Devisees took their estates respectively by the Will or by the Feoffment if by the Will it was void for a third part and a Tenancy in common If by the Feoffment it was good for the whole 2. point when the use of the Feoffment is expressed to such persons as should be declared by the Will and he deviseth the Land if the same shall be said to be a limitation of the use according to the Authority The case not Resolved because the Justices were divided in their opinions It was adjourned Prat and Phanners Case 652. Debt upon Obligation The condition was Whereas Suits have bin brought prosecuted betwixt the Defendant and A his Wife which controversies are now finally to be ended betwixt them if the Defendant do not from henceforth commence and prosecute any Suit or Action in any Court or Courts Spiritual or Temporal against the said A. his Wife for any matter precedent or cause from the beginning of the World but shall from henceforth during the natural Lives of him the Defendant and A. his Wife account of use and maintaine the said A. as his lawful wife to all intents c. then c. The Defendant pleaded he had not brought any Action in any Court against the said A. after the said Obligation and that before A. was married to him she was married to I. S. who is yet alive for which cause he cannot accept of and maintain the said A. as his lawfull wife according to the Form of the Condition upon which it was demurred It was Resolved that the material part of the Condition did consist in the first part of the Condition if he do not prosecute any Suit and the Defendant having pleaded an Issuable Plea to that it is not material if he plead to the latter part of it or not and if his Justification be insufficient the Plaintiff ought not to have demurred upon it But the Court held his Justification to be good because the Condition as to that part is against the Law of God and so the Obligation void And whereas it was objected that he is estopped to plead the special matter of her former Marriage because in the Condition she is called A. his wife The Court said he was not estopped by it because he may confess and avoid it for she may be his Wife as to some purposes but as to use her as a lawfull wife she is not his wife Lloyd and Wilkingsons Case 653. In Ejectione firme the case was A. Rector of C. by Indenture between him of the one part and E. R. W. and T. of the other part devised the same to E. for 80. years if she should so long live and should not alien the premises and if she should die within the Term or should alien that then her Estate should cease and that then the same should remain to R. pro durant ' residuo praedicti termini praedict ' 80. annorum and if he should alien c. ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the same should remain to W. pro durant ' tot annis praedict termini 80. annorum si c. and if he should alien ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the said A. concessit praemissa durante tot annis praedict ' 80. annorum quod ad tunc continuarent remanerent in expiratis to T. his Executors and Assignes A. died F. died E. and R. died The Administrator of F. entred and assigned over the same In this Case it was Resolved That the Demise to R. and W. were void because that the Estate which E. had was not for 80. years absolutely but sub modo under a condition and then the Demise to them pro tot annis quot remanerent after the death of the said E. pro durante residuo termini praedict ' 80. annorum was void for there could not be a residue of the said Term because that determined by the death of E. 2. Resolved That the Lease and Limitation to F. was void for the uncertainty for it was uncertain at the making of the Lease how many years should be behind at the time of the death of E. 3. Resolved That the Demise and Limitation to T. was not good because that R. and W. survived F. which was against the express Limitation for his Estate was limited upon two Contingents Pigot and Hearns Case 654. In Trover and Conversion the case was this The Lord of the Mannor of B. in the Parish of D. did prescribe that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estate c. had used from time to time whereof c. to pay to the Parson of D. the now Plaintiff and his Predecessors 6 l. per an for all manner of Tythes growing within the said Parish and that by reason thereof he and all those whose Estates c. Lords of the said Mannors had used time whereof c. to have Decimam garbam decimum cumulum garbarum of all of his Tenements within the said Mannor It was in this case Resolved that it was a good Prescription and that a Modus decimandi by the Lord for himself and all the Tenants of his Mannor from barring the Parson to demand tythes in kind is a good Prescription because it might have a lawful commencement 2. It was Resolved That it was a good Prescription to have Decimam garbam in or Decimum cumulum garbarum or gramorum or the tenth Shock for he hath it as a profit appender and not as Tythes 3. Resolved in this case that if the Queen be Lady of the Mannor she might prescribe to have Tythes for that she is capable of them she being Persona mixta capax Spiritualis Jurisdictionis Holcrofts Case 655. A seised of Lands in Fee levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to B. his Son for the Term of his Life only so long and untill he attempt to alien and then to the use of C. and the Heirs Males of his Body during the Life of B. and immediately after his death to the use of the first begotten Son of B. then after to be begotten and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to his Second Third or Fourth Son to be begotten in lawful Marriage and if it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Heir Male of his Body then to the use of C. and the Heirs Male of his Body with diverse Remainders over in tail the remainders to the right Heirs of A. A. dyed B. having only one Son born after the Indenture and Fine which dyed without Issue Male joyned in a Fine with C. to I. S. and I. D. who rendred the Land to B. for 80. years next following if the said B. so long lived and immediately after his Decease to the first begotten Son of the said B. or which afterwards he should beget and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to the Second or Third
good against a Purchaser bna fide for valuable consideration Crowther and Fryers Case 800. The case was a Parson sued a Copyholder for Tythes arising upon his Copyhold he prayed a Prohibition and suggested that the Bishop of W. was Lord of the Mannor and that he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. for them their Farmors and Tenants had bin discharged of Tythes arising upon the Mannor and shewed he had bin a Copyholder of the Mannor and preseribed in his Lord. It was the opinion of the Justices in this case that although there is a Prescription upon a Prescription one in the Copyholder to make the estate good the other in the Bishop to make his discharge good yet a Prohibition lyeth for the Prescription in the Lord of Right of necessity and common Intendment proceeds the Prescription in the copyhold estate and the discharge of the Tythes in the Lord shall go to the benefit of the Copyholder Blake and Allens Case 801. B. was bounden 10 A. in an Obligation of an 100 l. for the true behaviour of his Son he being an Apprentice to A. A. after the sealing and delivery of the Bond razed out the word Libris and inserted the word Marcis It was the opinion of the Justices it was not a Forgery punishable because he made his own Bond void and it was not a prejudice to any but to himself 802. Two Executors made Partition of their Testators Specialties and then one of them did release to the Debtor an Obligation which did appertain to the part of the other the Debtor having notice of the Partition betwixt them the other sued in Chancery for Reliefe but the Chancery would not relieve him but if the Release was obtained by Covin for a less Sum then the Debt was there it was holden the Debtor should satisfie the Over-plus 803. It was agreed by the Justices that the Hundred is not chargable with the escape of the Felons nor to pay the Robbery if the Robbery be done in an House nor if it be a Robbery in the High-way in the Night 804. Note It was Resolved â—9 Feb. 43. Eliz. by the Justices upon the Arraigment of the Earl of Essex 1. That when the Queen sent the Lord Keeper and others of her Council to him commanding him to disperse the armed persons which he had in his house and to come to her and he refused so to do and kept the armed men in his house that that was Treason 2. That when he went with a Troop of Captains and others into the city of London and there prayed aid of the citizens to assist him in defence of his Life and to go with him to the Court so as he might be of power to remove his Enemies which attended upon the Queen that that was Treason 3. That the Fact in London was actual Rebellion although he did not intend hurt to the Queen 4. That the adherence of the Earl of Southampton to the Earl of Essex although he did not know of any other purpose then of a private Quarrel which the Earl of Essex had against certain of the Queens Sewants was also Treason in him 5. That all those who went with the Earl out of Essex-House into London whether that they knew his intent or not were Traitors although they departed by Proclamation but those who upon a suddam adhered to him in London and departed so soon as Proclamation was made they were within the Queens Grace of pardon by the Proclamation Holland Jackson and Ogdens Case 805. Error was brought to reverse a Recovery and a Scire facias issued against K and other Terre-Tenants depending which a Writ of Estrepment was awarded against the Terre-Tenants and Resolved it did well lye Dalton and Hamonds Case 806. