Action because they imply an act done And Roll said that where one said Where is that long lock't shagg-hair'd murdering Rogue And a stranger asked him who do you mean He said Greene of Fauseet the words were judged actionable so he said where one said Bring home the Cushion you stole the words were adjudged actionable But the Iudgment was stayed for further advice Dent versus Scott Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 1151. IN an Action of the Case upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit for Wares it was found by special Verdict Acc'on sur Case that the Wares were sold to the Defendants Wife for convenient Apparel which she wore and if c. And the Opinion of the Court was clear for the Plaintiff for the Wife may charge the Husband for Necessaries as Apparel Dyet and Lodging in case that the Husband doth not provide them for her But if the Husband allow a stipend to the Wife for these things and it be paid her then they held she could not charge him And Roll said that this was endeavoured to be proved at the trial and because it could not he would have had the Iury found generally for the Plaintiff And Bacon said that he and the other Iudges have lately certified the Lords in Parliament accordingly but for a flaw in the Declaration which was in considerat ' quod venderet deliberaret and no averment of any sale or delivery Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff because the Declaration was insufficient and so entered Note also that the promise in this Case is laid to be made by the Husband and the sale and delivery made to him but then it must be deliberasset for if it were in consideration quod venderet deliberaret to him then it may be questioned whether a Sale and Delivery to the Wife would make good the averment Dunsh versus Smith Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 37. IN an Action of Debt Debt brought by an Executor for the arrears of a Rent-charge upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in the life of the Testator did enter into the Land out of which the Rent was issuing and occupied it and took the profits thereof by the space of five years and demands the arrears of the Rent for the time And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mainard moved that the Action will not lye for the arrears against the Occupiers for the Statute gives it against the Tenants of the Land To which Hale answered That at the Common Law the Action lay against him that took the profits of the Land and against the Husband that was seized in right of his Wife C. 4. f. 49. 2. That this Action is given in lieu of a Distress and the Beasts of the Occupiers were chargeable to the Distress 3. That it would be convenient that the Plaintiff should be compelled to inquire out in whom the Estate was of right But Iudgment was stayed And Roll doubte◠of the Case but inclined against the Plaintiff Pasc 24 Car. B. R. Harvy versus Thorne Pasc 24 Car. Rot. 472. IN an Action upon the Case Case against an Executor the Plaintiff declares that upon a treaty of a Marriage it was agréed betwéen the Plaintiff and the Testator that he should pay to the Plaintiff 100 li. and whilst that should be unpaid he should pay the Plaintiff 10 li. per Annum which Agréement was made Anno 1618. And the Action was brought for all the arrears by the space of 28 years The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations whereupon the Plaintiff demurred And upon the motion of Hale who advised the Attorney to bring the Action for all the arrears that it appeared that all could not be barred by the Statute Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff no Counsel being retained in the Cause for the Defendant Loder versus Hampshire IN Debt Debt upon a singel Bill of 50 li. the Defendant after Imparlance pleaded That after the last continuance the Defendant had paid the Plaintiff 5 li. parcel of the 50 li. and demanded Iudgment of the Bill Whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and because the Defendant did not alledge that he had an Acquittance which he ought to produce At the motion of Earle Iudgment was given against the Defendant that he should answer over c. C. 5 E. 4. 