2. Suppose the Defendant had taken issue upon the Statutes being burnt and it had been found to have béen burnt and yet had been found afterwards the Defendant could not have any benefit of this Verdict He said it was a proper case for Equity Slater Carew DEbt upon a Bond. The Condition was that if the Obligor his heirs Executors c. do yearly and every year pay or cause to be paid to Tho. and Dor. his wife during their two lives that then c. the Husband dies and the question was whether or no the payment should continue to the Wife Serjeant Baldwin argued that the money is payable during their lives and the longer liver of them he cited Brudnel's case 5 Rep. and 1 Inst 219. b. that whenever an Interest is secured for lives it is for the lives of them and the longer liver of them and Hill's case adjudged Pasch 4 Jac. Rot. 112. in Warburton's Reports Seyse contra The interest of this Bond is in the Obligee the Husband and Wife are strangers and therefore the payment ceaseth upon the death of either of them and of that Opinion was the whole Court and grounded themselves upon that distinction in Brudnel's case betwixt where the Cestuy que vies have an interest and the cases of collateral limitations They said also that in some cases an interest would not survive as if an Office were granted to two and one of them dyed unless there were words of Survivorship in the Grant So the Plaintiff was barred Term. Mich. 26 Car. II. in Communi Banco Farrer Brooks Administrat of Jo. Brooks THe Plaintiff had Iudgment in Debt against John Brooks the intestate and took out a Fieri facias bearing teste the last day of Trin. Term de bonis catallis of John Brooks before the Execution of which Writ John Brooks dies and Eliz. Brooks administers the Sheriffs Bayliff executes the Writ upon the Intestates Goods in her hands Vpon this Serjeant Baldwin moved the Court for Restitution for that a Fieri facias is a Commission and must be strictly pursued Now the words of the Writ are de bonis of John Brooks and by his death they cease to be his Goods The Plaintiff will be at no prejudice the Goods will still remain lyable to the Iudgment only let the Execution be renewed by Scire facias to which the Administratress may plead somewhat Wyndham The property of the Goods is so bound by the Teste of the Writ as that a Sale made of them bona fide shall be avoided which is a stronger case And since the Intestate himself could not have any plea why should we take care that the Administrator should have time to plead And of that Opinion was all the Court after they had advised with the Iudges of the Kings Bench who informed them that their practice was accordingly But Vaughan faid that in his Opinion it was clearly against the rules of Law But they said there were cases to this purpose in Cr. Car. Rolls Moor c. Liefe Saltingstone's Case EJect ' firmae The case upon a special Verdict was thus viz. Sir Rich. Saltingstone being seized in Fee of Rees-Farm on the 17th day of Febr ' in the 19th year of the King made his Will in writing in which were these words viz. for Rees-Farm in such a place I will and bequeath it to my Wife during her natural life and by her to be disposed of to such of my Children as she shall think fit Sir Richard dyed his Wife entred and sealed such a Writing as this viz. Omnibus Christi fidelibus c. Noveritis that whereas my Husband Sir Richard Salting-stone c. reciting that clause in the Will I do dispose the same in manner following that is to say I dispose it after my decease to my Son Philip and his heirs for ever The Wife died and Philip entred and dyed and left the Lessor of the Plaintiff his Son and heir The question was what Estate Philip took or what Estate the Testator intended should pass out of him This case was argued in Easter-Term last past by Serjeant Scroggs for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Waller for the Defendant and in Trinity-Term by Serjeant Baldwin for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Newdigate for the Defendant They for the Plaintiff insisted upon the word dispose that when a man deviseth his Land to be disposed by a stranger it has been always held to be a bequeathing of a Feé-simple or at least a power to dispose of the Fee-simple 19 H. 8. 