and that before the Pardon for these Reasons it cannot be revested in the party Serjeant Pemberton and Mr. E contra Finch contra The Question is what Interest the King hath by this Verdict for as to the Offence it self 't is within the Body of the Pardon for all Misdemeanours and Offences are pardoned and the Exception doth not reach this Case for that excepts Misdemeanours in answering of the Revenues Now that which arises by a Forfeiture can never be taken to be part of the King's Revenue because the Revenue is properly a stated Duty originally setled on the King and the Penalty to be inflicted for this Misdemeanour cannot be a Revenue because the Court have not yet given Iudgment so that 't is incertain what Fine they will set and this appears more plain because the King may assign his Revenue but cannot grant over a Penalty The Information is not grounded upon any Act of Parliament which establishes the Revenue but for concealing of a thing forfeited to prevent the Seisure thereof which indeed may be a casual Revenue as all Fines are so that if this should be taken as an Offence committed against the King in deceiving him of this Revenue then the first part of the Pardon dischargeth all such Offences and the Exception pardons none 'T is for these Reasons that the Case cannot fall under any of the words in the Exception no not under these Words viz. Mony due or to be due to the King because no Mony is yet due to him 'T is true the Iury have found it a Misdemeanour which is finable but until the Fine is set no Mony is due because the Court may set a greater or less Fine as they shall see cause And if any other Construction should be made of this Exception then every thing for which a Fine may be set is excepted and this will be to make the Pardon signifie nothing for what is meant by Offences and Misdemeanours if they should be pardoned and yet the Fine arising thereon should not But admitting that all Offences relating to the Concealment of collecting of the Revenue are excepted then this Revenue must be either antecedent or it must arise by the Fine 'T is no antecedent Revenue this appears by the Book of Rates wherein the King 's stated Revenue is set down and no mention of this so that the Revenue to which this relates must arise upon the Offence and what an absurd thing is it to say that all Offences are pardoned by one part of this general Pardon and by the Exception none are pardoned Besides the Information is not grounded upon that part of the Statute which inflicts a Penalty upon the person who exposeth prohibited Goods to Sale for then they would sue for the 50 l. therefore it must be upon the Forfeiture which is expresly pardoned and though there is a Conviction yet nothing is vested in the King before Iudgment because it may be arrested and therefore Tooms's Case is in no wise applicable to this for the Debt which was due to him was actually vested in the King by the Inquisition returned here which found him to be Felo de se Adjornatur Anonymus A Libel in the Admiralty against a Ship called the Sussex Ketch A Ship was pawned for necessaries and a Libel was exhibited in the Admiralty though the pawning was at the Land setting forth that the said Ship wanted Necessaries super altum Mare and that the Master took up several Sums of the Plaintiff at Roterdam for which he did hypothecate the said Ship and upon a Suggestion that this Contract was made at St. Katherines infra Corpus Comitatus Council moved for a Prohibition upon which a Question did arise whether a Master of a Vessel can pawn it on the Coast for Necessaries and the person to whom 't is pawned shall sue for the Mony in the Admiralty here By the Common Law a Master of a Ship had neither a general or special property in it Sid. 453. and therefore could not pawn it but by the Civil Law in cases of necessity he may rather than the Voyage should be lost and if any such cause appear 't is within the Iurisdiction of the Admiralty but then the pawning must be super altum Mare Now the Statute of 28 H. Cap. 15. H. 8. which abridgeth the Iurisdiction of the Admiralty in Trials of Pyrates and which appointeth Offences committed on the Sea to be tried by a Commission under the great Seal directed to the Admiral and others according to the course of the Common Law and not according to the Civil Law gives a remedy in this very Case Molloy de Jure maritimo 62. for it provides that it shall not be prejudicial to any person for taking of Victuals Gables Rapes c. in cases of necessity upon the Sea paying for the same So that this is an excepted Case because of the Necessity and 't is like the Cases of suing for Mariners Wages in this Court The Service was at Sea so that the Admiralty hath no proper Iurisdiction over this Matter 'T is true Prohibitions have been denied for Mariners Wages the first is reported by Iustice Winch Winch. f. 8. but the reason seems to be because they proceed in the Admiralty not upon any Contract at Land but upon the Merits of the Service at Sea and allow or deduct the Wages according to the good or bad performance of the Services in the Voyage Besides there is an Act of Parliament which warrants she Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty for Mariners Wages Cotton Abr. f. 340. nu 37. For in a Parliament held in the 14th year of Richard II. the Commons petititioned for remedy against great Wages taken by Masters of Ships and Mariners to which the King answered that the Admiral shall appoint them to take reasonable Wages or shall punish them Now the reason of the Civil Law which allows the pawning of a Ship for necessaries upon the high Sea seems to be plain because there may be an extraordinary and invincible necessity at Sea but not at Land So that this being a Contract beyond Sea and at Land the Court of Admiralty cannot have any Iurisdiction over it 4 Inst 134. Cro. Car. 603. Latch 11. 