore he ought to be discharged but I think the Iustices should do well if they know him to be guilty to commit him by a better Warrant whereupon the Prisoner was discharged For it is the usage of this Court when the Iudges are of three Opinions as here my Lord Chief Justice and Tyrrell for discharging him Archer for putting him to Bail and Wyld for remanding him to give the Rule according to the Opinion of the Two which agree The Court said they had often directed that no Habeas Corpus should be moved for in this Court except it concerned a Civil Cause because when the Party was brought in and the Cause shewn this Court cannot proceed upon it therefore the proper place to move for them is the Kings Bench but they permitted it in this Case because the Party was an Attorney of the Court. The Court demanded of Rudyard upon his first bringing in whether he would submit to what they should propose and direct he said he would submit to the Rule of the Court but the Court told him that he must do but demanded whether he would yield to what they should do by way of Arbitration but he tho' advised otherwise by his own Counsel discovered his unwillingness to submit to any thing but the Rule of Law Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 23 Car. II. In Communi Banco Methuselah Turner versus Sir Samuel Sterling Pas ' 23 Rot ' 363. IN an Action upon the Case brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant the Plaintiff declares That London is an Ancient City and that there is an Ancient Bridge and that there use to be two Officers for it to look after it called Bridgmasters and that they have certain Fees and Profits belonging to them And that there is a Custom for the Citizens assembled in a Common Hall or Court yearly to choose or continue those Bridgemasters And another Custom that if one of these die within the Year that the Mayor shall assemble a Common Hall and they being Congregated shall proceed to the election of another Bridgemaster in his stead for the residue of the year And another Custom that upon their proceeding to Election if there be two Persons upon Election he that is chosen by the major number of Votes is duly Elected and that if one in such case require that the Polls should be numbred that the Mayor ought to allow the Poll and that the Assembly ought to be dismissed till that were done And another Custom that the Party so chosen ought to be sworn and used to receive the Profits to his own Use That 24 June 22 nunc Regis there was a Common Hall assembled the Defendant being then Mayor and that A. and B. were then and there chosen to this Office c. and being so A. died in October following and on the 18th of the same October there was another Common Hall for the Election of a Bridgemaster in his stead congregated by the Defendant and then and there the Plaintiff and one Allen stood as Competitors to be chosen for that Office and the Question grew which had the greatest number of Electors and the Plaintiff avers that he had the greatest Number and the other denied it and he requested that according to the Custom they might go to the Poll and the Defendant not minding the execution of his Office but violating the Law and Custom of the City did then and there malitiously refuse the numbring the of Polls and made Proclamation That the Congregation of Electors should depart and discharged the Court and the other man was sworn and so he lost the Profits of the Place c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff after it had been several times spoken to in Arrest of Iudgment the Court delivered their Opinions seriatim Wyld I think the Action well lies for otherwise it will be in the power of every Head Officer to get whom he will have chosen or refused It is objected That non constat whether the Plaintiff should have been chosen Answer The Law gives an Action for but a possibility of Damage as an Action lies for calling an Heir Apparent Bastard It was objected also That at the Common Law there was no Action for a Parliament man against a Sheriff for not returning of him being Elected I Answer That is a place of Burthen this of Profit if I have an Horse or Beast-Market and a Toll for Sale and one hinder the Beasts from coming hither non constat whether they should be sold Yet for the possibility of that and of the loss of the Toll thereon an Action lies 41 E. 3. 24. Pl. 17. b. An Action of the Case was brought against a Sheriff for making of a Precept to one to make a Retorn in the Plaintiffs Case who indeed was not a Bailiff of a Franchise and thereupon the Retorn was quashed Br '
they have been favourably Construed A Mannor in Reputation hath passed by the name of a Mannor in a Recovery Sir M. Finch's Case in Co. and in 5 Co. Dormer's Case Common Recoveries have been admitted of an Advowson All here is to be taken as one Conveyance A Deed expressing the intent may abridge the Recovery in the number of Acres 2 Co. 76. 'T is true in case of the King as that in Mo. 710. there shall be no larger Construction than the express Words import So where the Intent appears as that in Dyer 261. B. North Chief Justice Wyndham and Atkyns Scroggs absent but said by the Chief Justice to be agreed were of the same Opinion and that Common Recoveries were not to be overthrown by nice Constructions and that the Inconvenience objected against the Intent being explained by a Pocket Conveyance was the same where a man had several Lands in the same Vill that of late they have directed the Cursitors to make out Writs of Lands in Parochia They said that there was no Case express against this and that it was the stronger because found in the Verdict that he which suffered the Recovery had no Lands in the Vill and therefore must be void if not extended to the Parish Termino Paschae Anno 32 Car. II. In Communi Banco The Case of Dodwell and the University of Oxford A Prohibition was prayed to the Chancellors Court of the University of Oxford in the behalf of Dodwell who being a Townsman of Oxford was Libelled against in the said Court upon a Statute or By Law of the University made in King James's time that whoever Privilegiatus sive non privilegiatus should be taken Walking in the Streets at Nine of the Clock at Night or after having no reasonable Excuse to be allowed by the Proctor c. should forfeit 40 s c. whereof one Moiety was to go to the University and the other to the Proctor c. that should take him And that Dodwell was taken walking abroad at that Hour and being demanded a Reason thereof he refused to give any Account causa contemptus ad morum reformationem this Libel was Exhibited The Prohibition was moved for the last Term but in regard the Court observed it touched the Jurisdiction of the University on the one hand and concerned the Liberties and Rights of the Townsmen on the other hand they deferred the granting of it until they should hear Counsel on both Sides which was appointed this Term. And now sundry ancient Charters were shewn by which was granted to the University a Iurisdiction tam in Laicos quam in alios and a By-Law made above 200 years since against Night-walking with the penalty of 40 s upon the Offender and Presidents of Proceeding thereupon in the Chancellors Court and that they were as well Guardians of the Peace by Prescription as by Charter And an Act of Parliament of 13 Eliz. was shewn whereby their Jurisdictions and Priviledges and Statutes were Confirmed And altho' the Mayor hath also a Commission of the Peace yet 't is subordinate and he swears Fealty to the Chancellor Curia This Libel is grounded upon a By-Law of 7 Jac. and being subsequent to that Statute of 13 Reginae it is questionable whether warranted by it or no This By-Law and Proceeding cannot be grounded nor derive Authority from their being Guardians of the Peace by Prescription as it seems they are by 9 H 6. 