10. Moor 5 Eliz. 57. per Dyer Weston Welshe but they chiefly relyed on Daniel Uply's case in Latch The Defendants Councel urged that the heir at Law ought not to be disinherited without very express words That if the Devisor himself had said in his Will I dispose Rees-Farm to Philip that Philip would have had no more then an Estate for life and what reason is there that the disposal being limited to another should carry a larger Interest then if it had been executed by the Testator himself This Term it was argued at the Bench and by the Iudgments of Ellis Wyndham Atkyns Iustices the Plaintiff had Iudgment they agreed that the Wife took by the Will an Estate for her own life with a power to dispose of the Fee She cannot take a larger Estate to her self by implication then an Estate for life because an Estate for life is given to her by express limitation 1 Bulst 219 220. Whiting Wilkins case For cases resembling the case in question were cited 7 Ed. 6. Brook tit Devise 39. 1 Leon. 159. Daniel Uply's case Clayton's case in Latch It is objected that in Daniel Uply's case there are these words at her will and pleasure to which they answered that if she have a power to dispose according to her discretion and as she her self pleaseth and then expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur If I devise that J. S. shall sell my Land he shall sell the Inheritance Kelloway 43 44. 19 H. 8. fol. 9. Where the Devisor gives to another a power to dispose he gives to that person the same power that himself had Vaughan Chief Justice differed in Opinion he said it is plain that the word dispose does not signifie to give for if so then it is evident that the Lessor of the Plaintiff cannot have any title for if the Wife were to give then were the Estate to pass out of her which could not be by such an appointment as she makes here but must be by a legal Conveyance Besides she cannot give what she has not and she has but an Estate for life If then it does not signifie to give what does it signifie let us a little turn the words and a plain certain signification will appear I will and bequeath Rees-Farm to such of my Children as my Wife shall think fit at her disposal at this rate
it was said that the Act of Parliament only takes away a Writ of Error in such case but there is no day in Bank to plead It was order'd to stand in the paper Corporation of Darby THe Corporation of the Town of Darby prescribe to have Common sans number in grosse Sanders I conceive it may be by prescription what a man may grant may be prescribed for Co. Lit. 122. is express Keel In a Forest the King may grant Common for Sheep but you cannot prescribe for it And if you may prescribe for Common sans number in grosse then you may drive all the Cattel in a Fair to the Common Sanders But the prescription is for their own Cattel only Twisd If you prescribe for common sans number appurtenant to Land you can put in no more Cattel then what is proportionable to your Land for the Land stints you in that case to a reasonable number But if you prescribe for common sans number in grosse what is it that sets any bounds in such case There was a case in Glyn's time betwéen Masselden and Stoneby where Masselden prescribed for common sans number without saying levant couchant and that being after a Verdict was held good but if it had been upon a Demurrer it would have been otherwise Livesey said he was agent for him in the case Bucknall Swinnock INdebitat Assumpsit for money received to the Plaintiffs use the Defendant pleads specially that post assumptionem praedictam there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant that the Defendant should pay the money to J. S. and he did pay it accordingly The Plaintiff demurrs Jones This plea doth not only amount to the general issue but is repugnant in it self It was put off to be argued Hall versus Wombell THe question was whether an Action of Debt would lie upon a Iudgment given by the Commissioners of Excise upon an Information before them Adjornatur Vaughan Casewell A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given at the grand Sessions in Wales in a Writ of Quod ei deforciat Sanders The point in Law will be this whether a Tenants vouching a Vouchee out of the line be peremptory and final or that a Respondeas ouster shall be awarded Mr. Jones In an Assise the Tenant may vouch another named in the Writ 9 H. 5. 