2 Brownl 37. for where the Common Law cannot relieve in such Cases the Admiralty shall not because they are limited to Acts done upon the Sea and in cases of necessity for if the Law should be otherwise the Master may take up as much Mony as he will Mr. Pollexfen contra 1 Rolls 530. That things arising upon Land may be sued for in the Admiralty is no new thing for so it is in all Cases of Stipulation Mariners Wages are also recoverable in that Court not by vertue of any Act of Parliament Exton Mant. Diraeologiae f. 192. but because it grows due for Services done at Sea which is properly a Maritime Cause though the
that is to make them Iudges whether this Duty is payable or not and so the Courts of Westminster who are the proper Iudges of the Revenue of the King who by this means will be without an Appeal will be excluded Curia This Court may take Cognizance of this Matter as well as in Cases of Bastardy 't is frequent to remove those Orders into this Court though the Act says That the two next Justices may take order as well for the punishment of the Mother as also for the relief of the Parish where it was born except he give Security to appear the next Quarter Sessions The Statute doth not mention any Certiorari which shews that the intention of the Law-makers was that a Certiorari might he brought otherwise they would have enacted as they have done by several other Statutes that no Certiorari shall lie Therefore the meaning of the Act must be that the determination of the Iustices of the Peace shall be final in Matters of Fact only as if a Collector should affirm that a person hath four Chimnies when he hath but two or when the Goods distrained are sold under the value and the Overplus not returned but the Right of the Duty arising by virtue of this Act was never intended to be determined by them Then the Order was filed and Mr. Pollexfen moved that it might be quashed for that by the Statute of 14 Car. 2. 14 Car. 2. c. 10. the Occupier was only chargeable and the Land-Lord exempted Now by the Proviso in that Act such a Cottage as is expressed in this Order is likewise exempted because 't is not of greater value than 20 s. by the year and 't is not expressed that the person inhabiting the same hath any Lands of his own of the value of 20 s. per annum nor any Lands or Goods to the value of 10 l. Now there having been several abuses made of this Law to deceive the King of this Duty occasioned the making of this subsequent Act. The abuses were these viz. The taking a great House and dividing it into several Tenements and then letting them to Tenants who by reason of their poverty might pretend to be exempted from this Duty The dividing Lands from Houses so that the King was by these Practices deceived and therefore in such Cases the charge was laid upon the Land-Lord but nothing of this appearing upon the Order it was therefore quashed Brett versus Whitchot IN Replevin Lands not exempted from repairing of the High-ways by grant of the King The Defendant avowed the taking of a Cup as a Fine for a Distress towards the repairing of the High-way The Plaintiff replyed and set forth a Grant from the King by which the Lands which were chargeable to send Men for the repairing c. were exempted from that Duty And upon a Demurrer the Question was Whether the Kings Letters Patents are sufficient to exempt Lands from the Charge of the repairing of the High-ways 2 3 Ph. Mar. c. 8. which by the Statute of Philip and Mary and other subsequent Statutes are chargeable to send Men for that purpose And it was argued that such Letters Patents were not sufficient because they were granted in this Case before the making of the Statute and so by consequence before any cause of Action and to prove this a Case was cited to this purpose In 2 E. 2 Inst 569. 