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case that if the Lord demandeth an excessive Fine of his Copyholder and he refuseth to pay it it is no forfeiture otherwise where it is a reasonable Fine and the Court and Jury shall be Judges of the reasonableness of it But if a Fine be certain the Tenant is to bring it with him to Court and to pay it before admittance and if he be not ready to pay it it is a forfeiture Gambleton and Grassons Case 807. In Trover and Commission it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Judgment that the Distringas with the Nisi prius bore the same date with the Venire facies It was the Resolution of the Court that it should be amended for it was aided by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Higgins and Spicers Case 808. A Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners ita quod B. who was one of the Coroners se non intromittat because he was the Servant of R. who was Sheriff It was said the same was no cause of Challenge but the Court conceived it was because confessed However it was but a misconverting of process which was aided by the Statute Hall and Jones Case 809. Action was brought upon the case for slanderous words in a Court of Pipowders The Stile of the Court was Curia pedis pulverizati ratione Mercati c. Secundum consuetudinem Civiiatis It was adjudged there for the Plaintiff and Error brought and Assigned that a Court of Pipowders doth not belong to a Market but to a Faire The Court held that by custome of a city or place it might be to a Market 2. Resolved that an Action upon the case for slanderous words did not lie in a Court of Pipowders and for that cause the Judgment was reversed The Countess of Warwick Attwood and Davies Case 810. Action upon the case against two the one pleaded to Issue the other demurred upon the Demurrer the Plaintiff had Judgment and a Writ of enquire of Damages against him alone and the Defendant relinquished the other Issue It was the opinion of the Court that he might relinquish against him and have Judgment and execution of the damages against the other only Sir Gervase Clifton and Chancellors Case 811. In Trover and Conversion of Jewels The Defendant pleaded that a Stranger was possessed of the Jewels and sold them to him in his shop in Bristol he being a Gold-Smith and because he did not say that the Sale was in pleno Mercatu nor aver'd it was his shop in which he used the Trade of a Gold-Smith It was adjudged for the Plaintiff and in this case it was agreed that the King cannot grant to one that his Shop shall be a Market overt to bind Strangers because it is against the Law Ludd and Wrights Case 812. In debt to perform an Accord the breach was assigned of a thing out of the Submission and issue being joyned the Plaintiff at the Nisi prius was Nonsuit Then the Judgment given upon the insufficient Pleas is not upon the Nonsuit It was holden the Defendant should have costs for the unjust vexation Gawen and Rants Case 813. In Replevin the case was
Eliz. assigned the same to C. for 14. years rendring yearly three Bushels of Mesâ—yn and one Bushel of Wheat in name of a Rent every Saturday and if it fortune the weekly Rent to be unpaid or undelivered then the Lease to cease B. entred and C. possessed of the Reversion by Deed Poll granted the Reversion totum interesse sui to D. to whom B. attorned R. demanded the Rent Corn upon a Saturday which was not paid for which he entered It was Resolved 1. that the Rent reserved by the first Lessee upon demise of the Will for a less Rent was incident to the Reversion of the ancient Term and shall pass by the words of all his Estate and by totum interesse the Rent divided from the Reversion will pass and the Reversion by the words totum statum 2. That the Assignee de toto statu shall take advantage of the cesser of the Term in esse and make the demand of the Rent if the Grant de toto statu be by writing with attornment 3. That by the Statute of 32. H. 8. the Grantee of the Reversion shall have benefit of a Condition annexed to a lesser Term divised out of the first Term There was another point It the demand of the Rent was good or void which was not Resolved Coulter and Irelands Case 664. It was Resolved in this Case by all the Justices of England That an Executor of his own wrong could not pay himself a Debt or a Legacy Chambers and and Handbarges Case 665. In case of a Prohibition It was suggested that the Queen and all those whose Estates she had had used to pay to the Rector of D. 2 s. 4 d. yearly in full satisfaction of the Tythes of Land in C. Issue was upon the Prescription It appeared that the Abbot of K. was owner of the Land and Rectory which afterwards came to the Queen who was seised as the Abbot was Resolved that the Unity was not a perpetual discharge of the Tythes nor of the Recompence for them Brougton and Randals Case 666. A Tales was awarded upon the Return of a Distringas where none of the principal Pannel appeared yet holden it was good But a Tales is not grantable upon the Return of the Venire if none of the principal Pannel do appear Benton and Trotts Case 667. In case of a Prohibition It was Resolved in this Case that unity of the Estate and not in occupation of the Land and Rectory at the day of dissolution of the Abby was not a discharge of payment of Tythes by the Statute of 32. H. 8. But if the Abbot held the Land at the time of the dissolution in Fee and the Rectory also those Lands were always discharged but if the Lands were in Lease for years although but for a small Term of years the Lands should pay Tythes and so it was said it was adjudged in Knighth and Spencers case and in Green and Bufkyns case and vide to that purpose Coo. 11. par Pridle aâ—d Nappers case Verey Carew and Gibsons Case 668. A seised of Lands in Middlesex and in London acknowledged a Statute to Carew and afterwards conveyed the Land in Middlesex to one which came to the Plaintiff by purchase and the Land in London he conveyed to G. the Defendant and died The Administrator of Carew sued a Scire fac against the Conusor in Middlesex who was retorned mortuus upon which he had a Scire fac to the Terre-Tenants in Middlesex generally and Verey the Plaintiff was returned Terre-Tenant and made default upon which Judgment was given for execution and that a Moiety of the Land in Middlesex should be extended upon which he brought a Scire fac in the nature of an Audita Querela against the Administrator and Gibson Tenant of the Lands in London to shew cause wherefore the moiety of the Lands in London should not be extended It was the opinion of Popham Chief Justice that he might have a Writ wherefore the Lands restitui non debent but not an Audita Querela but the other Justices held that that was the most beneficial way for him who was grieved by the former extent but if he will not pray restitution of what is past but only a contribution for an equal extent to satisfie what did remaine they saw no cause but that he might have it for the foundation of the Writ is equal extent and it was said that the Book of 39 E. 3. 7. and 39 was that it was in Election of the Conusee to take his Audita Querela for restitution or for future contribution Wild and Coopmans Case 669. Words viz. Thou art a false forsworn man thou wast forsworn at the Leet of R. and didst procure others to be forsworn The Defendant justified because that the Plaintiff was one of the Jury and presented that to be a Nusance which was no Nusance Adjudged the Justification was not good and that the Action did lie for the words Parry and Woodwards Case 670. Debt upon a Bill which was Be it known that I do owe to Parry 14. l. to be paid at the Feasts of c. together with 6. l. which I owe him upon Bill and Recognizance subscribed under my hand The Plaintiff brought debt for 20 l. and adjudged against him because the Bill made him Debtor for no more then 14 l. Vaughans Case 671. Intrusion The Queen by her Letters Patent ex certa scientia gratia speciali mero motu granted to I. S. which were late parcel of the Priory of L. and came to the Crown by dissolution of the Premises or any part thereof or the issue or profits thereof were before the first of April 14. Eliz. concealed substrained or unjustly detained from her Father Brother Sister and so remained at the date of the Letters Patent untill they were revealed by the Patentee and it was found by a Commission in 8. Eliz. issued forth to enquire of the Reparations of the King granted and how much money would repaire it and that the Queen was allowed the value of the Stone and Lead expended in the Reparations This was adjudged to be no concealed Land and therefore the Patent void Michel and Longs Case 672. If a Battery be laid in D. in the County of N. with a Continuando in Middiesex and Issue be upon it the Venire shall be of both Counties Thompson and Gardiners Case 673. The Plaintiff had a 100 l. delivered to him to pay over to I. S. and the Defendant came to him and affirmed he was I. S. to whom he delivered the 100 l. and in truth he was not I. S. Adjudged that an Action of Deceit lay against him Shorhorne and Lewis Case 674. The Hospital of Donnington was incorporated by the name of Minister Dei pauperis domus de Donnington confratres ejusdem and they made a Lease by the name of Minister pauperis Domus Dei de Donnington elemosynarii confratres ejusdem The Justices were divided