14. and so in the Com. fo 89. b. but a voucher cannot be of one not named in the Writ because it is festinum remedium In Wales they never allow foreign vouchers because they cannot bring them in If there be a Counterplea to a Voucher and that be adjudged in another Term it is always peremptory otherwise if it be determined the same Term. An Action of Trover and Conversion was brought against husband and wife and the wife arrested Twisd The wife must be discharged upon Common bail so it was done in the Lady Baltinglasse's case And where it is said in Crook that the Wife in such case shall be discharged it is to be understood that she shall be discharged upon Common bail So Livesey said the course was It was said to be the course of the Court That if an Attorney be sued time enough to give him two Rules to plead within the Term Iudgment may be given otherwise not Russell Collins AN Assumpsit was brought upon two several promises and entire damages were given Moved by Mr. Sympson in arrest of Iudgment that for one of the promises an Action will not lie It was a general indebitatus pro opere facto which was urged to be too general and uncertain But per Cur ' it is well enough as pro mercimoniis venditis pro servitio without mentioning the Goods or the Service in particular And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Dyer versus East AN Action upon the Case upon a promise for Wares that the wife took up for her wearing Apparel Polyxfen moved for a new Trial. Keel The husband must pay for the wives Apparel unless she does elope and he give notice not to trust her that is Scott Manby's case which was a hard Iudgment but we will not impeach it The Plaintiff had Iudgment Beckett Taylor DEbt upon a Bond to submit to an Award Exception was taken to the Award because the concurrence of a third person was awarded which makes it void They award that one of the parties shall discharge the other from his undertaking to pay a Debt to a third person and it was pretended that the third person being no party to the submission was not compellable to give a discharge But it was answered that he is compellable for in case the debt be paid him he is compellable in equity to give a Release to him that had undertaken to pay it Rolls 1 part 248. Giles Southwards case Mich. 1653. Judgment nisi Seventéen Serjeants being made the 4th of November a day or two after Serjeant Powis the Junior of them all coming to the Kings Bench bar the Lord Chief Iustice Keeling told him that he had something to say to him viz. That the Rings which he and the rest of the Serjeants had given weighed but 18 s. apiece whereas Fortescue in his book de laudibus legum Angliae says That the Rings given to the Chief Iustices and to the Chief Baron ought to weigh 20 s. apiece and that he spake this not expecting a recompence but that it might not be drawn into a president and that the young Gentlemen there might take notice of it Clerke versus Rowell Phillips A Trial at bar in Ejectment for Lands settled by Sir Pexall Brockhurst The Court said a Trial against others shall not be given in Evidence in this cause And Twisden said that an Entry to deliver a Declaration in Ejectment should not work to avoid a Fine but that it must be an express Entry Vpon which last matter the Plaintiff was non-suit Redmans Case IT was moved that one Redman an Attorney of the Court who was going into Ireland might put in special Bail Twisd A Clerk of the Court cannot put in bail You have filed a Bill against him and so waved his putting in bail Keel You may remember Woolly's case that we discharged him by reason of his priviledge and took Common bail Twisd You cannot declare against him in custodia But though we cannot take bail yet we may commit him and then deliver him out by mainpernancy Jones If he be in Court in propria persona you cannot procéed against his bail The Court agréed that the Attorney should not put in bail Grafton GRafton one of the Company of Drapers was brought by Habeas Corpus In the Return the cause of his Imprisonment was alledged to be for that being chosen of the Livery he refused to serve Per Cur ' they might have fined him and have brought an Action of Debt for the sum but they could nor imprison him Keel The Court of Aldermen may imprison a
of the great Sessions have power to try all Murthers as the Iudges here have and the Statute of 26 H. 8. for the Trial of Murthers in the next English County was made before that of the 34 H. 8. Twisden I never yet heard that the Statute of 34 H. 8. had repealed that of 26 Henr. 8. It is true the Iudges of the Grand Sessions have power but the Statute that gives it them does not exclude this Court. To be moved when the Chief Iustice should be in Court Franklyn's Case FRanklyn was brought into Court by Habeas Corpus and the Return being read it appeared that he was committed as a Preacher at Seditious Conventicles Coleman prayed he might be discharged he said this Commitment must be upon the Oxford Act for the last Act only orders a Conviction and the Act for Vniformity Commitment only after the Bishops Certificate And the Oxford Act provides that it shall be done by two Iustices of the Peace upon