3. an Action was brought against an Hundred for a Robbery upon the Statute of 13 E. 1. The Bishop of Litchfield pleaded a Charter of R. 1. by which that Hundred which was held in Right of his Church was exempted c. But it was held that this Charter could not discharge the Action because no such Action was given when the Letters Patents were made but long afterwards Iudgment was given for the Avowant Upton versus Dawkin TRespass quare vi armis liberam piscariam he did break and enter and one hundred Trouts ipsius Quer. Trespass for taking Fish ipsius querentis in libera piscaria not good in the Fishery aforesaid did take and carry away Vpon Not guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and this Exception was taken in arrest of Iudgment viz. For that the Plaintiff declared in Trespass for taking so many Fish ipsius Quer. in libera piscaria which cannot be because he hath not such a property in libera piscaria to call the Fish his own Pollexfen contra If there had not been a Verdict such a Construction might have been made of this Declaration upon a Demurrer but now 't is helped and the rather because a Man may call them pisces ipsius in a free Fishery for they may be in a Trunk so a Man may have a property though not in himself as in the Case of Iointenants where 't is not in one but in both yet if one declare against the other unless he plead the Iointenancy in Abatement the Plaintiff shall recover But notwithstanding the Iudgment was reversed Dominus Rex versus ...... THE Defendant was indicted for Barretry Barretry the Evidence against him was that one G. was arrested at the Suit of C. in an Action of 4000 l. and was brought before a Iudge to give Bail to the Action and that the Defendant who was a Barrister at Law was then present and did sollicite this Suit when in truth at the same time C. was indebted to G. in 200 l. and that he did not owe the said C. one farthing The Chief Iustice was first of Opinion that this might be Maintenance but that it was not Barretry unless it appeared that the Defendant did know that C. had no cause of Action after it was brought If a Man should be arrested for a trifling Cause or for no Cause this is no Barretry though 't is a sign of a very ill Christian it being against the express Word of God But a Man may arrest another thinking he hath a just cause so to do when as in truth he hath none for he may be mistaken especially where there hath been great dealings between the Parties But if the design was not to recover his own Right but only to ruine and oppress his Neighbour that is Barretry A Man may lay out mony in behalf of another in Suits at Law to recover a just Right and this may be done in respect of the Poverty of the Party but if he lend mony to promote and stirr up Suits then he is a Barretor Now it appearing upon the Evidence that the Defendant did entertain C. in his House and brought several Actions in his Name where nothing was due that he was therefore guilty of that Crime But if an Action be first brought and then profecuted by another he is no Barretor though there is no cause of Action The Defendant was found guilty DE Termino Paschae Anno 2 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1686. Coram Edwardo Herbert Mil ' Capital ' Justic
Commitment and that for two reasons 1. Because the persons committing had not any Authority so to do for upon the Return it appears that they were committed by several Lords of the Council whereas it should have been by so many Lords in Council or by Order of Council 2. They ought not to be committed for this Fact which is only a Misdemeanour The Bishops are Peers and therefore the Process ought to be a Summons by way of Subpoena out of the Crown Office and not to commit them the first time If a Man comes in voluntarily he cannot be charged with an Information neither can a person who is found in Court by any Process be so charged if it be illegal as if a Peer be committed by Capias Iustice Allybon replyed that when a Commitment was made by the Lord Chief Iustice of this Court his Name is to the Warrant but not his Office 't is not said Committitur per Capitalem Justiciarium Angliae c. for he is known to be so and why should not a Commitment by such persons Dominos Concilij be as good as a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Capitalem Justiciarium That it was enough for the Officer to return his Warrant and when that is done the Court will presume that the Commitment was by the Power which the Lords in Council had and not by that Power which they had not To which it was answered by Mr. Finch that the Lord Chief Iustice always carries an Authority with him to commit where-ever he goes in England but the Lords of the Privy Council have not so large a Power for though they be Lords of the Council always yet they do not always act in Council Then the Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 10. was read in which there is mention made of a Commitment by the Lords of the Privy Concil c. But it was answered that that Statute was to relieve against illegal Commitments and those enumerated in that Act were such only and none else And it was strongly insisted that Peers of the Realm cannot be committed at the first instance for a Misdemeanour before Iudgment and that no President can be shewed where a Peer hath been brought in by Capias which is the first Process for a bare Misdemeanour The constant Proceedings in the Starr-Chamber upon such Informations were Crompt Jurisdiction 33. Dyer 315. 