44. For without Act of Parliament or express Prescription a Corporation cannot make a By Law to bind those which are not of the Body Justices of the Peace cannot ordain a Penalty for a Crime without their Jurisdiction and the Proceeding in the Chancellors Court which is according to the Civil Lawâ— cannot be warranted by the Kings Charter For no Court other than such as proceed according to Law can be unless by Prescription or Act of Parliament wherefore in regard if the University should Intitle themselves to this Jurisdiction by Prescription it were properly triable by a Jury And if upon the Act of 13 Eliz. Matter of Law might arise how for the Act might extend North Chief Justice Atkyns and Scroggs thought it was not fit they should determine those Questions upon a Motion but inclined to grant the Prohibition and propounded to the parties to agree that the Libel should be amended wherein it was grounded upon the By-Law made 7 Jacobi which being subsequent to the Act of 13 Eliz. the Merits of the Cause would not be brought before themselves to determine the Grand Points which was agreed And then the Court said that they would grant a Prohibition and let the other Plead c. For North said that they did often deny a Prohibition tho' it were a Writ ex debito Justitae where they saw no Colour for it But if any material Questions were like to arise it was proper to grant it and not to determine them upon Motion but upon pleading to the Prohibition and therein it differed from a Habeas Corpus which was to be inst aly granted because the party is in Prison but there is no such speed requisite in a Prohibition But Wyndham was against the Prohibition in the Case at Bar for he took it that the By-Law 7 Jac. was but in Confirmation of that made before and as a Renewing of it which he took to be confirmed by the Act of 13 Eliz. Nota Scroggs said that Nine of the Clock could not be held such an Hour as it should be a Crime for a Townsman to walk at no more than Three in the Afternoon Tho' for Scholars it might be reasonable to restrain them but no Reason that Townsmen should be subjected to such Rules as were proper for Scholars And upon this he much grounded his Opinion for the Prohibition Anonymus IN an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff was Impropriator of such a Rectory and that he was sued in the Ecclesiastical Court and by Sentence there the Profits were sequestred for the Repair of the Chancel To which the Plaintiff demurred supposing that by 31 H. 8. the Profits of Rectories Impropriate were made Lay Fee and so not subject to be sequestred by the Court Christian and therefore it was supposed that the Lay Impropriator could not sue for Tythes in the Spiritual Court. For which Cause 32 H. 3. was made to empower Lay-men to recover them and 35 H. 8. gives the Ordinary Remedy for Procurations and Synodals which was conceived had been lost by making the Rectories Lay Fee 2 Cro. 518. in Parry and Banks's Case it is Resolved that when the Rectory is in the hands of a Lay Impropriator the Ordinary cannot dissolve the Vicaridge nor in such case cannot augment the Vicaridge 2 Roll. 339. The Form of Pleading was also Objected unto As First 'T is not positively alledged that the Chancel was out of Repair but that he was Libelled against which Libel did mention only it to be
IN an Assumpsit in Consideration that he paid him so much Money he promised to pay a like Sum into the Court and appear Object That there is no benefit as if it were in Consideration that he deposited so much Corn he promised to deliver it over 3 Cro. Cur ' This is not like for here he was benefit by the use of the Money but in the other case he is to deliver the Corn in specie Anonymus IT was moved that where the Defendant was a Constable and a Verdict for him being in the Execution of his Office and no Memorandum appeared as was usual upon the Postea to give him Double Costs according to the Statute of 7 Jac. that it must be now supplied But per Curiam We cannot do it because the Statute says the Judge before whom the Cause was tryed should allow double Costs and the Court cannot do it unless the Judge of Assize had ordered the Postea to be marked Anonymus IT was pleaded in Abatement that the Declaration varied from the Original in the Name of the Defendant and his Addition 'T was said that in such case the Cursitor or Clerk that made out the Writ may be ordered to attend and if his Instructions were right to amend the Writ by the Instructions Anonymus WHere a man was Outlawed after the Plaintiff had him in Prison a Reversal was Ordered at the Charge of him that prosecuted the Outlary it appearing to be an Abuse Anonymus COvenant that he shall Have and Enjoy and a Breach was assigned that such an one brought Trespass and Recovered And after Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it does not appear that he which recovered in Trespass had a Title Serjeant Levins Here is an express Covenant that he should quietly hold the Possession and he is disturbed in his Possession tho' upon no Title And so is Dyer 328. a. Vaughan 120. Vide Hob. 35. Et Adjornatur Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 1 W. M. In Communi Banco Anonymus A Motion was made to change a Venue where an Attorney was Plaintiff Object He has priviledge to lay it in Middlesex because of his Attendance Answ But here he has laid it within London Curia Then let the Venue be changed for then he is to be considered as a person at Large Anonymus A Motion was made for a Prohibition to a Suit for Tythe Lamb upon a Suggestion of a Modus to pay 2 d falling in the Plaintiffs Farm in the Parish Object A Prohibition was granted before to stop this Suit upon a Suggestion which was tryed and found for the Plaintiff and a Consultation granted Answ That Suggestion was for 2 d to be paid for every Lamb which fell in the Parish and this only to a particular Farm and so not within the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. that a second Prohibition shall not be granted after a Consultation awarded in the same Suit Vid. 1 Cro. 151. Stroud and Hoskins 1 Roll. Rep. 378. Note here If this Matter had been found by the Verdict no Consultation had been granted Hob. 192. But here the Court inclined against a Prohibition by reason of the said Statute of 50 Ed. 3. Anonymus A Fine was acknowledged before Herbert Chief Justice by a Man and his Wife 7 Decemb. 