139. a. Dod versus Robinson Trin. 23 Car. Rot. SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares that the last of March 13 Car. he was Instituted and Inducted into a Parsonage in Ireland and executed the Office of a Pastor in that Church by the space of four years after and the Defendant said of him He was a Drunkard a Whoremaster a common Swearer and a common Lyar and hath preached false Doctrine and deserves to be degraded And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved by Hale in arrest of Iudgment 1. That the words in themselves are not actionable because the Crimes charged impute no Civil or Temporal damage to the Plaintiff for which he may have Action But the Opinion of the Court was clear for the Plaintiff in that point for that the matters charged are good cause to have him degraded whereby he should lose his Fréehold which is a temporal damage to him Then it was objected That he did not lay that he was Parson when the words were spoken To which it was answered by the Court That it should be intended he continued Parson because he had a Fréehold in the Parsonage during his life But it was further urged That inasmuch as he hath laid a special time during which he exercised the Office of a Pastor it shall not be intended that he continued so longer then himself hath laid it And of this the Court doubted but inclined for the Plaintiff Morefield Webb Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 51. Acc'on fur Case IN a Writ of Error upon Iudgment in the Palace Court at Westminster In an Action upon the Case upon a Promise and a Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved for Error that the Habeas Corpora Jurator̄ was not returned served but that there was a Pannel of the Names of the Iurors annexed to it which Case is aided by the Statute of 21 Jac. which aids when there is not any return upon the Writs of Ven. Fac. Hab. Corpora et Distring so as a Panel of the Names of the Iurors be returned and annexed to the said Writs And two Objections were made 1. That this Statute extends only to such by Writ and in this Court it is by Precept and not by Writ 2. It appears that this Court was erected by Letters Patents 6 Car. which was after the Statute But it was resolved 1. That it is within the Intention of the Statute which doth provide amendment in any Action Suit Plaint Bill or Demand And Roll said that it is questionable if this Statute extends to the Grand Sessions in Wales and Iustice Jones was angry that it was made a Question
torn in pieces with Rats if a Stranger by laying the pieces together could make the devise appear good if gnawn before the death against the Will IN an Eject ' firm ' upon a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that one Warner by his Will in writing devised the Lands in question to Henry Etheringham and the Heirs males of his body and bailed the Writing to the Scrivener to kéep and four years after died and about a fortnight after his death this Writing was found in the Scrivener's Study gnawn all to pieces with Rats yet he with the help of the pieces and of his memory and other Witnesses caused it to be proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and now the Court demanded of the Witnesses whether a Stranger that knew not the Contents of the Will before by joyning of the pieces together could tell that the devise of the Lands in question was to Etheringham and the Heirs males of his body for they did agrée that if this clause could be made out though by joyning of the pieces it were a good Will for all that But the Witnesses said that a Stranger could not make out that clause Whereupon the Court directed the Iury that if they found that the Will was gnawn before the death of the Devisor then 't was for the Plaintiff if after for the Defendant and the Iury found for the Defendant in favour of the Will Markham versus Adamson Words I accuse you to be a Witch c. IN Slander The Defendant said to the Plaintiff I accuse you to be a Witch and the next day said I desire to have you searched the Plaintiff asked why would you have me searched the Defendant said because I accuse you to be a Witch and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff judgment was given against him because the words did not import an Accusation of any offence within the Statute But it was agréed that if the Plaintiff had béen accused of bewitching a Man or a Beast though this were not Felony by the Statute the Action would have lain and so hath it béen adjudged Newman versus Zachary ACtion sur le Case The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant was his Shepherd and that two of his Sheep did estray Action sur le Case for his false practice creating trouble c. to the Plaintiff one of which being found again the Defendant affirmed to be the Plaintiff's whereupon the Plaintiff paid for the feeding of it and caused it to be shorn and marked with his own Mark and yet afterwards the Defendant malitiose machinans to disgrace the Plaintiff and knowing the said Sheep to be the Plaintiffs falsò fraudulenter affirmavit to the Bailiff of the Manor that had waifs and strays belonging to it that this Shéep was an Estray whereupon the Bailiff seised it to his damage c. And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff Latch moved that there was no cause of Action for there is no breach of trust in the Defendant as Shepherd and his words cannot endamage the Plaintiff for he shall have his remedy against the Bailiff of the Manor that seised the Shéep wrongfully But it was adjudged that the Action would lie because the Defendant by his false practice hath created a trouble disgrace and damage to the Plaintiff and though the Plaintiff have cause of Action against the Bailiff Upon slandering a Title though the party hath remedy vers Trespasser yet Action lies against him that caused the disturbance yet this will not take off his Action against the Defendant in respect of the trouble and charge that he must undergoe in the recovery against the Bailiff and Hales said that if one slander my Title whereby I am wrongfully disturbed in my Possession though I have remedy against the Trespasser I shall have an Action against him that caused the disturbance Sir Thomas Bowe 's Case If Lessee for years hold over and pay his Rent quarterly that makes a Tenant at will 21 H. 7. 