4 Inst 25. Regist 287. viz. First the Lord Chancellor sent a Letter to the person then if he did not appear an Attachment went forth The Kings Council answered Sir Baptist Hick's Case Hob. that a Peer may be committed for the Breach of the Peace for which Sureties are to be given and can there be any greater Breach of the Peace than a Libel against the King and Government 'T is certainly such a Breach of the Peace for which Sureties ought to be demanded for where there is any seditious Act there must be a Breach of the Peace and if Sureties are not given then the person must be committed The Objections were over-ruled by three Iudges Then the Information was read which in Substance was viz. That the King by vertue of his Prerogative did on the 4th day of April in the third year of his Reign publish his gracious Declaration for Liberty of Conscience which was set forth in haec verba That afterwards viz. 27 Aprilis in the fourth year of his Reign the King did publish another Declaration reciting the former in which he expressed his care that the Indulgence by him granted might be preserved c. that he caused this last Declaration to be printed and to manifest his favour more signally towards his Subjects on the 4th day of May 1688. it was Ordered in Council that his Declaration dated the 27th day of April last be read on two several days in all Churches and Chappels in the Kingdom and that the Bishops cause the same to be distributed through their several Diocesses c. That after the making of the said Order c. the Bishops naming them did consult and conspire amongst themselves to lessen the Authority and Prerogative of the King and to elude the said Order and in further prosecution of their said Conspiracy they with Force and Arms did on the 18th day of May c. unlawfully maliciously c. frame compose and write a Libel of the King subscribed by them which they caused to be published under the pretence of a Petition Then the Petition was set forth in haec verba In contemptum dicti Domini Regis c. The King's Council moved that the Defendants might plead instanter for so they said is the course of the Court when a Man is brought thither in Custody or appears upon Recognizance But the Council on the other side prayed an Imparlance and a Copy of the Information and argued that the Defendants ought not to plead instanter because their Plea ought to be put in Writing and that they ought to have time to consider what to plead that it was impossible to make any Defence when they did not know the Accusation and that the Practice of the Court anciently was with them 'T is true when a Subpoena is taken out and the Party doth not appear but is brought in by Capias he shall plead instanter and the reason is because he hath given delay to the Cause So 't is likewise in Cases of Felony or Treason but not to an Information for a Misdemeanour Then the Clerk of the Crown informed the Court that it was the Course to plead instanter in these following Cases viz. when the person appears upon a Recognizance or in propria persona or is a Prisoner in Custody upon any Information for a Misdemeanour where no Process issued out to call him in As to the Objection that the Defendants cannot make any Defence without a Copy of the Information the Vsage is otherwise even in Cases where a Man's Life is concerned and what greater difficulty can there be to defend an Accusation for a Misdemeanour than a Charge for High-Treason certainiy the Defendants all know whether they are innocent or not These Points being over-ruled by the Court the Archbishop offered a Plea in writing the Substance of which was that they naming all the Defendants were Peers of Parliament and ought not to be compelled to answer this Misdemeanour immediately but they ought to appear upon due Process of Law and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the Information and afterwards to imparle and because they were not brought in by Process they pray the Iudgment of the Court. This Plea was offered to the end that what was denied before upon a Motion might be settled by the Opinion of the Court but it was over ruled Then they pleaded severally Not-Guilty and were tried at the Barr a Fortnight afterwards by a Middlesex Iury and acquitted Anonymus In the Common-Pleas AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond against the Defendant
Indebitatus Ass will lye for a Fine upon an Admission c. That a Fine was due to him for an admission That upon the death of the said Lord the Manor descended to W. as his Son and Heir who died and the Plaintiff as Executor to the Heir brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit for this Fine He declared also that the Defendant was indebted to him in 25 l. for a reasonable Fine c. The Plaintiff had a Verdict and entire Damages and it was now moved in arrest of Iudgment that an Indebitatus will not lie for a Customary Fine because it doth not arise upon any Contract of the Parties but upon the Tenure of the Land for upon the death of the Lord there is a Relief paid for there must be some personal Contract to maintain an Action of Debt or an Indebitatus Assumpsit 2 Cro. 599. Jones 339. and therefore it was held that where the Plaintiff locasset a Ware-house to the Defendant he promised to pay 8 s. per Week An Assumpsit was brought for this Rent and a Verdict for the Plaintiff And a Motion was made in Arrest of Iudgment that this was a Lease at Will and the weekly payment was in the nature of a Rent and it was agreed that an Assumpsit would not lie for a Rent reserved because it sounds in the Realty but because it was only a Promise in consideration of the occupying of the Warehouse the Action was held to be well