Oath made before them and in this Return but one Iustice of Peace is named for Sir William Palmer is mentioned as Deputy Lieutenant and you will not intend him to be a Iustice of Peace Nor does it appear that there was any Oath made before them Twisden Vpon the Statute of the 18th of the Queen that appoints that two Iustices shall make Orders for the keeping of Bastard-children whereof one to be of the Quorum I have got many of them quash'd because it was not exprest that one of them was of the Quorum Whereupon Franklyn was discharged Vpon a motion for time to plead in a great cause about Brandy Twisden said if it be in Bar you cannot demand Oyer of the Letters Patents the next Term but if it be in a Replication you may because you mention the precedent Term in the Bar but not in the Replication Yard Ford. MOved by Jones in Arrest of Iudgment an Action upon the Case was brought for keeping a Market without Warrant it being in prejudice of the Plaintiffs Market He moved that the Action would not lie because the Defendant did not keep his Market on the same day that the Plaintiff kept his which he said is implied in the case in 2 Rolls 140. Saunders contra Vpon a Writ of Ad quod dampnum they enquire of any Markets generally though not held the same day In this case though the Defendants Market be not held the same day that ours is yet it is a damage to us in forestalling our Market Twisden I have not observed that the day makes any difference If I have a Fair or Market and one will erect another to my prejudice an Action will lye and so of a Ferry It s true for one to set up a School by mine is damnum absque injuria Ordered to be moved again Pawlett moved in Trespass that the Defendant pleaded in Bar that he had paid 3 l. and made a promise to pay so much more in satisfaction and said it was a good plea and did amount to an accord with satisfaction an Action being but a Contract which this was Twisden An Accord executed is pleadable in Bar but Executory not Twisden There are two clauses in the Statute of Vsury if there be a corrupt agreement at the time of the lending of the money then the Bonds and all the Assurances are void but if the agreement be good and afterward he receives more than he ought then he forfeits the treble value Bonnefield HE was brought into Court upon a Cap. Excom and it was urged by Pawlett that he might be delivered for that his name was Bonnefield and the Cap. Excom was against one Bromfield Twisden You cannot plead that here to a Cap. Excom You have no day in Court and we cannot Bail upon this but you may bring your Action of False Imprisonment Caterall Marshall ACtion upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares that in consideration that he would give the Defennant a Bond of sufficient penalty to save him harmless he would c. and sets forth that he gave him a Bond with sufficient penalty but does not eppress what the penalty was This was moved in Arrest of Iudgment Jones After a Verdict it is good enough as in the case in Hob. 69. Twisd If it had been upon a Demurrer I should not have doubted but that it had been naught Rainsford Morton But the Iury have judged the penalty to be reasonable and have found the matter of fact Twisden The Iury are not Iudges what is reasonable and what unreasonable but this is after a Verdict And so the Iudgment was affirm'd the cause coming into the Kings Bench upon a Writ of Error Martin Delboe AN Action upon the Case setting forth that the Defendant was a Merchant and transmitted several Goods beyond Sea and promised the Plaintiff that if he would give him so much money he would pay him so much out of the proceed of such a parcel of Goods as he was to receive from beyond Sea The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and doth not say non assumpsit infra sex annos but that the cause of Action did not arise within six years The Plaintiff demurs because the cause is betwéen Merchants c. Sympson The plea is good Accounts within the Statute must be understood of those that remain in the nature of Accounts now this is a sum certain Jones accorded This is an Action upon the Case and an Action upon the Case betwéen Merchants is not within the exception And the Defendant has pleaded well in saying that the cause of Action did not arise within six years for the cause of Action ariseth from the time of the Ships coming into Port and the six years are to be reckoned from that time Twisden I never knew but that the word Accounts in the Statute was taken only for Actions of account An insimul computasset brought for a sum certain upon an Account stated though