38 E. 14 H. 8. 11. f. Dyer 62 a. 173. IN Debt for Rent upon a Lease at Will of Houses in London upon a Trial at the Bar touching the Title of Sir T. Bowes it was agréed and given in charge to the Iury by Roll that if Tenant for years holds over his term and continue to pay his Rent quarterly as before that this payment and acceptance of the Rent amounts to a Lease at Will Ten. at will begins a new Quarter over shall pay the Rent Inst 56. 69. 13 H. 8. 16. a. Kel 65. 6. 2. That if Tenant at Will rendring Rent quarterly begins a new Quarter and voluntarily determines the Will before the Quarter ended yet he shall pay the Rent for that Quarter Evely versus Livermore H. 17 Car. Rot. 1409. Stat. 3 Jac. that does not extend to a special Action upon his promise and to give a Ticket of his charges IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant reteined him as his Attorney to follow his Causes in the King's Bench Chancery and Court of Request and gave him so much in hand to defray his charges and promised to pay him what more he should lay out and alledges that he layed out 10 li. more then he received for Fees of Counsel and other charges in the Defendants Suits which the Defendant hath not paid c. The Defendant pleads the Statute 3 Jac. 7. that the Plaintiff did not give a Ticket to him of his charges c. and after demurrer it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Statute doth not extend to a special Action upon a promise and so it was adjudged in Dobbins his Case Farrer versus Bates P. 22 Car. Rot. Arbitrement Debt and other Controversieslie in Arbitrement though Debt solely does not IN an Indebitatus Assumpsit for 9 li. upon an Insimul computaverunt the Defendant pleaded a submission of all actions and controversies to Arbitrement and that the Arbitrators awarded that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff 4 li. in satisfaction of all Accounts and upon issue quod non se submiserunt Arbitrio it was found for the Defendant and upon motion in arrest of Iudgment it was agréed Where Arbitrement is no plea in Debt it is no plea in an Assumpsit upon the Debt that though Debt it self doth not lie in Arbitrament yet that and other Controversies doth 10 H. 7. 4. 4 H. 6. 27. But it was likewise agrréed that where Arbitrament is no plea in Debt it is no plea in an Assumpsit upon the Debt 2. Where it does not reach the thing demanded It was resolved that the Arbitrament did not reach the thing demanded for that was only of all Accounts and this is a duty upon the Account and so the Defendant could have no Iudgment then it was moved to have a Repleader Repleader denied but denied by Roll being then sole present Hil. 22 Car. Banco Regis Powel versus Waterhouse
T. 22 Car. Rot. IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration of a Marriage Promise inter alia not good ought to set forth the whole Promise c. Inter al' promisit de payer tant puis Verdict pro Querent ' Judgment fuit done vers luy because he ought to set forth the whole promise which is entire Hinacre versus Lemon M. 22 Car. Rot. SLander Words charged with procuring Felony good The Defendant said of the Plaintiff she caused Mr. Langly's Servant to steal and purloin 30 and received them and sold them which was the cause why his Master broke and upon a Verdict and Iudgment in the Common Bench in a Writ of Error the Iudgment was affirmed because she is charged with procuring of Felony and receiving stollen Goods Haines versus Finch Debt upon a promise for bringing up Children good without saying they were the Plaintiff's AN Executor brought an Action of Debt upon a promise made with the Testator for bringing up of Children and Teaching and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon nil debet pleaded it was moved that Debt would not lie in the Case because it was not layed that they were the Plaintiff's Children But the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for Debt will lie upon a promise made by a stranger Debt upon a promise of money to marry a poor Virgin as in N. B. 122. k. If one promiseth money to another for marrying a poor Virgin Debt lieth but the parties agréed and so no Iudgment was given And Roll said that in Trevilian's Case Servant retain'd an Attorney for