1689. and by reason that the late King James had deserted the Kingdom and taken away the Great Seal there followed a step of Proceedings at Law and the Woman died thy 20th of February following and upon the 22th of February the Kings Silver was paid as upon a Writ of Covenant in King James's time tho' no Writ was then sued out But afterwards a Writ of Covenant was taken out Returnable in Michaelmass Term last which was sealed with the Seal of King William and Queen Mary and the Fine was Engrossed and made as a Fine in Michaelmass Term. And this present Term it was moved that the Fine might be vacated and the Book of 1 H. 7. fo 9. was cited where the Cognizance of the Fine was in the time of R. 3. and afterwards a Writ of Covenant was sued in the time of Henry the Seventh which being shewn to the Court they stopped the Fine tho' 't is said in that Case that 't is the common course to take the Acknoweldgment of Fines and then to sue out a Writ of Covenant But they said they would not permit a President That an Acknowledgment of a Fine should be in the Predecessor King and the Writ of Covenant in the time of the Successor But the Court after the Cause had been twice moved and full Consideration of it gave their Opinions seriatim that the Fine should stand For the Entring of the Kings Silver after the parties death could not be now Examined in regard the Fine was engrossed and compleated as a Fine of Michaelmass Term. And so was Farmer 's Case Hob. 330. and Carill's Case Dyer 220. b. The Court would not stop a Fine taken of a Feme Covert when she was dead 1 Roll. Rep. 114. Note Several Presidents were shewn where Fines were set aside for undue Practice in the Passing of them viz. in case of Personating Fines taken by Commissioners of Infants c. Anonymus IN an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit and putting Stakes upon his Ground it was held that this was within the late Statute which Enacts That the Plaintiff shall recover no more Costs than Damages but if any thing had been taken away of how little value soever it had not been within the Statute Anonymus A Prohibition was granted to a Suit for Tythes upon a Suggestion that the Tythes were set out and it was moved for a Consultation that he did not alledge Notice given to the Parson And the Bishop of Catlisle's Case Hob. 107. was cited where a Custom was laid to set out Tythe Wool absque aliquibus visu tactu Roll. Abr. 2. pl. 19. of the Nine parts by the Parson c. But the Court were all of Opinion that Case having been twice moved that no Notice need be given to the Parson And so it is said to be Adjudged in Noy 19. tho' the Ecclesiastical Law is otherwise So is the Case of Chase and Ware Rolls tit Tythes 643. Style 342. where 't is held that if an Action be brought against the Parson for not taking away his Tythe after set out Notice must be given before such Action For the Bishop of Carlisle's Case in Hobart does not make against this for there a Custom was laid to exclude the Parson from seeing the Tythe which is to be set out which Custom is not to be omitted Vid. Rolls Abridg. tit Dismes 647. And the 2 of E. 6. cap. 13. Enacts That it shall be lawful for every person to whom Tythe ought to be paid to view his Tythe set forth and severed from the Nine parts Massingburn versus Durrant IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and cutting of
and the Preferment of Her in Marriage and other good and valuable Considerations Give Grant Bargain and Sell Alien Enfeoff and Confirm unto the said Jane and her Heirs the said Lands And in the said Deed there was a Covenant that after due execution c. the said Jane should quietly enjoy and also a clause of warranty and the Iury found that there was no other Consideration than what was expressed in the Deed ut supra this Deed could not enure as a Bargain and Sale but it was adjudged that it should work as a Covenant to stand seised and Watts and Dix's Case was also cited Sty 188 204 where Rolls said if Lands are passed for Mony only the Deed ought to be enrolled but if for Mony and Natural Affection the Land will pass without Enrollment The Court here in the Principal Case inclined that this Grant would work as a Covenant to stand seised But Pollexfen Chief Justice was of Opinion that it ought to have been so pleaded and not to use the words concessit assign transposuit which is to plead it as a Grant at Common Law Powell and Ventris did conceive that it was pleaded sufficiently in regard it was said that by virtue of the Deed and Statute of Vses he became seised but leave was given by the Court to amend the Plea as the Defendant should see cause Bland versus Haselrig alios QUarto Jacobi Secundi the Case was an Assumpsit was brought against four who pleaded non Assumpsit infra sex annos and the Verdict was that one of the Defendants did assume infra sex annos and the other non assumpsit And it was moved that no Iudgment could be given against the Defendant upon whom the Verdict was found for this is an Indeb assump for Goods sold and 't is an intire contract and they must all be found to promise or else 't is against the Plaintiff Torts are in their nature several so one Defendant may be found guilty and the other not guilty but 't is not so in Actions grounded upon Contract Pollexfen Chief Justice Powel and Rokeby were of Opinion in this Case That the Plaintiff could not have Iudgment Ventris inclined to the contrary he admitted if an Indebitat ' assumpsit be brought against four and they plead non assumps and found that one of them assumed this is against the Plaintiff for he fails in his Action But in the case at Bar it may be taken that they did all promise at first and that one of them only renewed the promise within six years The plea of non assumpsit infra sex annos implies a promise at first and if one should renew his promise within six years 't is reason it should bind him and the Plaintiff must sue them all or else he will vary from the Original Contract But the Chief Justice seemed to be of an Opinion that if the promise were renewed within the six years yet if not upon a new Consideration it should not bind and if there were a new Consideration the Action will lie against him that promised alone Sed Quaere for the common Practice is upon a Plea of the Statute of Limitations to prove only a renewing the Promise without any further Consideration but a bare owning the Debt is not taken to be sufficient Quaere if the first Consideration upon repeating the Promise within six years be