betweén Merchants is not within the Exception So Iudgment was given for the Defendant The King versus Leginham AN Information was exhibited against him for taking unreasonable Distresses of several of his Tenants Jones moved in arrest of Iudgment that an Information would not lye for such cause Marlebr cap. 4. saith that if the Lord take an unreasonable Distress he shall be amerced so that an Information will not lye And my Lord Coke upon Magna Carta says the party grieved may have his Action upon the Statute but admit an Information would lye yet it ought to have been more particular and to have named the Tenants it is not sufficient to say in general that he took unreasonable Distresses of several of his Tenants And the second part of the Information viz. that he is communis oppressor is not sufficient Rolls 79. Moor 451. Twisden It hath so been adjudged that to lay in an Information that a man is communis oppressor is not good And a Lord cannot be indicted
proof upon them that claim liberam piscariam But in case of a River that flows and re-flows and is an Arm of the Sea there prima facie it is common to all and if any will appropriate a priviledge to himself the proof lyeth on his side for in case of an Action of Trespass brought for Fishing there it is prima facie a good justification to say that the locus in quo is brachium maris in quo unusquisque subjectus Domini Regis habet habere debet liberam piscariam In the Severne there are particular restraints as Gurgites c. but the Soil doth belong to the Lords on either side and a special sort of Fishing belongs to them likewise but the common sort of Fishing is common to all The Soil of the River of Thames is in the King and the Lord Mayor is Conservator of the River and it is common to all Fisher-men and therefore there is no such contradiction betwixt the Soil being in one and yet the River common for all Fishers c. Sedgewick Gofton HAles said That a Writ of Error in Parliament may be retorned ad prox Parliament such a day but if a particular day be not mentioned then it is naught and although there be a particular day expressed yet if that day be at two or thrée Terms distance the Court will adjudge it to be for delay and it shall be no Supersedeas And he said he had looked into the Books upon the point In the Register he said there is a Scire fac ad prox Parliament but not a Writ of Error Term. Pasch 26 Car. II. 1674. in B. R. Fountain Coke A Trial at Bar. Hales An Executor may be a witness in a cause concerning the Estate if he have not the Surplusage given him by the Will and so I have known it adjudged If a Lessee for years be made Tenant to the Praecipe for suffering a common Recovery that doth not extinguish his term because it was in him for another purpose which the whole Court agreed Jacob Aboab DEbt upon a Bond was brought against him by the name of Jacob and he pleaded that he was called and known by the name of Jaacob and not Jacob but it was over-ruled Sir John Thorowgood's Case IT was moved to quash an Indictment because it ran in detrimentum omnium inhabitantium c. Rolls 2 part 83. Wyld I have known it ruled naught for that cause So quashed Benson versus Hodson A Writ of Error of a Iudgment in the County Palatine of Lancaster in Replevin The Defendant makes Conusance as Bayliff to Ann Mosely The Lands were the Lands of Rowland Mosely and he covenanted to levy a Fine of them to the use of himself and the Heirs males of his body the remainder in Tail to several others the remainder to his own right Heirs Provided that if there shall be a failer of Issue Male of his body and Dame Elizabeth be dead and Ann Mosely be married or of the age of 21 years then she shall have 200 l. per annum for ten years Then Rowland dies leaving Issue Sir Edward Mosely Sir Edward makes a Lease for 1000 years then levies a Fine and suffers a Recovery Then dies without Issue Male And the Contingents did all happen The question is whether this Rent-charge of 200 l. per annum be barred by the Fine and Recovery and shall not operate upon the Lease Levings I conceive the Fine is not well pleaded for nothing is said of the Kings Silver and if that be not paid it is void Then they have pleaded a Common Recovery but not the Execution of it by Entry Now I conceive the Common Recovery doth destroy the Estate Tail but not the Rent The reason why a common Recovery is a Bar is because of the intended recompence Now that is a fictitious thing 9 Rep. Beamonts case 1 Cro. Stone and Newman Cuppledicks case Now this Rent is a meer possibility and hath no relation to the Estate of the Land Then again when the Recovery was suffered the Rent was not in being Now a Recovery will never bar but where the Estate is dependant upon it either in Reversion or Remainder For that case of Moor pl. 201. I conceive he is barred because the Reversion is barred by the Fine 3 Cro. 727. 