brought 2. Where the Cause of an Action is not grounded upon a Contract but upon some special Matter there an Indebitatus Assumpsit will not lie and therefore it will not lie upon a Bill of Exchange or upon an Award or for Rent though there is a Privity both of Contract and Estate without a special Assumpsit E contra E contra It was argued that the Action lies for though a Fine savours of the Realty yet 't is a certain Duty In all Cases where Debt will lie upon a simple Contract there an Assumpsit will lie likewise 't is true this doth concern the Inheritance but yet 't is a Contract that the Tenant shall be admitted paying the Fine It hath been also maintained for Mony had and received out of the Office of Register for the Plaintiffs use and for Scavage Mony due to the Mayor and Commonalty of London 3 Keb. 677. which is also an Inheritance 'T is a Contract implyed by Law and therefore the Action is well brought Afterwards in Michaelmas Term 1 Willielmi Mariae by the Opinion of Iustice Dolben 2 Leon. 79. Eyre and Gregory Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But the Chief Iustice was of another Opinion for he held that if the Defendant had died indebted to another by Bond and had not Assets besides what would fatisfie this Fine if the Executor had paid it to the Plaintiff it would have been a Devastavit in him Suppose the Defendant promiseth that in consideration that the Plaintiff would demise to him certain Lands that then he would pay the Rent If the Defendant pleads Non Assumpsit Cro. Car. Acton versus Symonds the Plaintiff must prove an express Promise or be Non suit Also here is no Tenure or Custom set out Yet by the Opinion of the other three Iustices the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Rex versus Johnson INformation upon the Statute of 29 30 Car. 2. cap. 1. Pardon after a Verdict for the King excuseth the Forfeiture prohibiting the Importation of several French Commodities and amongst the rest Lace under the Penalty of 100 l. to be paid by the Importer and 50 l. by the Vendor and the Goods to be forfeited The Information sets forth that a Packet containing so many yards of Lace was imported by the Defendant from France and that he did conceal it to hinder the Seisure and that he did privately sell it contra formam Statuti Vpon Not-Guilty pleaded the King had a Verdict and on the 2d of October there came forth a general Pardon in which were these Words viz. That the Subjects shall not be sued or vexed c. in their Bodies Goods or Chattels Lands or Tenements for any Matter Cause or Contempt Misdemeanour Forfeiture Offence or any other thing heretofore done committed or omitted against us Except all Concealments Frauds Corruptions Misdemanours and Offences whereby we or our late Brother have been deceived in the Collection payment or answering of our Revenues or any part thereof or any other Mony due or to be due to us or received for us or him and all Forfeitures Penalties and Nomine Poena's thereupon arising and all Indictments and Informations or other Process and Proceedings now depending or to be depending thereupon The Question now was whether this Forfeiture was excused by this Pardon The Attorney General argued that it was not because an Interest is vested in the King by the Iudgment and that no particular or general Pardon shall divest it without words of Restitution So was Tooms's Case who had Iudgment against another 1 Sand. 361. and then became Felo de se his Administrator brought a Scire Facias quare Executionem non haberet The Debtor pleaded that after the Iudgment the Intestate hanged himself which was found by the Coroners Enquest returned into this Court. The Plaintiff replied the Act of Pardon But it was adjudged for the Defendant for when the Inquisition was returned then the Debt was vested in the King which could not be divested without particular words of Restitution and which were wanting in that Act of Pardon The most proper word in the Body of this Pardon which seems to excuse the Defendant is the word Offence but the same word is likewise in the Exception viz. Except all Offences c. in collecting or paying of Mony due to us and all Forfeitures c. Now the concealing of forfeited Goods from Seisure is an Offence excepted for 't is a remedy for the King's Duty of which he was hindred by the Concealment 'T is true the first part of the Pardon excuseth all Misdemeanours comitted against the King in his standing Revenue but this Exception takes in all Concealments and Frauds in answering of the Revenue and this Information is principally grounded upon Fraud 5 Co. 56. so that the Exception ought to be taken as largely for the King as the Pardon it self to discharge the Subject No Fraud tending to the diminution of the Revenue is pardoned for it excepts not only all Concealments in collecting the Revenue but other Mony due or to be due to the King If therefore when the King is entituled by Inquisition Office or Record there must be express and not general words to pardon it and since this Fact was committed before the Pardon came out and so found by the Iury whose Verdict is of more value than an Enquest of Office so that the King by this means is entituled to the Goods by Record