not enough to raise a new Cause of Action Iudgment was given for the Defendant Westby's Case WEstby brought an Action by Original and the Instructions to Cursitor for drawing of the Writ were Westby but the Writ was Westly and so all the Proceedings Afterwards the Court upon a motion ordered the Cursitor to attend who satisfied the Court that the Instructions were right and so they ordered the Original to be amended in Court and this without any application to the Chancery or Order from thence and they amended all the proceedings after Termino Paschae Anno 2 Willielmi Wariae In Communi Banco Ellis versus Yates IN an Action of Trespass the Writ was brought and so recited Quare clausum fregit herbam ibid ' crescent ' conculcavit consumpsit averia fugavit and the Declaration was Quare clausum herbam ibid ' crescent ' conculcavit consumpsit bidentes c. fugavit alia enormia c. Vpon Not guilty pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that fregit was omitted in the Declaration so one of the Trespasses contained in the Writ viz. the Clausum fregit was not mentioned in the Declaration and if the Writ contains more than is Declared for this is a Variance not aided by the Verdict 1 Cro. 329. Haselop and Chaplin where a Replevin was de averiis and declares only of an Horse and for that the Judgment was Reversed in a Writ of Error So where the Writ was Quare clausum fregit and the Declaration Quare clausum 1 Cro. 185. Edwards and Watkin Pollexfen Chief Justice and Rokeby were of that Opinion that Judgment should be arrested Ventris contra Powel being absent because the treading and consuming of the Grass necessarily implied a breach of the Close for there could not be an Entry without a Breach So the Declaration by necessary Intendment comprehended all that was in the Writ and to support the Verdict it was reasonable to intend no other breach of the Close than by a bare Entry But the other two said That there might be given in Evidence a breach of a Gate or Hedge and Damages might be given for that and then there was no ground for such Damage set forth in the Declaration And by the Opinion of the Chief Justice and Rokeby the Judgment was stayed Vid. Keilway 187. B. finding in a Verdict upon a Writ of Forcible Entry that the Defendant expulit disseisivit c. this implies it was Vi armis and yet that is the very point of the Action The Warden of the Fleet 's Case A Motion was made by the Warden of the Fleet for a Writ of Priviledge sitting the Parliament alledging that he was obliged to attend the House of Lords and therefore ought to be priviledged from Suits and divers Presidents were shewn where Writs of the like nature were granted to the Warden of the Fleet upon Motion one whereof was 2 Car. 1. and divers since that time some whereof appeared to be upon hearing of Counsel on both sides And the Court were at first inclined to grant him the like Writ but it being afterwards made appear to the Court that he was sued upon Escapes and the Court considering the great inconvenience that would ensue thereupon and being of Opinion that it was in their Discretion whether they would grant such Writ upon Motion or no. For they could not Iudicially take notice of this Priviledge of Parliament and therefore in case he had such Priviledge the Court said he might plead it
sunt verificare unde petunt Judicium si praed ' Nicholaus Sabian ' accon ' suam praed ' versus eos habere seu manutenere debeant The Conclusion of the first Plea c. Et quoad resid ' Transgr ' convercon ' disposicon ' resid ' bon ' catall ' pecun ' in Narr ' praedict ' superius menconat ' iidem Alicia Thomas Benjaminus Georgius dicunt quod ipsi non sunt inde culpabil ' Et de hoc pon ' se super Patriam Et praedict ' Nicholaus Sabian ' similiter Not Guilty to the residue of the Goods c. Creswell Levinz Demurrer Et praedict ' Nicholaus Sabian ' dicunt quod ipsi per aliqua per praedict ' Aliciam Benjaminum Thomam Georgium modo forma superius placitand ' allegat ' ab accon ' sua praed ' inde versus eos habend ' praecludi non debent quia dicunt quod placitum praedict ' per ipsos Aliciam Benjaminum Thomam Georgium modo forma praed superius placitat ' materiaque in eodem content ' minus sufficien ' in lege exist ' ad ipsos Nich ' Sabian ' ab acc̄one sua p̄d ' inde versus ipsos Aliciam Benjaminum Thomam Georgium habend ' praecludend ' ad quod quidem placitum ipsorum Aliciae Benjamini Thomae Georgii iidem Nicholaus Sabian ' necesse non habent nec per legem terrae tenentur respondere Et hoc parat ' sunt verificare Unde pro defect ' sufficien ' respons ipsorum Aliciae Benjamini Thomae Georgii in hac parte iidem Nicholaus Sabian ' petunt Judicium dampnum sua occ̄one convercon ' disposicon ' bon ' catall ' ill ' sibi adjudicari c. Joynder in Demurrer Et praedict ' Alicia Benjaminus Thomas Georgius dicunt quod placitum praed ' ipsorum Aliciae Benjamini Thomae Georgii modo forma praed ' superius placitat ' materiaque in eodem content bon ' sufficien ' in lege exist ' ad ipsos Nicholaum Sabian ' ab accon ' sua praed ' versus ipsos Aliciam Benjaminum Thomam Georgium habend ' praecludend ' quod quidem placitum materiamque in eodem content ' ipsi iidem Alicia Benjaminus Thomas Georgius parat ' sunt verificare Et quia praedict ' Nicholaus Sabian ' ad placitum ill ' non respond ' nec ill ' hucusque aliqualit ' dedic ' sed verificacon ' ill ' admittere omnino recusant iidem Alicia Benjaminus Thomas Georgius ut prius petunt Judicium Et quod praedict ' Nicholaus Sabian ' ab accon ' sua praed ' inde versus eos habend ' praecludentur c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super praemiss priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies inde dat' est tam praed ' Nicholao Sabian ' quam praed ' Aliciae Benjamino Thomae Georgio hic usque in Octab ' Sancti Hillar ' de audiend ' inde Judicio suo eo quod iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Lechmere versus Toplady IN an Action of Trover by Letchmere and Others against Alice Toplady Sir Benjamin Thorowgood and Others where the Plaintiffs Declared That they were possessed de ducent ' viginti quinque libris legalis monet ' Angl ' in pecuniis numerat ' and of ten pipes and fifty gallons of Canary and of divers other things in the Declaration mentioned which they lost and which came afterwards to the possession of the Defendants and they converted them to their own use The Defendants as to divers of the Goods in the Declaration mentioned which they particularly recite in their Plea plead in Bar That in Michaelmass Term in the second year of the late King James the Second the said Plaintiff commenced an Action against the now Defendants in the Kings Bench de plaeito Transgr ' super Casum where they Declared that the Defendants Vi armis took the said Goods and Chattels in the Declaration now mentioned and pleaded to apud London c. ceperunt asportaverunt To which the Defendants pleaded Not Guilty and went