792. White and Gerishe's case the same case 2 And. 190. Noy p. 9. Another reason is because the Rent remains in the same plight notwithstanding the Fine Another reason is it was a meer possibility at the time of the Fine and Recovery Pell and Brownes case is for me In our case is no Estate in esse to be barred Then this Estate is granted out of the Estate of the Feoffeés As in Whitlocks case 8 Rep. 71. the Estates for years which there is a power to make shall be said to precede all the Limitations There is no other way for securing younger Childrens Portions by the same Deéd but it may be done by another Déed as in Goodyer and Clarkes case Mr. Finch contra I conceive the Rent is barred upon the reason of Capells case They say not 1 Because it doth only charge the Remainder 2 The intended recompence doth not go to it 3 This Lease for 1000 years doth precede the Fine The Law will never invert the operation of a Conveyance but ut res magis valeat Bredon's case Then for the intended recompence that cannot be the reason of barring a Remainder for the Estate Tail was barred before 3 Leon. 157. But Moor fol. 73. saith it is the favour the Law hath for Recoveries And till the Reversion takes place in possession the Rent cannot arise out of the Reversion nor so long as this Lease is in being Hales You make two great points 1 Whether the Rent be barred by the Common Recovery 2 Whether the Rent-charge shall arise out of the Lease for years This is plain if Tenant in Tail grant a Rent-charge and suffer a Common Recovery the Rent-charge will not be avoided So that if Tenant in Tail grant a Rent a Recovery will not bar that though it doth a Reversion but the reason of these cases is because the Estate of him that suffers the Recovery is charged with the Rent Therefore if there be a Limitation of a Vse upon Condition and Cestui que use suffers a Recovery that will not destroy the Condition the Estate being charged with it for the Recoveror can have the Estate only as he that suffered the Recovery had it And therefore there is an Act of Parliament to enable Recoverors to distrein without Attornment Therefore so long as any one comes in by that Recovery he comes in in continuance of the Estate Tail and coming in so he is lyable to all the charges of Tenant in Tail Now what is the reason why Tenant in Tail suffering a Common Recovery a Rent by him in Remainder shall be barred The reason is because the Recoveror comes in
construed to be a gift of the Stuff unto her and I shall not be charged in any Action for it besides consider the inconveniencies which will follow if an Action of Trover should be against the husband for then the husband shall be barred of all those helps which my Brothers who maintain that Opinion have allowed unto him and have made reasons for which an Action of the case should lye against him on the Contract namely the Iurors are to examine and set the price or value and the necessity and fitness of things with relation to the degree of the husband whereby care is taken that the husband have no wrong for in an Action of Trover the Iury cannot examine any of those matters but are to enquire only of the property of the Plaintiff and the Conversion by the Defendant and to give damages according to the value of the Goods and so it shall be in the power of the wife to take up what she pleaseth and to have what she lists without reference unto the degrée or respect to the Estate of her husband and he shall be charged with it nolens volens It is objected that the Iury is to judge what is fit for the Wives degrée that they are trusted with the reasonableness of the price and are to examine the value and also the necessity of the things or Apparel Alas poor man what a Iudicature is set up here to decide the private differences between husband and wife the Wife will have a Velvet Gown and a Satten Petticoat the husband thinks Mohair or Farendon for a Gown and watered Tabby for a Petticoat is as fashionable and fitter for his quality The husband says that a plain Lawn Gorget of 10 s. pleaseth him and suits best with his condition the Wife will have a Flanders Lace or pointed Handkerchief of 40 l. and takes it up at the Exchange A Iury of Mercers Silk-men Sempsters and Exchange-men are very excellent and very indifferent Iudges to decide this controversie It is not for their avail and