he was not a person Qualified to take two benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities It was agreed that a Countesse a Widdow had power to retain two Chaplains who might purchase Dispensation for plurality But when she had once retained two she could not retain a third Chaplin who might purchase Dispensation within the Statute and therefore in the principal Case the Retainer of Priory being the third Chaplain was not good nor his dispensation good and so the Queen for want of Presentation of the Patron and Ordinary had good title to present Oldbery and Grogonds Case 729. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of certain money at a day certain The Defendant pleaded that the same was agreed to be paid for the Resignation of a Parson of his Benefices to the intent another might be presented unto it and so upon a Symoniacal agreement The Court held it no plea for that an averment shall not be that it was to be paid for other cause then the Obligation expresseth Agor and Candishes Case 730. An information was brought in the Exchequer by an Informer tam pro Domina Regina quam prose ipso upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. cap. 2. of Retainers and Judgment was there given the Informer to have one Moyety of the forfeiture and the Queen the other Moyety Error was brought upon the Judgment and assigned for Error that the Statute limits the party to sue in the Kings Kings Bench and divers other Courts but speaks not of the Exchequer It was the opinnion of the Justices that for that cause the Judgment was erroneous as to the Informer only Then it was moved that the Judgment might be and stand good for the whole forfeiture to the Queen for it was said that a Judgment might be reversed in part and stand for the other part and divers Presidents vouched to that purpose But the Court was of opinion because the first Judgment gave but a Moyery to the Queen this Court had not power to give more nor encrease it but only had power to affirme the Judgement Boddy and Hargraves Case 731. Debt upon a Lease for years was brought against the Administrator in the Debet detinet It was adjudged well brought because the Rent was encreased in the time of the Administrator himself But it was said That in all Cases where the Executor or Administrator brings an Action for a duty Testamentary it ought to be only in the Detinâ—t because the duty demanded ought to be Assets Layton and Garnonces Case 732. A man recovered Debt in Co. B. and had Judgment and he took forth Processe and the party was taken upon a Capias utlagatum within the year after the Judgment upon Processe continued without any discontinuance against him It was adjudged in this Case that he should be in Execution at the suit of the party without prayer because the processe was continued Parker and Sir Ed. cleeves Case 733. The Case was A. seised of three acres of equall value conveyed by act executed two of them for the Joynture of his Wife and the third he conveyed by act executed to the use of such persons and of such estates as he should declare by his last Will afterwards he devised the Land to one under whom the Plaintiff claimed In this Case it was amongst other poynts Resolved that he could not devise the Land because he had Conveyed two parts before by act executed in his life time Sydnam and Courtneys Case 734. Sir George Sydnam possessed of divers Leases for years gave them to his Daughter who was the Wife of C and to the Heirs of her body and if she dyed withot Issue that they should remain to such person of Combe Sydnam which Combe Sydnam he devised to his Cosen and his Heirs males in default of the Issue of the body of his daughter There was a Clause in the Will that his daughter should not alter the Leases but that they should remain according to the Will and made his Daughter his Executrix and dyed C. caused the Daughter to enter upon the Leases as Executrix and so waive the Legacy and afterwards the Daughter dyed without Issue Then C. caused an Administration to be taken of the goods of Sir George Sydenham which was at the Costs of C. and then to convey over the Leases to C. The Heir of Sir Geoâ—ge complained in Chancery and the Leases decreed unto him for the two fraudes which were used by C. in the Obliging of the Leases because the Daughter had them upon special trust and although it was said in this Case that the entail of the Leases was not good yet because there was a trust in the Daughter and expressed in the Will It was said the parties were compellable to execute the Trust and the Lord Chancellour resembled it to the Case where an Assignment was made of a Lease upon an expresse Trust to one and the Heirs of his body and afterwards to another and the Heirs of his body and the Assignes were Compelled to execute the Trust and to suffer the Issues in Tail to take the profits of the Lands The Countesse of Waâ—wicks Case 735. The Case was A. seised in Fee enfeoffed I. S. who dyed without Issue having Issue M. his Sister and Heir of the whole blood and T. of the half blood their Father being long before attainted of Felony dyed seised M. entred and enfeoffed the Countesse The point was if the Corruption of the blood of the Father had disabled the Course of discent and Inheritance between the Brother and Sister Quaere not Resolved Sprakes Case 736. A Copyholder makes a Lease for years Resolved that the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firme though the Lease be not warranted by the Custom Fisher and Smiths Case 737. Note It was Resolved in this Case That if a man plead a Bargain and Sale in which no consideration of mony is expressed there it must be averred that it was for mony and the words for divers considerations will not imply mony but if the deed be for a Competent sum of mony though the certainty of the sum be not expressed it is good enough Worsloy and Charnocks Case 738. A Statute Merchant was by Mâ—ttimus removed out of the Chancery in C. B. an execution awarded there super tenorem Recordi Resolved 1. That Error lyes in B. R. although the Original be in the Chancery and the Execution in C. B. 2. Resolved that in that Case the Conusor cannot alledge for Error that the Statute wants one of the Seales that ought to be to it because he hath admitted the same in C. B. 739. Debt in B. R. upon Mutuatas for 50 l. the Defendant pleaded an Attachment in London and had found pledges and because the pledges were not put in at the day of the last default but at another day it was holden No plea and Judgment was for the Plaintiff Washington and Burgons Case 740. It was holden by the
Large At last it was Resolved That that Ordinance although it had the Warrant of a Charter was against the Common Law because it was against the Liberty of the subject for every subject by the Law hath Freedom and Liberty to put his Cloth to be dressed by what Clotheworker he pleases and cannot be restrained to any persons for that in effect would be a Monopoly Creswell and Holms Case 756. Debt upon Obligation the Condition was If the Obligee his Heirs and assignes shall and may Lawfully hold and enjoy a Messuage c. without the let c. of the Obligor or his Heirs or of every other person discharged or upon reasonable request saved harmlesse by the said Obligor from all former guifts c. the Defendant said no request was made to save him harmlesse It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Defendant hath not answered to all the Condition viz. to the enjoying of the Land and there were 2. Conditions viz. the enjoying and the saving harmlesse Chowley and Humbles Case 757. A Covenanted to make a Feoffment within a year to the use of himself for life the Remainder to H. his younger Son and the Heirs males of his body which remain over and if he did not make the Feoffment he Covenanted for those uses for the Continuance of the Land in his name and Blood Proviso if H. or any Heir male make a Feoffment or Levy a Fine his estate to cease as if he were dead and then the Feoffees to stand seised to the use of such person to whom the Land should Remain No Feoffment was made within the year A. dyed H. the Son levyed a Fine to the Defendant Resolved 1. That the Proviso to cease the estate was repugnant upon his estate for life 2. That his estate could not cease when he had levyed a Fine because then he had no estate 3. That the Feoffees and their Heirs could not stand seised to the use of the person next in discent or Remainder because no Feoffment was ever made Nevil and Sydenhams Case 758. In valore Moritagii The opinion of the Justices seemed to be That a tender was not material but that the value of the mariage was due withot a Tender Atkins Case 759. The Father devised his Land to his Son and the Heirs of his body and further I will that after the decease of my Son John the Land shall remain to G. Son of John Adjudged John had Tail and his Wife should be endowed Carter and Cleypales Case 760. All-Soules Colledge made avoid Lease by the Statute of 13 Eliz. because no Rent was reserved It was a Lease only to try title and Judgment Error was brought and assigned after that the Lease was void The Judgment was affirmed because the party did not plead the Statute for otherwise the Judges are not to take Notice of it Clarke and Dayes Case 761. A man devised Lands to his daughter for life And if she marry after my death and have issue of her body then I will that her Heir after my Daughters death shall have the Land and to the Heirs of their bodies begotten the Remainder in Fee to a Stranger It was adjudged she had not tail but only for Life and the Inheritance in his Heir by purchase and therefore in this case it was Resolved the Husband of the wife could not be Tenant by the Curtesie Deacon and Marshes Case 762. A seised in Fee of a house and possessed of Goods Devised in these words The rest of my Goods Lands and Moveables after my Debts paid c. To my three children B. C. and D. equally to be divided amongst them Adjudged they had but an Estate for Life in the House and that they were Tenants in Common of it and not Joynt-Tenants Smith and Mills Case 763. Adjudged that a Sale made of his goods by a Bankrupt after a Commission of Bankrupt is awarded is utterly void Gibons and Marltiwards Case 764. A. devised certain Land to B. and C. his wife who was the daughter of A. upon condition that they within 10. years should give so much of the Land as was of the value of 100 l. per an to F. F. and that he should find a Preacher in such a place and if they failed their Estate to cease and that then his Executors should have the Land to them and their Heirs upon trust and confidence that they should stand seised to the same uses B. within the 10. years made a writing of Gift Grant and Confirmation but no Livery nor Enrolment of it till after the 10. years The Executors refused to take upon them the Execution of the Will yet it was adjudged they should take the Land by the Devise and that the words upon Trust and Confidence made not a condition to their Estates Arrundells Case 765. In Indictment of Murder the Murder was alledged to be apud Civitatem Westm in Com. Middl. in Parochia St. Margaret and for Tryal a Jury was retorned de Vicineto Civitate Westm Resolved the Tryal not good for the Visne ought to have bin of the Parish and not of the city for a Parish is to be intended more certain then a city and when a Parish is alledged to be in a city the Visne shall come out of the Parish Alderion and Mans Case 766. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would give his good Will and furtherance to the Marriage the Defendant promised after the Marriage had to give him 20 l. he alledged he had given his good Will and that he did further it but did not show particularly how yet the Court held it to be a good consideration and adjudged the Action did lie Savage and Brookes Case 767. Upon an Indictment of Murder It was Resolved by the Justices that the Queen could not challenge Peremptorilie without shewing cause of her challenge 768. Note It was Resolved by the Justices That if a man buy Corn and converts it to meal and afterwards sells it it is not an ingrossing within the Statute of 5. E. 6. Staffords Case 769. Debt upon Obligation the Condition to make such further assurance as the Council of the Obligee shall Devise The Obligor comes to the Obligee and shews his Council had advised him to make to the Obligee a Lease for years which he required him to do and he refused It was adjudged the Obligation was forfeited otherwife if it were to make such assurance as the Council should devise for then the Council ought to draw and engross it ready to be sealed Plaine and Binds Case 770. Assumpsit 11. Septemb. to deliver certain goods to him if no claime be made to them before 14. September and alledged no claime was made post 11. diem usque 14. Septemb. It was said in stay of Judgment that the Declaration ought to have been that no claim was made after the Assumpsit until the 14. day and not post 11. diem The Court adjudged the Declaration good because the
Tenant in tail became Officer yet that Land shall be sold by the Queen 2. When an Officer is endebted to the King and his Land subject to be sold by the Act 13. Eliz. and he to prevent the sale of the Queen and to evade out of the Act makes a conveyance of his Lands to his Issues or others of his Blood in consideration of natural affection that such conveyance shall not be good not said to be Bona fide within the Proviso of the Act of 39 Eliz. but that the Queen may sell the Land for so much of her debt as was due before the conveyance 3. If the Officer or Debtor of the Queen after 39 Eliz. be Tenant in tail or hath power of Revocation there the Queen may sell the Land by the Statute of 39 Eliz. and if any such Officer or Debtor before 39. Eliz. and and after 13. Eliz. had made any conveyance to his Issues or Blood without valuable consideration especially if it be with power of Revocation that Land may be sold by the Queen by the Statute of 39. Eliz. Adams and Lamberts Case 848. A man devised Lands to his Brother for Life the Remainder for Life the Remainder in tail upon condition to find a Chaplain for ever to pray for Souls and for the Souls of all Christian people to celebrate Mass Annusaries and other Superstitious uses and if they failed to perform the Uses then he devised the Remainder for eight years to an Hospital and because he doubted the profits of those Lands would not suffice he devised other Lands to supply them upon condition that if they aliened or let the Land to the prejudice of those in the Remainder they should presently enter and to be seised to the said uses It was resolved 1. That the Devise of Land to find a Priest c. was a Superstitious use 2. That although one of the uses was uncertain and no certain Sum limitted to it 3. That although the Devise was for the Sustentation and Maintanance of poor men yet the Limitation to them to pray for Souls was a Superstitious use because they depended upon the Superstitious uses and therefore it was Resolved in this case that all the Lands were given to the King by by the Statute of 1. Eliz. of Chaunteries Salway and Wales Case 849. It was holden by the Justices That if a man makes a Deed of Feoffinent in December and after and before Livery executed the Feoffor sells the Land by good assurance to another and after that the Feoffee takes Livery and Seifin of the Feoffor it is Forgery in the Feffor and the Feoffee So if the Feoffee causeth Livery to be endowed generally upon the Deed without a special day of making the Livery the Indorsement is Forgery Mouse and Weavers Case 850. The case was A. after a Recovery in an Assize in the Court of the Mannor of Isleworth and before Seisin delivered by the Bayliff of the Mannor bought the Copyhold by Surrender It was adjudged maintenance within the Statute of 32. H. 8. But it was holden by the Justices that if one recover Land and be in possession by Writ of Seisin he may sell the same although he nor his Ancestor or other by whom he claims was in possession by the space of a year next before And in this case it was holden by the Justices that a Clerk or Attorney in one Court cannot sollicite a Cause in another Court although it be for the same matter which was in his own Court Pollard and Moretons Case 851. It was Resolved in this case that a Justice of Peace coming to remove a Force may take posse comitatus with him 2. Resolved if one entreth into an house where no man is in the house with armed men or company unusual the same is a forceable entry Whetstone and Mintons Case 852. A. a Citizen of London seised divers Messuages in the Parish of St. Mary Sommerset in Queen-hith London 25 H. 6. devised the same to his two Daughters in tail and for want of such Issue to the Parson and Churchwardens of St. Michael and their Successors they yearly holding and making an Anniversary in the Church for the Soul of him and his Wife paying 6 s. 8 d. yearly amongst the Chaplains and others there and if the Parson and Churchwardens were remisse in holding Anniversary then the Parson and Curchwardens and Successors for that time should pay 20 s. of the Uses of those Lands Nomine poenae to the use of the Chamber of London The Devisor died the Land being of the yearly value of 10 l. 3 s. 4 d. The Daughter 's died without Issue the Parson and Churchwardens entred and took the profits and held the Anniversary and paid yearly the 6 s. 8 d. amongst the Chaplains c. et non ultra The Statute of 1. Ed. 6. of Chaunteries was found The sole Question in this case whether the Land or Annual Rent were given to the Crown by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. of Chaunteries It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that only the Annual Rent of 6 s. 4 d. was given to the Crown by the Statute and not the Lands for they said it had bin often adjudged that where a stipend was appointed to an Anniversary Obit Legacy c. there although the Land was given in the Premises the Crown should have but the stipend and in this case the intent of the Devisor was clear that the Parson and Churchwardens should have all the profits over and above the 6 s. 4 d. yearly to their own use Grills and Rigewayes Case 853. The case was A man was in Execution for debt and brake Prison and escaped The Sheriff made fresh Suit and retook him It was adjudged in this case no escape and it was holden that if the Prisoner who escapes be out of his sight yet if the Sheriff or Goaler take him upon Fresh Suit in recenti persecutione he shall be in Execution again 854. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that the breaking of a Dwelling-house in the night to the intent to rob or kill any one is Burglarie although that no person be in the house and if a man have two houses of Habitation which he dwells in by turnes if a Thief in the night breakes the house in which the person is absent it is Burglarie Austin and Twynes Case 155. It was Resolved in this case if two Churches one of the value of 10 l. and the other of 8 l. be within one mile of another the Ordinary may consolidate them and if the Patron and King confirm it the consolidation is good by the common Law and by the Statute pf 37 H. 8. 856. The King made the city of Gloucester a County with a clause of exemption from the County of Gloucester and of the power of the Officers of the County saving to the King and his Heirs Liberty for their Justices of Assize Goal-delivery and keeping Sessions there