to Trial upon that Issue Vpon which the Jury found a Special Verdict which the Defendants set forth in their Plea verbatim together with the whole Record in the Kings-Bench and that upon that Special Verdict the Court gave Judgment that the Plaintiffs nil capiant per billam and that the Defendants irent inde sine die prout per Recordum Process inde in Cur ' dicti domini Regis dominae Reginae nunc coram ipsis Rege Regina apud Westm ' residen ' plen ' apparet quod quidem Recordum in plenis róbore vigore suis adhuc remanent minime reversat ' seu annihilat ' and avers that the Goods and Chattels in both Declarations ' were the same and the taking carrying away and disposing of the said Goods in the said Action of Trespass and the coming of the said Goods to the hands of the Defendants and the disposition and conversion thereof in this Declaration mentioned are the same and the Cause of Action the same c. and as to the residue of the Goods and Chattels in the now Declaration mentioned the Defendant pleads Not Guilty and Issue thereupon and to the Bar pleaded the Plaintiffs demurred It was Argued by Serjeant Tremayne against the Bar That the Actions were of a different nature and that in many Cases Trover would lye where Trespass Vi armis would not 1 Cro. 667. Ferrars and Arden where 't is said If one deliver Goods to another to keep and brings Trespass and is Barred he may after bring Detinue because he mistook his Action Vid. 6 Co. 7. And he relied upon the Case of Putt and Royston Pasch 34 Car. 2. B. R. Rot. 422. where in an Action of Trespass upon a Not guilty Verdict was for the Defendant and Judgment and there the Plaintiff brought an Action of Trover for the same matter and the former Judgment was pleaded in Bar and upon a Demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Serjeant Pemberton contra 'T is taken for a Rule in Sparrie's Case 5 Co. 61. Nemo bis vexari debet si constet Cur ' quod sit pro una eadem causa He agreed that Trover would lye in many cases where Trespass would not but here it appears to the Court by the Matter disclosed in the pleading the Special Verdict and whole Record being set forth that the Plaintiff was barred before not for having mistaken his Action but upon the Rights and Merits of the Cause and this he said differed this Case from that of Putt and Royston Note That Case was Adjudged when Sir Francis Pemberton was Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench for there the Verdict being upon the General Issue in Trespass
it could not appear upon the Record but that the Verdict was against the Plaintiff upon the mistake of the Action whereas here it appears upon the Matter at large set forth in the Special Verdict that Judgment was given against the Plaintiffs upon the Merits of of the Cause And the Court were of Opinion that the Plea in Bar was good in this Case but they took the Case of Putt and Royston to be a Case of the same nature For tho' the Issue were General yet in regard of the Averments which in every such Plea there must be it appears to the Court that the Matter was the same as well as here it doth upon the Special Verdict and if it were not the same so that the Plaintiff was barred to the former by mistaking the Nature of his Action the Averment might be traversed Therefore by reason of that Case Adjudged and the Importunity of the Plaintiffs Leave was given by the Court to speak further to the Case the next Term. The Earl of Mountague versus The Lord Preston IN an Action on the Case for the Profits of the Office of Master of the King's Wardrobe the Plaintiff Declared That King Charles the Second in the 23th year of his Reign granted him a Patent to hold the said Office for Life reciting a former Grant thereof to the Earl of Sandwich and the Surrender of that Grant And that the Defendant by colour of a Patent granted to him in the First year of the late King James had entred upon the Office and taken the Profits and had deprived the Plaintiff of the whole benefit and profit of the Office Vpon Not guilty pleaded it came to a Trial at the Bar this Term and it was insisted upon for the Defendant That the Plaintiffs Patent having recited a former Grant that they must prove that Grant to have been surrendred To which it was Answered That if they took advantage of the Recital they must admit all that was recited as well the Surrender as the Grant And of that Opinion was the Court. Then the Defendant produced the Earl of Sandwich's Patent and this the Court held would put the Plaintiff to prove a Surrender And a Surrender was shewn in Evidence accordingly Note It was said in an Action of this Nature that it is not necessary to shew every particular Sum received by the Defendant But it is a good Evidence for the Damage to shew the Profit of the Office communibus annis Anonymus AFter an Extent upon a Statute and a Liberate out of this Court the Writ was Habere fac ' terr' tenementa instead of Liberari facias and it was moved to amend the word Habere in the Writ and to make it Liberari And after divers Motions the Court Ordered the Amendment to be accordingly because it is a Judicial Writ 8 Co. 157. a. 1 Cro. 709. A Writ of Enquiry was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was quod Inquirat instead of Inquirant and it was amended Vid. the Case of Walker and Riches 3 Cro. 162. and the Case of Keer and Guyn Hob. 90. but in that Case the Roll was wrong in a very material thing for it was not said in the Elegit the Lands and Tenements of the Defendant Anonymus AN Action of Debt was brought in this Court for a Sum of Money recovered in the Hundred Court and the Defendant was admitted to wage his Law tho' at first the Court doubted Vid. Mo. 276. for a Wager of Law to an Action of Debt brought for an Amercement in a Court Baron Note When the Defendant hath his Hand upon the Book before he is sworn the Plaintiff is to be called and he may be Non-suited The Defendant is to bring his Compurgators but they may be less than Eleven and they are sworn de credulitate Anonymus AN Action was brought for speaking of these words of the Plaintiff He broke my House like a Thief And upon Not guilty pleaded a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And the Court held the words not to be Actionable Anonymus IN an Action for Words spoken of the Plaintiff in saying He was a Clipper and Coiner After Verdict upon Not guilty pleaded it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Words did not charge him with Clipping and Coining of Money and Clipping and Coining might be apply'd to many other things But the Court held the Words to be Actionable in regard of the strong Intendment and such Words are understood by those that heard them to mean Clipping and Coining of Money Anonymus AN Attorney brought an Action for that the Defendant said of him He is a Cheating Knave and not fit to be an Attorney After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no