his Master and promises him his Fees Debt lies against the Servant where a Servant retained an Attorney for his Master and promised he should have his Fées an Action of Debt was brought thereupon by the Attorney against the Servant in C. B. and the Plaintiff recovered but upon Error in this Court a rule was given for the reversal of the Iudgment notwithstanding the like President shewn in Bradford's Case but he said that the Iudgment was not reversed upon the Roll and his opinion was that the Iudgment was good Edwards versus French T. 22 Car. Rot. 675. Slander whereby he lost his Marriage And no agreement of Marriage or mutual Love alledged and the words were spoken only in the innuendo yet good SLander The Plaintiff declares that whereas there was a Communication of Marriage betwéen the Plaintiff and one Mary Hicks who was worth 300 li. and that she deferred Marriage with the Plaintiff q. d. that verisimile fuit that they should be Married the Defendant in the hearing of divers persons said Mary Hicks is Mr. Edwards his Whore innuendo the Plaintiff whereupon Mary Hicks was refused to Marry the Plaintiff And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that there was no agréement of Marriage nor mutual love alledged betwéen the Plaintiff and M. H. 2. That the words were not alledged to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo yet upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Osborne versus Brooke Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 677. SLander Captain Osborne is forsworn Slander Is forsworn and his Oath appears upon Record Act ' gist and his Oath appears upon Record The Defendant as to the first words pleads not guilty and as to the latter justifies that he was forsworn in finding of an indictment of Forcible Entry and upon de injuria sua propria as to the justification both issues were found for the Plaintiff And upon motion of Latch in arrest of judgment First if the Words themselves were actionable Secondly if the Iustification made them good and actionable and upon great debate judgment was given for the Plaintiff in both points First the Court did take the words being spoken together to be the same as if he had said he is forsworn upon Record Justification explains the Parties meaning to be of perjury which is as much as to call him perjured Secondly his justification hath explained his meaning in them to be of perjury And Tuke and Condie's Case was cited for this where the Defendant in an Action brought for saying You are forsworn justified that he was forsworn in an indictment of Battery and the issue upon the justification being found for the Plaintiff he had judgment in Common Bank which was afterwards affirmed in this Court and now allowed for good Law by both the Iudges yet two Objections were made by Latch against this judgment First that the Declaration of it self being insufficent in substance could not be made good by the Defendant's bar Secondly that the ground of the Action is the disgrace that the Plaintiff incurs before the Auditors now they must understand the words according to the common acceptation as they were spoken and not in the sense wherein the Defendant justifies the speaking of them and he cited a Case 21 Jac. betwéen Wheeler and Abbot where in Slander for saying Thou hast stollen my Piece innuend ' a Gun the Defendant justified that the Plaintiff did steal his Gun and though the Iustification which shewed the Defendant's meaning to be of a Gun was found against him and Piece was a word of an incertain signification which could not be explained by the Innuendo Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Reasons aforesaid Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Water's Case Ten in common makes a Wall against the house to prevent the others getting in no disscisin IN an Assise of a House in Westminster upon null ' tort c. pleaded and a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that there were two Tenants in common of the House and one of them nailed up the Doors and made up a Wall against the House to prevent the others getting into the House and this was resolved no Disseisin and so the Iury were discharged But the point in Law would have béen that a Tradesman purchased Lands in fée to himself and his Wife and after became Bankrupt c. whether the Commissioners had power to sell so as to bar the Wife Taylor versus Usherwood Hill 18 Car. Rot. 87. Demise IN an eject ' firmae upon a special Verdict the Case was That one devised Land to one Elizabeth for her life and after her death to the eldest Heir male of her body and to the Heirs males of such Heir male so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth and if he be not of twenty four years of age at that time then that the Husband of Elizabeth shall hold them till he comes to that age and the profits to be disposed among the younger Children Elizabeth dieth her Heir male within the age of twenty four years and after he attained to that age and entred and demised to the Defendant And Hales argued for the Defendant That if the demise had rested in