the Justices that a Writ of Error was not maintainable in the Exchequer Chamber by the Statute of 27. Eliz. upon a Judgment in B. R. upon Rescous because it is not within the words of the Statute although it be a Trespass Giddy and Heales Case 915. Action upon the case in B. R. by Heale for these words he being a Counsellor at Law Whereas one said to Giddy that Heal had affirmed upon his credit that the Fee-simple of certain Lands was in the Patentees of the Queen The said Giddy said No friends Heales Warranty we well know a great number of his Country trusting to his Warranty have been undone It was adjudged in B. R. for the Plaintiff and 100 l. damages and Error being brought in Exchequer Chamber and assigned the Words were not actionable The Judgment was affirmed Marronor and Cottons Case 916. Judgment was given against Marroner in the B. R. for Cotton for these words spoken against Cotton a Justice of the Peace viz. He hath received mony of a Thief that was apprehended and brought before him for stealing of Sheep to let him escape and keep him from the Goal Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and assigned the words were not actionable but the Judgment in B. R. was affirmed Bâ—shop and Gins Case 917. Debt upon an Obligation in B. R. for performance of Covenants one was that he delivertd a Ship in London usque portum de Blackney and no time limited for it and the breach was assigned in it that he did not deliver the ship such a day and Judgment there for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned that the Issue was ill joyned because he had time to deliver it during his Life that the Court said was but the misjoyning of the Issue which was remedied by the Statute of Jeofails after Verdict 2. Error that the Venire was of Blackney where it ought to be de Portu Blackney The Court held it no Error but good and the Judgment was affirmed Falsowe and Thornies Case 918. In Debt the Venire upon the Roll was retornable die Martis post 15. Trin. and the Writ in facto was returned die Jovis post 15. Trin. that was assigned for Error but non allocatur because but misawarding of Process which is aided by the Statute of Jeofails and the Judgment was affirmed Cundey and Edgecombs Case 919. In Debt the Venire was filed Trin. 35. Eliz. to try an Issue between Richard Cundey de Bodrygan querent Peter Edgecombe de Mount Edgecomb in Com. Devon Defendant The Writ was direct Vic' Cornubiae Hill 39 Eliz. The continuance upon the Roll was Juratores inter Richardum Cundey de Bodygran in Comitatu Cornubiae mercatorum queren Petrum Edgecombt de Mount Edgecomb in Com-Devon in placito debiti ponitur in respectu nisi Justitiarii ad Assisas in Comitatu praedict capiendas assignat prius venerint c. upon the Margent was written Cornubiae It was assigned for Error that the last County is Devon in the Addition of the Defendant for the habitation of the Defendant The Justices held it no Error because Cornubiae was in the Margent and where there are two Counties before Com. praedict shall extend to that which will affirm the Judgment although the other be the Prochine antecedent Wilcoks â—nd Hewsons Case 920. Debt upon a Bill of 30. l. The Defendant pleaded he delivered the Bill upon a Condition to the Plaintiff that if he did procuer a particular of certain Land that it should not be his Deed but if he did not procure the particular it should be his Deed The Plaintiff took Issue it was his Deed and so found by Verdict Error brought and assigned that the Defendants plea was insufficient and the Plaintiff ought to have demurred upon it and the Issue which he took was vain and void because the especial matter had confessed the Deed and so the Issue is taken upon a thing confessed the Judgment was affirmed because the Defendant cannot assign Error in his own Plea and although the Issue be joyned upon a thing confessed the same is but surplussage and it was in the Election of the Court to give Judgment either upon the Plea or the Verdict Joyner and Ognells Case 921. Debt upon a Bill of 100 l. by Humphrey Joyner Executor of George Skiner against the Defendant the Defendant pleaded per minas and after Issue joyned befor Nisi prius he confessed the Action in Court The confession was entred non potest dedicere quia ipse debuit praedict ' Georgio Skinner in vita sua praedict ' 100. l. modo forma poout and upon that the Judgment was Quod praedict Humfred Joyner recuperet versus praedict ' Georgium Ognel debittum suum praedict ' necnon quatuor libras pro damnis suis quae sustinuit tam occasione detentionis debiti praedict ' quam pro missis c. eidem Humfredo Skinner per curiam adjudicat upon this Judgment Error was brought and assigned that the confession of the Action is not according to the Declaration for the Declaration is in the debuit to the Testator and Detinet of the Executor as it ought to be but the Confession is in the Debuit only 2. Error the Judgment is Quod Humfrey Joyner recuperet debitum eidem Humfredo Skinner adjudicant whereas it ought to be eidem Humfredo Joyner adjudicat As to the first Error the Court said that after the Defendant hath relinquished the Bar the Declaration remains without defence for which cause the Court may well judge for the Plaintiff and for the second Error it was amended by the Court. Gomersall and Watkinsons Case 922. Eliz. Watkinson the Defendant brought Debt in B. R. against the Plaintiff Executor of William Gomersall and shewed that the Testator retained her in his Service 28 Eliz. taking 40 s. for one year for her Wages and so from year to year and that she had served the Testator five years who died her wages not paid The Defendant the Executor pleaded Nihil debet which was found against him and Judgment for the said Eliz. the Plaintiff Error was brought and assigned the Action did not lie against the Executor It was said by the Justices it appeareth prima facie upon the Declaration that the said Eliz. was compellable to serve by the Statute of 5 Eliz. and then when he voluntarily retains her in service being compellable to serve the Master cannot wage his Law in Debt for the wages and therefore the Action is maintainable against his Executors Stanton and Suliards Case 923. Note It was Resolved in this Case Whereas the Sheriff brought an Action upon the case against the Defendant in the Kings Bench upon Assumpsit to pay the Sheriffs Fee upon arresting the party in Execution which was 12 d. for every pound where the Execution did exceed a 100 l. and there Judgment was given for the Plaintiff that upon Error thereupon brought in the Exchequer the Judgment was reversed because an Action
upon the case did not lie in such Case Bowes and Powletts Case 924. In the Kings Bench the case was A. and B. were Indebted to the Queen by Recognizance 500 l. C. and D. were indebted in 200 l. to F. by Obligation F. was indebted to A. 200 l. F. at the request of A. assigned the Debt of 200 l. due from C. and D. to the Queen by Deed enrolled in part of satisfaction of the 500 l. due to the Queen by A. B. A. afterwards for his discharge of the 200 l. against the Queen prosecuted Suit in the Exchequer against C. for the levying of the 200 l. of the goods and Chattels of C. C. in consideration that A. would forbear to prosecute any Process against the said C. till Hill Term following promised to pay A. 200 l. and 20 l. to buy him a Gelding and in an Action upon the case brought for it in B. R. upon non Assumpsit It was found for the Plaintiff there and Damages and Judgment Error was brought in the Exchequer and the Judgment upon the body of the Declaration was reversed because the consideration was not lawfull nor sufficient for the surceasing of a Suit was no discharge of the Debt nor was it lawfull to have recompence for the forbearing or surceasing of a Debt which was due to the Queen Hinson and Burridges Case 925. Action upon Assumpsit in B. R. In consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to I. S. the Defendants Factor at the request of the Defendant 200 Hog-labms to the use of the Defendant he promised he would pay so much mony to the Plaintiff as should be agreed betwixt the Plaintiff and I. S. and alledged he delivered them to I. S. and I. S. and the Plaintiff agreed for 40 l. price to be paid at certain dayes since past and the Defendant had not paid the mony It was found for the Plaintiff and Judgment Errour brought and assigned 1. That the Contract was the Contract of the Defendant himself and Debt did lye not Assumpsit Resolved the sale was to I. S. and the use is but a Confidence which gave not property to the Defendant so that Debt did not lye against him but Assumpsit 2. Error no place is alledged where the Plaintiff and I. S. agreed of the price and day of payment which is traversable The Court held it good enough because the Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit and a verdict was given But the Court said it had been a good cause of Demurrer Palmer and Humfreys Case 926. Ejectione firme de una pecia terrae vocat M. furlong una pecia terrae vocat Ashbrokee uno Gardino vocat Minching-Garden quae omnes singulae parcellae terrae jacent in W. It was assigned for Error that Pecia terrae is uncertain and so the Declaration not good And 2. Because no place certain is alledged in which the Garden is and for these Causes the Judgment was reversed Matthew and Matthewes Case 927. Assumpsit in B. R. whereas the Testator was endebted to the Plaintiff 35 l. The Defendant being his Excecutor in consideration the Plaintiff would give him day promised to pay the money Found there for the Plaintiff and Judgment upon Error brought the Judgment Reversed Because the consideration was not sufficient because the Defendant was not by Law bound to pay the money after the death of the Testator and giving day to pay that which he was not bound to pay was no sufficient Consideration Edmunds and Bufkins Case 928. Debt in B. R. and declared the Dean and Chapter of W. demised the Rectory to A. for 60. years which by mean Conveyance came to F. who demised it to C. for 20. years rendring Rent C. demised it by his will to D. 10. of the last years and afterwards