Communication of his Profession and the Words did not necessarily relate to his Practice But the Court held the Action would lye for saying That he was not fit to be an Attorney shewed plainly that Cheating Knave had reference to that Anonymus UPon a Motion for a New Trial it appeared that the Solicitor for the Plaintiff who also was an Attorney had wrote two Letters to two of the Jury before the Trial importuning them to Appear and setting forth the Hardships that his Client had suffered in the Cause and how he had Verdicts for his Title The Court set aside the Trial for this Cause and Committed the Solicitor to the Fleet for this Misdemeanor being Embracing of a Jury and before his Discharge made him pay Ten pounds to the party towards the Charges of the Trial. Pretious versus Robinson THe Cause being at Issue in Hillary Term last a Venire was awarded and a Jury Retorned upon it and in Easter Term after another Venire was awarded and a Trial was by a Jury Returned upon the two Venire's Vpon this the Court set aside the Verdict for there was no Authority for the two Venire's so all the Proceedings thereupon are void and not aided by the Statute of 16 Car. 2. Cooke versus Romney AN Action of Covenant was brought against two and it was quod teneat conventionem instead of teneant and after a Writ of Error brought it was moved that it might be amended and made teneant It was Objected That False Latin in an Original could not be amended as hos breve for hoc breve so in Waste destrictionem for destructionem Blackamore's Case 8 Co. But the Court granted the Motion and ordered the Amendment And it was said of late days it had been done in case of a word Mistaken in an Original as in Ejectment divisit for dimisit Vid. in Blackamore's Case the like 159. b. Imaginavit for imaginatus est was amended Anonymus IN Trover and Conversion for a Mare Vpon Not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Mare was said ad valentiam and it should have been pretii Sed non
which it was answered That they were not tyed to the Time but the Place it was ibidem facere Ordinationes and not adtunc ibidem But the Court gave Judgment upon the first Matter Newport versus Godfrey THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the Detinet against Godfrey Executor of Stephen Turner for 70 l arrear of Rent and declared upon several Demises upon the 28th of September 1685. to the said Turner reserving several Rents of which there became arrear to the Plaintiff in the Life time of the said Turner 70 l and it appeared by the Declaration that the Leases ended in the Life of the said Turner In Bar of which the Defendant pleaded several Bonds entred into by the Testator to divers persons for the payment of Money which he avers to be all for true and just Debts and that he had administred all besides Goods to the value of 40 l which he retained towards satisfaction of the said Bonds c. To which the Plaintiff demurred and it was Argued last Term for the Defendant that a Debt upon a Specialty was to be preferred before Debt for Rent upon a Lease parol Styl Rep. 61. Rolls said that a Specialty was of an higher nature than Rent reserved upon a Lease by Deed. Indeed it is made a Quaere in Roll. Abr. 1. part 927. but if Rent should be preferred where the Lease was continuing after the Death of the Testator in regard the Testator's Goods are liable to be distrained for it which the Executor cannot withstand Yet there is not the like Reason when the Lease expires in the Life of the Testator and the Case was adjourned to this Term for the Iudgment of the Court. And the whole Court were of Opinion that Judgment should be for the Plaintiff For tho' the Lease be determined yet the Debt still savours of the Realty and is maintained in regard of the Profits of the Land received insomuch that no Wager of Law lies in Debt for Rent tho' brought after the Lease determined A Bond given for Rent will not drown it 11 H. 4. 75. b. an Action lies against the Executors of an Assignee of a Lease for Rent in the Testator's time and yet the Assignee is chargable only in respect of the Lease Vid. 13 H. 4. 1. a. Office of Executors 209 210 211 c. Godfrey versus Ward IN an Action of Debt for Rent The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and that Causa Actionis praedicte c. accrevit above six years before the Writ brought To this the Defendant demurred and the Cause of the Demurrer was upon the late Statute for reviving of Process anno primo Willielmi Mariae by which it is provided in regard there was an Interruption of the Government and proceedings of Law from the 11th of September 1688. to the 13th of February following that the time within those Days should not be accounted as any part of the six years to barr an Action by the Statute of Limitations or of the six Months for bringing a Quare Impedit c. so as it was urged that the Defendant should have shewn that six Years and so many Days were elapsed as are between the 11th of December and the 13th of February For tho' six years may be passed yet the Plaintiff may be within time by reason of the said Statute But the Court were of Opinion that the Defendants Plea was well and this should be shewn of the Plaintiffs part for the Statute does not alter the Form of Pleading but that shall be as it was before and the Plaintiff if the Matter will bear it is to help himself upon the said Statute The old way upon the Statute of Limitations was for the Defendant to plead the Statute at large but of late years the General Pleading of Non assumpsit infra sex annos has been allowed Warren versus Sainthill Devon ' ss SAMUEL SAINTHILL nuper de Bradmuch in Com' praedict ' Armig ' Johannes Savery nuper de Bradmuch in Com' praedict ' Husbandnian attach ' fuer ' ad respondend ' Thomae Warren gen ' de placito Transgr ' super Casum c. Case for stopping up of a Foot way The Plaintiff says That was possest he and Inhab of in an ancient Messuage And that habuit habere debuit a Foot-way for himself and his Servants Et unde idem Thomas per Johannem Prowse Attorn ' suum Queritur quod cum praedict ' Thomas vicesimo nono die Septembris anno regni domini Regis dominae Reginae nunc primo continue postea usque primum diem Januarii tunc ê“x ' fequen ' fuit possessionat ' inhabitans de in quodam antiquo Mesuagio scituat ' jacen ' in villa de Watterstaffe infra paroch ' de Bradmuch praedict ' ac ê“ totum tempus ill ' quandam viam pedestrem ducen ' à Villa de Watterstaffe praedict ' in per trans quaedam Clausa voc ' Crollands Smiths Down and Tulver Park infra paroch ' de Bradmuch praedict ' usque ad villam de Bradmuch in Bradmuch praedict ' pro se servientibus suis ad eundem redeund ' omnibus temporibus ad libitum ejus tanquam ad Mesuag ' As belonging to his Messuage praedict ' spectan ' pertinen ' habuit de jure habere debuit praedicti Samuel ' Johannes machinan ' intenden ' ipsum Thomam minus rite perturbare ipsum de via