spoken in a sense not actionable for it is very unreasonable that one should slander another in general words and then mitigate them by other words of a doubtfull interpretation sic pendet c. Sir John Chichester's Case Indictment SIR J. C. was indicted of Manslaughter and tried at the Bar and evidence was that he and his Man were playing at Foils and the Chafe of Sir John's Scabbard fell off unknown to him upon a thrust so that the Rapier went into his man's Belly and killed him And the Court directed the Iury that forasmuch as such acts are not warranted by Law the parties that use them ought at their own peril to prevent the mischief that may ensue for consent will not change the Case and therefore though there were no intention of doing mischief yet the thrust being voluntary was an assault in Law and death ensuing the offence was Manslaughter yet the Iury found it Chance-medly but the Court would not accept the Verdict but charged them if they varied from the Indictment to find it specially And Bacon said he had known a Iury bound over to the Star-chamber upon the like Cause whereupon they found him guilty and day was given him to procure his Pardon c. Pasch 23 Car. Banco Regis Andrews Harborn Mich. 22 Car. Rot. 483. Scire facias SCire facias was brought in Middlesex upon a Recognizance taken before Iustice Reeve at his Chamber at Serjeants Inn in London and Iudgment given in C. B. and upon a Writ of Error brought in this Court it was moved that it ought to have béen brought in London where the Recognizance was taken for though the Scire facias must be grounded upon a Record and the Recognizance be no Record till it be entred yet after it is entred it becomes a Record by relation from the time of the Recognizance And Hall and Winkfield's Case Hob. 195. was cited and the case was much debated and Roll Bacon absent said that the most ancient and proper course was to bring the Scire facias where the Recognizance was taken but he shewed in his hand a Certificate of all the Prothonotaries of the C. B. that of latter times they have allowed it the one way or the other and so the Iudgment was affirmed And Pasch 20 Jac. Rot. 210. B. R. betwéen Polting and Fairebank the like Iudgment was given upon a Recognizance taken before one of the Iudges of this Court in London and a Scire facias brought in Middlesex but it was said that the usual Entry in this Court is to express before what Iudge it was taken but no place where and then it might be brought in Middlesex without question Hilton and Plater Hil. 21 Car. Rot. 30. SLander Slander The Plaintiff declares That whereas he was Attorney c. the Defendant said to him You are a Knave you were Attorney for my Mother and set my Mother against my Husband and made him spend an 100 li. and such Knaves as you have made my Husband spend all his Estate And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved the last Term in arrest of Iudgment because no communication is laid of his Profession whereby the word Knave may be applied to that and the other words do not import any scandal of him in his Profession for he might lawfully set the Defendants Mother against her Husband as if there were cause of Action against him whereupon Iudgment was stayed And now this Term it was moved again And Bacon was of opinion against the Plaintiff for the reasons aforesaid But Roll contra because the subsequent words declare that the word Knave was intended of him in his Profession and therefore néed no colloquium of his Profession And afterwards the same Term ex assensu Baron ' mutata opinione Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 23 Car. Banco Regis Paine versus Sheltroppe Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 740. IN an Action of Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition That if the Defendant and his Wife should appear such a day at the Palace Court c. The Defendant upon Oyer of the Condition pleads that he himself did appear at the day prout apparet per record ' and that he was not married at the time of the Obligation nor ever after And it was adjudged to be no good plea because he is estopped to deny that he had a Wife Otherwise when the Condition is general as to enfeoffe one of all his Lands in Dale there he may say he had no Lands there Vide Dyer 50. f. 196. d. 18 E. 4. 4. f. 21 E. 4. 54. g. l. 2. 