support to be against the wife that they may put off their brayded Wares to the wife upon trust at their own price and then sue the husband for the money Are not a Iury of Drapers and Milliners bound to favour the Mercer or Exchange-men to day that they may do the like for them to morrow And besides what matter of Fact and of that only the Law hath made Iurors the Iudges is there in the fitness of the Commodities with reference to the degree of the husband and whether this or that thing be the most necessary for the wife The matter of Fact is to find that the wife wanted necessary Apparel and that she bought such and such Wares of the Plaintiff at such a price to cloath her self and leaves the fitness of the one and the reasonableness of the other to the Court for that is matter of Law whereof the Iurors have no Conusance Lessée for life of a House puts his Goods therein makes his Executors and dies whosoever hath the House after his death yet his Executors shall have frée Entry Egress and Regress to carry their Testators Goods out of the House by reasonable time Litt. 69. And this reasonable time shall be adjudged by the discretion of the Iustices before whom the cause depends upon the true state of the matter and not by the Iury Co. super Littleton 56. b. So it is in case of Fines for Admittance Customs and Services if the Question be whether the same be reasonable or not for reasonableness belongs to the knowledge of Law 4 Rep. 27. Hubarts case Lessée for life makes a Lease for years and dies within the term in an Action of Trespass brought by the first Lessor against the Lesseé for years he ought by his Plea to set forth what day his Lessor dyed and at what place where the Land lies and at what day he did leave the possession and so leave it to the discretion of the Court whether he did quit the possession in reasonable time or not 22 E. 4. 18. Soinors case The fitness or necessary of Apparel and the reasonableness of the price shall be judged by the Court upon the circumstance of the matter as the same appears by the Pleadings or is found by the Iury but the Iurors are not Iudges thereof Again there is a twofold necessity necessitas simplex vel absoluta and necessitas qualificata vel convenientiae of a simple or absolute necessity in the case of Apparel or Food for a Feme Covert the Law of the Land takes notice and provides remedy for the wife if the husband refuse or neglect to do it But if it be only necessitas convenientiae whether this or that Apparel this or that meat or drink be most necessary or convenient for any wife the Law makes no person Iudge thereof but the husband himself and in those cases no man is to put his hand betwéen the bone and the flesh I will conclude the general question or first point with the Iudgment of Sr. Thomas Smith in his book of the Common-wealth of England lib. 1. cap. 11. fo 23. The naturallest and first conjunction of two towards the making a further Society of continuance is of the husband and wife each having care of the Family the man to get to travel abroad to defend the wife to save to stay at home and distribute that which is gotten for the nurture of the Children and Family is the first and most natural but primate apparence of one of the best kind of Common-wealths where not one always but sometime and in some things another bears rule which to maintain God hath given to the man greater wit better strength better courage to compell the woman to obey by reason or force and to the woman beauty fair Countenance and sweet words to make the man obey her again for love Thus each obeyeth and commandeth the other and they two together rule the House so long as they remain together in one I wish with all my heart that the women of this age would learn thus to obey and thus to command their husbands so will they want for nothing that is fit and these kind of Flesh-flies shall not suck up or devour their Husbands Estates by illegal tricks I am come now to this particular case as it stands before us on this Record Admit that the husband were chargeable by Law by the Contract of his wife yet Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff upon this Declaration as this Verdict is found First the Declaration is That the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in 90 l. for Wares and Merchandizes by the Plaintiff to him before that time sold and delivered and the Verdict finds that the Wares were not sold and delivered to the Defendant but the same were sold to his wife without his privity or consent So it appears that the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Action upon