praed ' impedire deprivare praedict vicesimo nono die Sept ' Anno primo supradicto apud paroch ' de Bradmuch quaedam Fossa Trencheas ex transverso viae praedict ' The Defendant to disturb him in the Way dug Ditches and Trenches cross the Way And erected Hedges and Fences cross it Whereby he was hindred of his Way in t ' Villas de Watterstaffe Bradmuch praedict ' fodier ' fecer ' ac etiam viam ill ' ibedem cum quibusdam sepibus fensuris ex transverso viae praedict ' eject ' obstruxer ' praecluser ' per quod idem Thomas à via praedict ' in forma praedict ' habend ' à praedict ' vicesimo nono die Septembris usque praed ' primum diem Januarii Anno primo supradicto penitus impedet ' deprivat ' fuit ad dampnum ipsius Thomae quadragint ' librar ' Et inde ê“ducit sectam c. To this the Defendant pleaded a frivolous Plea and the Plaintiff demurrs and the Defendant joyned in the Demurrer and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Warren versus Sainthill IN an Action upon the Case for Stopping of a Way the Plaintiff declared that he was possessed and an Inhabitant of and in a certain ancient Messuage the 29th of Sept. in the first year of the now King and Queen and so continued to the first day of January then next following and for all that time had a Foot-way over the Defendant's
non habet nec per legem terrae tenetur aliquo modo respondere Et hoc parat ' est verificare Unde pro defectu sufficien ' replicaconis in hac parte Idem Samuel ut prius pet ' Judicium Et quod praedict ' Juditha ab accone sua praed ' habend ' praecludatur c. Et praedict ' Juditha ex quo ipsa sufficien ' Joynder in Demurrer materiam in lege ad acconem suam praedict ' versus praefat ' Samuel ' habend ' manutenend ' superius replicando allegavit quam ipsa parat ' est verificare Quam quidem materiam idem Samuel non dedic ' nec ad eam aliqualit ' respond ' sed verificacon ' ill ' admittere omnino recusat ut prius pet ' Judicium debitum suum praedict ' unacum dampnis suis occone detenconis debiti ill ' sibi adjudicari c. Et quia Justic ' hic se advisare volunt de super praemissis priusquam Judicium inde reddant dies dat' est partibus praedict ' hic usque à die Paschae in quindecim dies de audiendo inde Judicio eo quod iidem Justic ' hic inde nondum c. Judith Hanson versus Liversedge IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform the Award of two Arbitrators in Writing or by word of Mouth The Defendant pleaded Nullum fecerunt arbitrium The Plaintiff replies That at the time of the Bond and Award she had an Action against the Defendant for scandalous Words and that the Arbitrator did make declare and publish their Award in manner and form following viz. That the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff 12 Guinea's and all such Moneys as she had expended circa prosecutionem placiti praedict ' and that the parties should give mutual Releases of all Matters to the Date of the said Bond and saith that she laid out in the said Suit 11 l 7 s and demanded the said Sums of Money of the Defendant and protestando that the Defendant had not paid her the 11 l 7 s dicit in facto that he had not paid the 12 Guinea's awarded as aforesaid hoc parat ' est verificare c. To this the Defendant Demurred And Pemberton for the Defendant said First This Award as set forth appears to be void for 't is to pay the Charges expended circa placit ' praed ' and the Award doth not mention any Suit before and tho' the Plaintiff in her Inducement saith That she had an Action for Words against the Defendant then depending that will not help it for that is no part of the Award but the Award in the Form as 't is set forth is unintelligible there being no Suit mentioned before to refer placit ' praedict ' unto Secondly 'T is not sufficient to Award payment of the Charges in such a Suit it being altogether uncertain what the Sum will amount to Thirdly It ought to have been shewn that the Plaintiff had a Cause of Action in the Action that is mentioned to have been brought against the Defendant for Slander and so is Spigurnell's Case in Siderfin 1st Part 12. Curia As to the first if the Award were in Writing in such form of Expression it could not be good but he which sets forth an Award by Parol is not tyed to the words for the precise words might be very difficult to prove but 't is sufficient to shew the effect and substance of what was awarded by Word of Mouth and 't is sufficiently shew that this Award was made concerning that Action of Slander For the Second the Court held that the Award was good for it may be easily reduced to a Certainty when 't is made appear what was laid out in that Suit as in 1 Roll. Abr. 251. Beale and Beale and in the 3 Cro. 383. to pay the Charges of such a Voyage held a good Award Thirdly The Plaintiff need not shew that there was Cause of Action for that is left to the Arbitrators and they have power to award Charges thereupon tho' in point of Law there were no Cause of Action for the Parties have made the Arbitrators their Judges And the Court were not satisfied with the Opinion Reported by Syderfin in Spigurnell's Case and said he was then a young Reporter Whereupon Judicium pro Quer ' Major probi homines de Guldeford versus Clarke Surr ' ss JOHANNES CLARKE nuper de Guldeford ' Debt upon a By Law made by a Corporation by Prescription in Com' praedict ' Dyer Sum ' fuit ad respondend ' Majori probis hominibus Villae de Guldeford ' in Com' Surr ' de placito quod reddat eis viginti libras legalis monet ' Angl ' quas eis debet injuste detinet c. Et unde inde iidem Major probi homines Villae de Guldeford ' praed ' per Henr ' Dyve Attorn ' suum dic ' quod cum praedict ' Villa de Guldeford ' in dicto Com' Surr ' est antiqua Villa quodque probi homines ejusdem Villae à tempore cujus contrarij memoria hominum non existit fuer ' Antiqua Villa adhuc existunt corpus Corporat ' Politicum in re facto nomine per nomen Majoris proborum homin ' Villae de Guldeford ' in Com' Surr ' A Corporation time out of Mind To implead and be impleaded per idem nomen usi fuer ' placitare implacitari respondere responderi Cumque etiam infra Vill ' ill ' habetur à toto tempore supradict ' cujus contrar ' memoria hom ' non existit habebatur talis consuetudo usitat ' approbat ' quod Major probi homines Villae praedict ' pro tempore existen ' vel major pars eorundem in Com' A Custom to make By-Laws Concil ' congregat ' assemblat ' usi fuer ' consuever ' facere constituere leges constitucones pro bono regimine gubernacone Villae praed ' inhabitan ' ejusdem poenas poenalitat ' For good Government of the Corporation And to impose Penalties Custom to elect a Bayliff Annually super personas contra leges constitucones ill ' delinquen ' imponere Cumque etiam infra Villam praedict ' fuit antiquus Officiarius annuatim quolibet anno super diem Lunae prox ' post Festum Sancti Michaelis Archi ' pro uno anno tunc sequen ' per Majorem probos homines praed ' elect ' vocat ' Balliv ' ejusdem Villae ad negotia ejusdem Villae peragend ' Cumque etiam praed ' Major probi homines Villae praed ' The By-Law set forth secundo die Octobris anno regni domini Caroli secundi nuper Regis Angl ' c. tricesimo quarto apud Vill ' de Guldeford praedict ' in Com' Consilio adtunc ibidem congregat ' assemblat '