33. h. Dominus Rex versus Holland AN Office was found and returned in the Chancery That a Copyhold in Islington was 14 Car. granted to one John Holland and his Heirs at the will of the Lord c. in trust for one Margaret Taylor who was an Alien and her Heirs and that the profits were disposed according to the trust and that after M. T. died and this was by virtue of a Commission to enquire what Lands c. M. T. had and the Commissioners seised the Land whereupon Holland came and shewed his Title and traversed the seisin in trust for M. T. And Issue being joyned it was found for the King and note the Venire facias was awarded in the Chancery retornable in this Court and the Record sent hither for they try no Issue there And exception was taken to the Writ because it was quorum quilibet habet 4. libratas terrae and according to Stat. 27 El. cap. 6. which extends only to this Court C. B. Exchequer and Iustices of Assise to which it was answered That forasmuch as it is returnable in this Court it is well enough within the Statute but that Answer was not allowed but because this Clause was added by the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 7. which was in the affirmative that the Writ should continue quorum quilibet habet 2. libratas terrae And the Statute 27 El. adds that it shall be 4. libratas in such Courts but no negative words in either Statute therefore it is but abundans cautela and makes not the Writ vicious And Roll said that it was so adjudged Mich. 21 Jac. betwéen Philpot and Feilder The Questions in Law were 1. If the King should have the trust 2. If by virtue of that he might seise the Land 3. If the Case differ'd because Copyhold And it was argued the last Term by Mountague for Holland and Hale for the King and this Term by Maynard for Holland and Twisden for the King 1. That Vses at the Common Law were things partly in action so that they were not given to the King by general words of Hereditaments in Statutes as is agréed in the Marquess of Winchester's Case And they consisted in privity and therefore could not be transferred by act in Law as by escheat for Attainder c. And the preamble of the
certain Lands c. promised to pay to the Plaintiff 15 li. annuatim pro quolibet anno during four years if J. S. should live so long and after the first year the Plaintiff brought his Action and upon non Assumpsit had a Verdict and Iudgment though it was not averred that J. S. lived so long for the Action lieth after the first year Si being a limitation subsequent Shaw versus Huntly Trin. 21 Car. Rot. 321. IN Debt Debt against an Executor upon plene administravit pleaded and Issue thereupon the Iury found that the Testator devised that his Executors should sell certain Lands Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Blackwell versus Ashton Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 636. A Scire facias Scire facias was brought against three Bailees upon a Recognizance acknowledged by them and the principal joyntly and severally and upon a demurrer the Writ abated by good advisement because this being founded upon a Record the Pl. ought to shew forth the cause of the variance from the Record as that one was dead but if an Action be brought upon Bond in the like case there the Defendants ought to shew that it was made by them and others in full life not named in the Writ because the Court shall not intend that the Bond was sealed and delivered by all that are named in it and therefore the Defendants cannot demur upon it though it be entred in haec verba And so it is if an action be brought upon a Recognizance taken before the Mayor and Recorder c. by the Statute of 23 H. 8. because there the parties must seal and so hath it been adjudged Dyer 227. e. 28 H. 6. 3. c. 36 H. 6. 16. Fyner versus Jeffrys Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1599. IN an Assumpsit Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares That where one Richard Brand had assaulted and beaten the Plaintiff c. the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would not prosecute the said R. B. c. promised to pay him so much as the Plaintiff was damnified and averrs that he hath not nor yet doth prosecute the said R. B. c. And that he was damnified by reason of the same Battery in 30 li. which the Defendant though such a time and place required hath not paid and upon non Assumpsit and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that the Plaintiff hath not given the Defendant notice of what he was damnified in but yet the Plaintiff had his Iudgment because the Defendant hath taken upon him to pay the damage that the Plaintiff susteined which when the Plaintiff ascertains to him and requires him to pay the Defendant at his peril is bound to pay if in truth he were so much damnified Lodge versus Weeden Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 146. IN an Action upon the Case for killing of Cattel infected de quodam morbo mortali Angl. the Murrain and throwing their Entrails into the Plaintiff's Field per quod diversa averia of the Plaintiff's interierunt after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon not guilty pleaded it was moved to be too uncertain because it doth not appear what nor how many Beasts perished but yet Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because there néeds not such certainty in an Action upon the