dyed possessed D. entred and granted his Interest to Edmunds F. demised the residue of the Terme to S. his Wife and Executrix S. married Bufkin they brought Debt and had Judgment Error was brought and assigned that C. the first Lessee of F. demised 10. of the last years to D. and it was alledged that the demisor made not any Executor or that the devisee did enter by the assent of the Excecutor nor that he was possessed by virtue of the demise but generall that he entred after the death of the devise and for these Causes the Judgment was reversed Paramour and Pains Case 929. Action upon the Case in B. R. and declared in Consideration the Plaintiff had sold to the Defendant 14. Cowes for 34 l. and 4. Oxon for 16 l. the Defendant promised to pay cum requisitus esset Found for the Plaintiff the Judgment was reversed because the Consideration was not sufficient but Debt lay upon the Contract and not Assumpsit Plaine and Bagshawes Case 930. Debt in B. R. against B. Executor of I. S. and demanded 47 l. 8 s. 8 d. monetae Flandriae attingent ' to 40 l. 12 s. 6 d. English money The Defendant pleaded fully Administred the Jury found Assets and Judgment there that recuperet debitum suum praedict ' damna sua praedict ' Errour brought and assigned for that the Jurours did not inquire of the value of Flanders money and for that cause the Judgment was reversed for although the Plaintiff did affirme the Flanders money did attain to 40 l. 12 s. 6 yet it is no Warrant to the Court to adjudge it so unlesse found by the Jury Stafford and Powlers Case 931. Error was brought of a Judgment in an action upon the Case in B. R. for words the words were viz. One W. Web being arrested as accessary for stealing his own goods Mr. Stafford knowing thereof discharged the said Web by an agreement of 3 l. to which Mr. Stafford was party whereof 30 s. was to be paid to Mr. Stafford and was paid to his man by his appointment Error brought It was said the words were not actionable but the Justices held them actionable and the Judgment was affirmed Bordolf and Perry and his Wives Case 932. Debt in B. R. upon an Obligation made by the Wife dum sola fuit the Defendant pleaded Non est factum found for the Plaintiff The Judgment was that the Husband be in misericordia and the Wife Capiatur And it Reversed because it ought be Capiantur against both Penraddock and Erringtons Case 933. Assault and Battery in B. R. against two Defendants and declared of Assault Battery tantas minas de vita sua imposuer ' quod non audebat ire circa negotia They pleaded Deson Assault demesne It was assigned for Error that the Assault of one cannot be the Assault of the other and they ought to have pleaded several pleas the Court held it no Error for that the Assault might be joynt 2. Error because nothing is said to the Minas yet the Judgment was affirmed because Minas is but to enforce the damages and not the substance of the Declaration Wilcocks and Greenes Case 934.
Debt against Executors upon Obligation of 200 l. they pleaded a Recovery by a stranger of 200 l. upon another Obligation and averred it was a just and true Debt ultra which they had not in their hands the Plaintiff said the Recovery was by Covin It was adjudged in B. R for the Plaintiff Error brought and the Judgment reversed for it could not be by Covin if it was a just Debt and the Replication should have been absque hoc it was a just and true Debt Morses and Rosses Case 935. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would surcease his Suit which he had in Chancery against the Defendant the Defendant promised to save him harmlesse from all actions which should be brought against him for or Concerning a Lease which the Defendant had assigned to him and alledged he surceased his Suit and that a Stranger had brought an action against him in B. R. by reason of the said Lease and the Defendant did not save him harmlesse Judgment being for the Plaintiff in B. R. It was reversed because he did not shew the certainty of the Action brought against him nor that it was for any matter in esse at the time of the promise Wood and Bukleys Case 936. Action upon the Case whereas Wood exhibited his Bill against Buckley in Star Chamber containing he had nusselled Pirats Murtherers and other Malefactors he being a Justice of Peace and Vice-Admiral Wood afterwards in another place having speech with divers concerning as well of the ill carriage of the said Buckley as of the matter in his Bill against Buckley in the Star Chamber said I will Justify every matter therein to be true The Defendant Justified the speaking of the words being examined upon the truth of his Bill before I. S. and I. D. by Command of the Councell and traversed that he spake them at any other place or time upon demur being adjudged for the Plaintiff upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because no action lying for the exhibiting of the Bill no action lay for saying the words of his Bill were true Sir Henry Berkley and Earle of Pembrooks Case 937. Action upon the Case by the Earl of Pembroke against Sir Henry Berkley and shewed he was seised of the Mannor of S. to which the Office of the Keeper of the Forrest of F. did appertain in Fee and to have omnia bona forfeited within the Forrest fugam facere bis per annum quicquid de hujusmodi fugatione accidere possit and to have Hony Wax mortuum boscum c. appertaining to his Office and the Defendant disturbed him to exercise the said Office The Defendant pleaded a Deed in Tail in Bar made by the Plaintiff In the Deed there was a Proviso viz. Provided alwayes and the said Sir Henry Berkley doth Covenant for him and the Heirs males of his body to and with the said Earl and his Heirs to preserve the game as far as commonly hath been used and that he nor his Heirs males shall cut or sell any woods there except for browse and necessary reparations and the Plaintiff said the Defendant had cut down four Oakes and converted them to his own use and averred they were not for browse nor reparations and that he entred for the forfeiture It was adjudged upon a demur in B. R. for the Plaintiff Error was brought upon the Exchequer Chamber upon the matter in Law that the Proviso was not a Condition but a Covenant but as to that point it was Resolved by all the Justices that the Proviso was a Condition 2. Error was that the damages were assessed entirely for divers things some of them being uncertainly and insufficiently alledged for he prescribed to have omnia bona forisfacta which could not be without Charter also to have de furgatione quicquid acciderit which was also uncertain and also the damages for them ought to have been severally assessed and not entirely The Court held that for that Cause the Judgment was erroneous and for that Cause only the Judgment was reversed Reymer and Grimstones Case 938. Assumpsit In Consideration he at the Defendants request had promised to wash the Defendants linnen and the linnen of his Servants and to provide meat and drink for the Defendant and his Servants the Defendant promised to pay so much money to the Plaintiff when he should require it so as it should not exceed the proportion used in O. for the like time and further declared that in Consideration the Defendant upon accompt between them made was in arrerage to the Plaintiff 18 l. the Defendant promised to pay him the said 18 l. and the Plaintiff shewed for how long time he had washed the Cloathes c. and that he required 8 l. which did not exceed the proportion in O. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff and damages severally assessed for the Costs entirely Error was thereupon brought it was the opinion that the first Assumpsit was good and the second void and the Judgment given for the damages and Costs upon the first Assumpsit was good and the Judgment for them affirmed but for the damages assessed upon the second Assumpsit and for the damages de incremento entirely give for both the Judgment was reversed Goodall and Wyatts Case 939. In Ejectione firme The Case was A. made a Feoffment of Lands to B. in Fee upon Condition if A. paid within a year after the death of the Feoffee to his Heirs Executors or Administrators 100 l. that the Feoffment should be void B. made a Feoffment over to C. and dyed and afterwards within the year it was agreed betwixt A. and the Administrator of the Feoffee that the said A. should pay to the Administrator the 100 l. and that the Administrator should repay back all to A. the Feoffee but only 32 l. which was done accordingly and then A. entred into the Lands pretending the Condition was performed it was adjudged in B. R. that his entry was not Lawfull and that this fraudulent and Covenous payment was no performance of the Condition and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices a greed that the Judgment given in B. R. should be affirmed Vitsey and Fermours Case 940. The King granted Manerium de H. in Parochia de R. omnia terras decimas haereditamenta sua in R A. in the tenur of I. S nec non omnia alia terras tenementa haereditamenta in R praedict ' It was adjudged in B. R. that the Tythes in H. which was a Town within the Parish of R. did passe But upon Errour brought the Judgment was reversed because R. praedict shall be intended R. the Town and not R. the Parish Adams and Dixons Case 941. Assumpsit the Plaintiff was Bail for I. S. in B. R. the Defendant in Consideration that he should pay him the Condemnation promised to deliver to him the Bond made for the principal Debt and a letter of