a Scotishman Antenate being Naturalized by Act of Parliament in Ireland can Inherit Lands in England 2 Ne exeat Regnum Granted in Chancery to stop one from going beyond Sea to avoid a Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court 345 Nonsuit The Plaintiff Nonsuited in Ejectment after Evidence where two Defendants and one appears to confess Lease Entry c. and the other not the Plaintiff shall pay Costs but quaere how to be divided 195 Notice See Chancery Conveyance Mortgage If a Man pleads a Valuable Consideration in Chancery to save his Estate from a Judgment he must also set forth That he had no Notice of the Judgment 361 O Obligation A Penalty may be recovered in an Action of Debt upon a Bill Obligatory tho' it be not drawn properly as a Penal Bill 106 Occupant Occupancy favoured in Chancery 364 Office Where the Archdeacon forfeits his Right to grant the Office of his Register by the Stat. 5 E. 6 c. 16. against the Sale of Offices whether the King or Bishop shall take advantage of the Forfeiture 188 213 267 A Dissenter that hath not received the Sacrament of 12 Months before may plead the Stat. 13 Car. 2. Stat. 2. cap. 1. to excuse him from serving Offices in Corporations 247 248 Original See Writs What Original Filing within time shall be sufficient to prevent the pleading the Statute of Limitations 193 259 Whether in the Common Pleas an Original in a Clausum fregit be sufficient to warrant a Declaration in an Assumpsit 259 Outlawry A Man in Prison ought not to be Outlawed by him who Imprisoned him 46 Action on the Case will not lye for the Party who hath an Outlawry agaist a Sheriff who neglects to extend the Goods of the Outlaw upon the delivery of a Writ of Capias Vtlagatum for that it is the King's loss 90 Whether Outlawry may be pleaded in Bar to an Assumpsit upon a Quantum meruit 282 Oxford See By-Law The Priviledge of the University not allow'd to a Townsman so as to excuse him from Office who keeps a Shop and follows a Trade tho' he be Matriculated and Servant to a Doctor 106 Priviledge not allow'd to a Member of this University in a Suit in Chancery 362 P Pardon SUits by Successor against Executor for Dilapidations not pardon'd by the General Pardon otherwise of Suits ex Officio against the Dilapidator 216 Parliament No Action lies against the Chief Officer of a Corporation for a Double-Return of a Burgess the Common Pleas having no Jurisdiction of this Matter 37 Peace The King cannot discharge a Recognizance taken for Surety of the Peace but after it is broken he may 131 A Gentleman said to be a Member of the House of Commons bound to the Peace for Challenging one of the King's Witnesses to Fight 317 Plantation Tho' a Plantation be an Inheritance yet being in a Foreign Country 't is look'd upon as a Chattel to pay Debts and a Testamentary thing 358 Pleading See Baron and Feme Covenant Intent Scire facias Copyhold What shal be held a Double Plea and what not 68 198 Trespass for carrying away diversa onera equina of Gravel naught for incertainty 73 Want of the Word alio or aliis in a Declaration where several mention is made of things of the same nature yet good enough 78 For the Defendant to traverse Matter not alledged good Cause for the Plaintiff to demur 79 If a Judgment and Execution be pleaded in an Inferiour Court not of Record the Proceedings ought to be set forth at large and not sufficient to say taliter processum fuit also it ought to be set forth That the Cause of Action did arise within the Jurisdiction 100 In a Prescription for Priviledge tempore quo non exstat memoria good enough tho' the Course be to say à tempore cujus contrarium memoria hominum non existit 130 Tho' by Course of the Court if a Defendant lye in Prison two whole Terms without any Declaration put in he may get a Rule to be discharged yet if a Declaration be afterwards delivered and Judgment thereupon 't is a good Judgment and the Bail formerly given will be liable 143 Where Freehold Lands were pleaded to pass by Surrender according to Custom the Special Custom must be set forth 144 Where the Writ contains more than is Declared for this is a Variance not aided by the Verdict and Judgment arrested 153 Debt upon Bond Condition'd That the Husband shall permit the Wife to dispose of her Personal Estate c. it is not sufficient for the Defendant to plead quod Conditio nunquam infracta fuit and put the Plaintiff to assign a Breach but the Defendant must shew forth That he hath perform'd the Condition 156 Where an Action of Trespass brought for the same Matter in another Court may be pleaded in Bar to an Action of Trover 169 170 In Trespass quod duas acras terrae fod subvert asportavit Judgment stayed because the Declaration doth not express the quantity of Earth carried away for the two Acres relate only to the Ground digged 174 The Plaintiff Declares for Assault Battery Wounding and Imprisonment the Defendant in his Plea takes no notice of the Battery naught 193 Plea in Abatement That the Plaintiff was dead before the Action brought where good 196 Where preadict is necessary and where not 197 Where a Traverse that might have been omitted is Cause of Demurrer 212 Doubleness in a Declaration cured by Answering 222 Day of the Week where material ought to be set forth in Pleading for the Court are not obliged to consult the Almanack 248 Tempore dimissionum where it should be temporibus dimissionum naught 253 254 271 Super Acclivitatem de Hampsted which is a description of a Scituation whether it be a Vill or Lieu conus sufficient for a Jury 254 272 Diversas petias Maheremij cepit c. naught for the Incertainty 262 Where the Defendant pleads an Insufficient Plea the Plaintiff shall make no Advantage of that upon Demurrer if his own Declaration be naught but Judgment will be against the Plaintiff 262. As where an Executor sues for Rent and does not sufficiently Intitle his Testator to the Estate demised ibid. Plenam potestatem Jus Titulum ad Praemissa dimittend ' and does not set forth what Estate he had whether in Fee or other Estate not good upon a Demurrer 271 Houses are set forth in Pleading to lye in Parochia praedicta and two Parishes are named before naught for the Incertainty 278 Traverse impertinent where the Matter is confest and avoided 283 No General Rule That a Matter cannot be pleaded specially which may be given in Evidence upon a General Issue and in what Cases it may 295 Vid. infra Statut. 1 W. M. cap. 4. Presumption Presumptions of Law stand as strong till the contrary appears as an express Declaration of the Party 208 Priviledge Whether the Warden of the Fleet shall have a Writ