Case which is not brought for the Beasts themselves or the value of them but for damages sustained by their death through the Defendants means Sims versus Gregory and others Trin. 23 Car. or Pasch 22 Car. Rot. 247. IN an Action of Trespass Trespass upon the Statute of Monopolies made anno 21 Jac. the Plaintiff sets forth the Statute and that 13. Jul. 14 Car. proclamation was made by the King concerning Wines by colour whereof the Defendants procured the Plaintiff to be imprisoned and 200 Pipes of his Wine to be detained till he made Fine for them and that afterward viz. 15 Jul. 14 Car. another Proclamation was made colore hujus Proclamationis postea scil 7. Jan. 20 Car. the Defendants caused the said Plaintiff to be taken and imprisoned and that the Defendants not fearing the said Stat. postea scil 14. Jul. ann 20. supradicto tantas minas de imprisonamento corporis ipsius T. Sims adtunc ibidem intulerunt quod idem Th. Sims per longum tempus scil à praed ' 14. die Jul. anno 20. supradict usque diem impetrationis hujus billae scil 14. diem Jul. 21 Car. circa negotia sua necessaria palam intendere non audebat c. contra pacem c. contra formam Statuti c. The Defendant pleaded not guilty within six years and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in an arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration was repugnant for the Imprisonment is laid to be 7. Jan. 20 Car. and then follows that the Defendants postea scil 14. Jul. 20 Car. tantas minas c. which is before the Imprisonment for the King began his Reign 27. Martii and the Iury have given damages with relation to the whole time whereas the Declaration is nought as to a great part of it And the Case being much debated it was agreed 1. That the Plaintiff in his Declaration need not answer the order of time wherein the Trespasses were done but may alledge that which was done 7. Jan. before that which was done 14. Jul. But yet 2. It was resolved that postea in the latter place must refer to the time immediately precedent and cannot leap over that and refer to the time wherein the Proclamation was made 3. It was resolved that the word postea in this case could not be void and the time brought in by the Scilicet stand absolutely because the word Scilicet is but explanatory and for instance and cannot contradict any thing that is precedent Hob. 172. But if the word Scilicet had been out and the time brought in by it had been alledged substantively then the word Postea would have been void being repugnant 4. It was resolved that the time brought in by the Scilicet was repugnant and void and the Declaration stands as if no such time had been alledged and then it runs thus That the Defendant's Postea tantas minas c. intulerunt quod idem J. S. per longum tempus circa negotia sua necessaria palam intendere non audebat and though this be uncertain for that no time is alledged yet it being not the substance of the Action but only for aggravation of damages and in as much as evidence could not be given of any threats after the reste of the Bill or damage by reason of them thefore being after a Verdict it was resolved to be good enough Lastly It was resolved That it shall not be intended in this case that the Iury have given damages with respect to the time brought in by the last Scilicet after per longum tempus which over-reaches the time that the threats were made the time brought in by the first Scilicet
because she might have many Sons But yet upon good consideration Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Court shall not intend that Mary had any other Sons besides the Plaintiff And Roll cited a Case where one said your Landlord Henley is a Thief and laid his Declaration only with an Innuendo of the Plaintiff then Landlord c. and adjudged good But in another Case where one said your Landlord without a Surname is a Thief in such an Innuendo it was after great debate the Court being at first divided in opinion adjudged naught But there if the Plaintiff had averred that he to whom the words were spoken had no other Landlord it had been good Vide French and Edward's Case su 3. More versus Clypsam IN a Replevin Replevin the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant cepit centum oves matrices vervices of the Plaintiffs The Defendant avows that his Father was seised in fee of the place where c. and died seised and that the Lands descended to the Defendant as Son and Heir by virtue whereof he entred and was seised in fee and took the Beasts damage feasant the Plaintiff makes a reply and concludes with a traverse absque hoc that the Defendant at the time of the taking was adhuc est seised in fee of the Land and issue thereupon was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Traverse was naught 1. Because the title of the Avowant is not answered for that the dying seised of the Father and the descent and the seisin of the Avowant is but a conclusion upon that 2. Because