The Spanish Ambassador and Plages Case 1040. Plage was pressed with his Ship at Lisbone to carry the King of Spains Soldiers to such a Port and had their Letters from the Vice-Roy of Portugal to trade to Brasil he performed the Service of Transportation and 14 months after traded at Brasil and freighted his Ship there for the transportation of Goods to Hamborough and was bound with Sureâ—ies in the Custom-house of Brasil to pay the customes due to the King of Spain at St. Michaels the Ship by tempest was forced into England and did not touch at St. Michaels The Spanish Ambassador pretending the Goods to be forfeit to the King of Spain sued for them in the Admiralty here and a Sentence was there for the King of Spain to have the Goods Plage sued to the Lord Chancellor here to have an Appeal from that Sentence and an Appeal was granted him Sir Thomas Palmers Case 1041. Sir Thomas Palmer who was attainted of Treason in the time of Ed 6. for natural affection 7 Ed 6 by Indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life the remainder to I. S. for Life the remainder to the first Son of the said I. S. in tail the remainder to his eighth Son he was attainted before I. S. had any Son It was Resolved that by the Attainder the Son of I. S. was barred which was afterwards born and the Fee-simple was in the Crown discharged of all the Remainders Jepps and Tunbridges Case 1042. The Defendant delivered a brief of the cause to some of the Jâ—rors impannelled before they appeared for their Instructions This was adjudged an offence for which he was Sentenced in the Star-chamber And in this case it was Resolved that the Plaintiff and Defendant himself may labor the Jurors to appear but a stranger cannot so do 2. That the writing of a Letter or a request by wordâ— by one not a party to the Suit to the Jurors to appear is Maintenance 3. It is not lawful for the party himself to instruct the Jurors either by writing or by word nor to promise them any Reward for their appearance for it is Embracery in them aswell as in a stranger Sis Tho. Dâ—wbridgecourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys Case 1043. The Defendant was decreed â—n Chanceâ—y to pay 1000 l. to the Plaintiff after the Decree the Defendant procured the Son of Sir Thomas by a Letter of Attorney which he had from his Father to agree only the Suit for 200 l. whereof 100 l. was paid in hand and the rest to be paid at a day certain to make a Release which the Son did in his own name but not in the name of his Father It was the opinion of the Justices and also of the Lord Chancellor that this Release was void Crew and Vernons Case in the Star-chamber 1644 Sir Randolph Crew and all those whose Estate c. he had in the Mannor of Crew time out of mind c. had had Turf to born in the House of Crew-hall in a great Waste called Okehanger Moor being interâ—upted he sued in the Exchequer at Chester whereupon Affidavit of the possession 60. years his possession was established After the hearing of the Cause there Vernon interrupted the servants of Crew and with Harrows tore the Turffs for which cause a Bill was exhibited in the Star-chamber against the said Vernon and others they put in a scandalous Answer saying that the Judge at Chester ought not in Justice have made such an Order and called the Affidavit an equivocating Affidavit and affirmed the owners of the Mannor of Crew had taken the Turff but by License and Vernon affirmed to the Court that he had a Release to shew for the discharging of the Prescription but no such Prescription could be shewed nor was but a Grant of Turff to be there taken In this case it was Resolved by the Court the Prescription was not determined by the new Grant but the Grant enured as a confirmation and so the title of Prescription remained 2. Resolved that the words spoken of the Court of Chester were very scandalous and the Affidavit which he called an equivocating Affidavit was approved by the whole wherefore the Defendants were sentenced and fined by the Court and the defendants were to acknowledge their offence to the Court of Chester Sir Anthony Barkers Case 1046. I. S. exhiâ—ited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Sir Anthony Barker and divers other Gentry of Credit and charged the Defendants with the forging of the Will of M. P. and with many undue practices in drawing the said M. P. to make such a Will At the hearing of the Cause the Plaintiff relinquished the Forgery confessing it was no Forgery but would have insisted upon the practices of the Defendants for drawing the said M. P. to make the Will The Court refused to permit the Plaintiff to insist upon the practices for if he would have insisted upon the practices he ought to have confessed the Will and then have shewed the undue practises used to draw her to make such Will Wherefore the Plaintiff was fined 200 l. to the King and the Court gave Damages to each of the Defendants and the reason why they gave damages they declared to be because the Bill being scandalous no action lay for the Defendants at Law because the Bill was prefered before competent Judges to punish the Offences if there had been any and therefore it was reason by reason of such defect of the Common Law in giving damages the Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause supplied the said defect Goodricks Case 1047. Goodrick at a Tavero said to D. being a Master of Arts at Cambridge That there was late a great Contestation befor the King betwixt the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northampton Lord Privy Seal because the Archbishop enformed that since the said Lord had been Warden of the Cinque Ports there were more Jesuites and Seminary Priests come into the Realm then before which he said was the Newes of the Court Another offence was That Ingram a Merchant had heard at Ligorne in Florence by two Students out of the Colledge at Rome that the Earl of Northampton writ a Letter to Cardinal Bellaâ—ine to pray him that no answer should be made to his book which he had Written upon the Treason of Garnet the Jesuite because he writ it only ad placandum Regem faciendum populum The Defendants were found Guilty upon their Confessions It was Resolved by the Justices it was a slander within the Statute of Z. R. 2. which moved sedition betwixt the King and his Nobles and that although the publisher did produce his author of such false newes yet he himself was punishable and if one saith there is common Rumor that such a one hath done such an act an action upon the Case lyeth although he doth produce his Author And in this Case it was agreed that if one sayes to another the effect of
Presidents cited to that purpose Apsleys Case 1067. He was brought by a Habe as corpus to the Bar It was returned that he was committed by the Court of Chancery for a contempt to the Court Resolved he should be discharged vide 9 Eliz. Astwicks case accordingly vide 13 Jac. Allen and Woods case Allen was committed to the Fleet by the Lord Chancellor for a contempt in not performing of a Decree and upon that Retorn the Court refused to deliver him Deytons Case 1068. He was committed to the Fleet by the High Commissioners for not performing of the Orders in the Common Prayer and for refusing to answer to Articles exhibited by the Commissioners unless he might have a copy of the Articles Resolved he should be delivered because the Statute upon which he was sued in that Court is penal and also because perhapps the High Commissioners had not jurisdiction of the cause Brokes Case 1069. He was committed by the High Commissioners to the Fleet because he refused Alimony to his wife and that being returned upon an Habeas corpus he was delivered Isaack and Clerks Case 1070. Action de Trover and Conversion The case was A recovery was against A. in the Court of E. and a Precept in the nature of a Fieri fac directed to the Defendant Bayliff of the Court who took three Butts of Sack in Execution The Plaintiff came to the Defendant and delivered him 22 l. in a bag as a pledge that the three Butts should be delivered to the Defendant the next Court day there upon Request if the Plaintiff who recovered should not in the mean time be satisfied at the next Court the Butts were not redelivered nor the first Plaintiff satisfied nor any Report made It was Resolved that there was no Conversion in this case for although prima facie Denyer is a conversion of money yet when the mony is delivered as a Pledge it is a special bailment and Denyer in such case is no conversion 2. That the Plaintiff had no cause of Action because the three Butts being not Re-delivered the Defendant might detain the 22 l. and the Bag for ever 3. There needs no request in this case because the Plaintiff at his peril is to cause them to be delivered before he is enabled to have his mony again It was adjudged for the Defendant Ford and Hoskins Case 1071. Action upon the case that the custom of the Mannor of B. was that every Copyholder might name who should have his Copyhold and that the Lord ought to admit the Copyholder so named after the death of the Nominator which the Lord refused to do It was Resolved the action did not lie for that the Nominatee hath no right at all the Interest being in the Lord and the Nominatee hath neither jus ad rem nec in re and he shall not draw an Interest to himself from the Lord against his Will and if one hath the Nomination and another hath the Presentation to a Benefice if he who hath the Presentation will not present an Action upon the case will not lie against him Brownlo Cop and Mitchells Case 1072. Assise against the Defendant for a Disseisin made to the Plaintiff of the profits of the Office of making Supersedeas The King directed his Writ to the Justices reciting that he by his Letters Patent had granted the making of Supersedeas to the Defendant and required the Justices not to proceed Rege inconsulto It was argued that the Writ did not lie because the King had not any title to the thing in demand nor could any prejudice come to the King On the other side it was said That in common Right it belonged to the King to make Grants of Offices Ministerial and Judicial unless another made Title to the same by Charter or Prescription and if the Plaintiff had title to the Office or not it is matter of Title for which the King is to have search in Chancery and if nothing be found for the King against the Prescription made by the Plaintiff then a Procedendo shall issue out of the Chancery otherwise if title be found for the Patentee against the Prescription Afterwards the Supersedeas was allowed by the Court and afterwards the matter was ended by composition Keckwichs Case 1073. It was holden by the Justices If an Infant brings Error to reverse a Fine levyed by him and he is inspected and witnesses produced to prove his Infancy though he dieth after before his full Age his Heir may reverse the Fine Gold and Deaths Case 1074. Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That if the Apprentice shall lose and embessel any of the Goods of his Master and the Master prove the same to be true by confession or other then if the Obligor pay all Sums as the loss shall amount unto the Obligation to be void In the case the Master brought in the confession of the Apprentice himself under his Hand and Seal It was adjudged that it was a good and sufficient proof and it was holden the proof might be in the Action brought Phelps and Winscombs Case 1075. In False Imprisonment The Question was whether a Constable may make a Deputy to arrest one by a Warrant to him directed by a Justice of Peace the constable himself being sick and whether upon the Defendants pleading in such case of the Statute of 7 Jac. cap. 5. he shall have double costs It was Resolved he may make a Deputy and a Deputy is within the meaning of the Statute for he is a Constable pro tempore Smith and Bulls Case 1076. In Assault and Battery The Defendant justified that the Plaintiff entred his Close and that he molliter imposuit manus upon him It was said he ought to shew what estate he had in the Close and that the Plaintiff came there to eject or disseise him otherwise the Justification is not good 1077. Tenant in Tail made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Heirs and afterwards made a Lease for years rendring rent and died and the Issue accepted the Rent It was adjudged that the acceptance of the Rent did not continue the Lease because the Issue was remitted to the Tail by discent Roe and Woods Case 1078. It was holden by the Court that whereas the name of the Sheriff was not endorsed upon the tales de circumstanubus that was no cause to stay Judgment because the Statute which gives tales doth not provide for such Retorn and also because it is done in the face and view of the Court and of the Judges and therefore not to be doubted but the Sheriff made the Return Luke and Clerks Case 1079. If the Defendant challenge the Array for Consanguinity of the Sheriff which is found against him and after he challenge the Poles Resolved he must shew cause of challenge of every one of them presently Blandford and Blandford Case 1080. The Grandfather possessed of a Term for years devised the same to his Wife
for Life the Remainder to his Son T. and L. his wife if they have Issue male and if it shall please God to send them Issue Male then it to be reserved and put out for the benefit of such Sons or one of them and died The wife entred as Legatee and died and after T. and L. had Issue Male. It was Resolved that the Issue Male should have the Term and was not restrained to any Term to be born in the Life of the wife and it is a good Devise to the Issue Male though the Term be not expresly devised to the Issue Male. Curtyes Case 1081. Assault and Battery by husband and wife against the Defendant a Constable and two others The Defendant justified that the wife was presented in the Leet to be a common Scold and he Steward made a Warrant to the Constable to punish her according to Law and the Defendants went to the Plaintiffs house to execute the Warrant and the wife assaulted the Constable wherefore he commanded the other Defendants to lay hands upon her which they molliter did It was holden by the Justices to be a good justification although they neither shew the day when the Leet was holden nor that the Plaintiffs house was within the Jurisdiction of the Leet nor shewed the Warrant of the Stewards for that these were all but Inducements to the Justification Herbert and Binghams Case 1082. Error to reverse a Fine because the Writ of Covenant bare teste after the Dedimus potestatem the Defendant pleaded the Land descended to him within age and prayed his age Iâ— was Resolved by the whole Court he should have his age because he was Terre-tenant otherwise he should not have his age in Error Harvyes Case 1083. In Dower Judgment was given by default Error assigned that the Tenant was within age Adjudged no Error for age is not grantable in savorem dotis 1084. A Justice of Peace recorded a Force but did not Fine or commit the Offenders It was adjudged that in such case the Record of the Force was void and the Offenders upan that Record cannot be afterwards Fined nor Imprisoned Moody and Garnons Case 1085. A man made a Lease for years of Land part Fee-simple and part in Lease for years rendring Rent and if it was behind 40. days it should be lawful to restrain and if there should not be sufficient then to reenter Resolved it was not any condition because restraint is not limited to any thing which should be restrained as in Land or chattel and it shall not be taken to distrain and also because no person is expressed who should reenter Caries and Franklyns Case 1086. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment to I. S. Habendum to him and the Heirs of his body to the use of him his Heirs and Assigns It was adjudged he was Tenant in tail because the use to him his Heirs and Assignes shall be intended such Heirs which he had limited before which are Heirs of his Body Buckham and Dendriges Case 1087. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant pleaded to the Jurisdiction that he was a Tinner and pleaded the Grant of King Edward the First that the Tinners of Cornwall should be sued for contracts rising within the Liberty of the Stanneries and not elsewhere and the contract upon which the Debt was brought did arise within the Liberties c. It was Resolved a good Plea but then he must show the Patent or Charter Barrey and Perins Case 1088. Debt upon Obligation The condition was if the Obligor stands to the Arbitrament of four men so as the same be made by four or three of them c. then the Obligation to be void the Arbitrament was made by three It was Resolved the Arbitrament was good for upon consideration of all parts of the Submission the intent appears that four or three might make the Arbitrament and Arbitraments shall be taken by Equity so as all parts may stand Mary Powel and Hermans Case 1089. A sentence was in the Ecclesiastical Court that upon a Contract the Defendant should Marry the Plantiff he did not do it for which cause he was Excommunicated The Defendant Appealed to the Delegaties which was remised to the first Court who sentenced him againe and there also he was excommunicated for not performance of the Sentence He Appealed to the Audience and then had absolution He was taken by a Capias Excom upon the first excommunication upon an Habeas Corpus It was Resolved that the absolution for the Latter had not purged the first Excommunication quia Ecclesia decepta fuit 2. That the Appeal did not suspend the Excommunication although it might suspend the Sentence Don Diego Serviente de Acune and Giffords Case 1090. The Plantiff Embassador for his Master the King of Spaine recovered in an Action upon the Case the Defendant brought Error and removed the Record and then upon the second Scire fac the Bail brought in the body of the Defendant Resolved 1. That the removing of the Record did not so stop the Court that they could not accept of the body of the Defendant in Execution 2. Resolved that the body might be accepted only upon the first Scire fac and not upon the second Roe and Ledshams Case 1091. In False imprisonment in the Stannary Court The Defendant said the imprisonment was at Totnes out of the Jurisdiction Issue being upon it the Viâ—ne was from Totnes and not de Corpore Comitatus and adjudged good upon Error brought Moyslyn and Pierces Case 1092. The Plantiff recovered 200l dammage against the Defendant in B. R. in Assault and Battery and had the body of the Defendant in Execution The Defendant brough Audita Querela in Chancery that the principal had paid the money and thereupon had upon Sureties found a supersedeas to the Sheriff commanding him to discharge the Plantiff out of Execution but the Sheriff did not obey it He brought Habeas Corpus in B. R. and had another Audita Querela and prayed he might be bayled but ' the court would not grant it without Affidavit of payment of the money Coke Chief Justice said upon a Judgement in another Court Audita Querela did not lie in Chancery Eliz. Wilmots Case 1093. She brought Trespasse by the name of a Widdow the Defendant said she was a Feme Covert viz. the Wife of I. Wilmot who was living at Lisborn in Pertugall The Plea was disallowed by the Court for impossibility of Tryall Simonds Case 1094. Trespase for Batterie and entring his Close in B. The defendant justified the entry because it was a Copyhold within the Mannor of W. in W. and to the Battery pleaded Not guilty upon which the Issue was joyned The visne was de B. de Manerie de W. in W. It was Objected it ought to have been of B. only where the Batterie was also de Manerio de W. in W. is double and uncertain But the Court held the visne good because the Custom might