the Traverse is larger then the Avowry for adhuc est refers to the time of the pleading which is more then is alledged or then is material To the first it was answered that though it be not formal yet it is substantial enough for if the Son were not seised there could be no discent to him and therefore it is made good by the Verdict and the Court inclined to this opinion But the other exception was holden to be material Then an exception was taken to the Declaration because it is for 100 Ewes and Wethers and it doth not appear how many there are of Ewes and how many Wethers and the Sheriff is bound to make deliverance of the one sort and of the other for his delivery must be according to the Writ And though he may receive information from the parties so that it is a good return to say nullus venit ex parte querent ' ad ostendend'averia c. yet he is not bound to require it but ought to have sufficient certainty within the Record And for this cause after great debate Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff but it was agreed that oves without addition had been good enough and the Sheriff might have delivered the one sort and the other But if the Writ be for oves matrices the Sheriff cannot deliver Wethers so if it be for Black Horses the Sheriff cannot deliver White but is subject to an Action of Case Now there being some Ewes and some Wethers and the number not appearing the Sheriff is left at uncertainty and upon the same reason a Formedon of 100 Acres of Meadow and Pasture hath been adjudged naught as Roll said Com. Northumb. vers Green Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1198. IN Debt Debt for Rent the Plaintiff declares That one Cross made a Lease for years to the Defendant rendring Rent payable half yearly who granted the reversion to the Plaintiff and such a day which was the day wherein the Rent was due the Defendant attorned and for three years Rent and a half which included the Rent due the day of the attornment the Action was brought and upon nil debet and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Rent was payable to Cross before the attornment for that shall be taken if worst for the Plaintiff to be after Sun-set but it was disallowed for the Court shall not intend it and if they should the Verdict supplies the averment of the contrary And both the Iudges said that if a Writ abate one day and another Writ is purchased which bears teste the same day it shall be intended after the abatement of the first Caly versus Joslin Uxor ' Trin. 23 Car. Rot. 1282. IN Debt Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years against the Husband and Wife Executrix which was laid in the debet and detinet Vpon plene administravit pleaded and a Demurrer thereupon the case was well debated by reason of contrary resolutions for Hargrave's Case was reversed in the Exchequer Co. 5.31 because the Action was in the debet and detinet but afterwards 7 Jac. between the Lord Rich and Frank. in C. B. upon great debate it was adjudged good in the debet and detinet And the like Iudgment was given 9 Jac. in C. B. in Sir Henry Carye's Case And after that Pasc 17 Jac. Rot. 346. B. R. between Paule and Moody it was adjudged good in the detinet only And the like 7 Car. in the Common Pleas and the same year in this Court between Smith and Nichols and the reasons of these contrary opinions was the inconveniency of the one side and the other for in as much as the Executors cannot waive the Term it were hard if the Rent should exceed the value of the Land and they having no assets that they should be charged in the debet of their own proper Goods and yet if the Action must be brought in the detinet only where fully administred were a good plea then may they retain the Land and with the profits thereof satisfie Debts upon specialty whereby the Lessor should be defeated of his Rent For the avoiding of which inconveniencies it was resolved that they may be charged in the debet and detinet for prima facie the Land shall be intended to be of greater value than the Rent and if it be otherwise Mich. 23 Car. Banco Regis Gilbert versus Stone Trin. 17 Car. Rot. 1703. IN Trespass Trespass for breaking of a House and Close the Defendant pleaded that 12 homines ignoti modo guerrino armati tantum minabantur ei quod de vitae suae amissione dubitabat and after requirebant compulsabant the Defendant to goe with them to the House quodque ob timorem minarum per mandatum compulsionem dictorum 12 hominum he did enter the said House and returned immediately through the said Close which is the same Trespass c. And upon Demurrer Hob. 134. c. without argument it was adjudged no plea for one cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear and the Defenant hath remedy against those that compelled him Also the manner of the pleading was naught because he did not shew that the way to the House was through the Close Mark versus Cubit Pasc 23 Car. Rot. 376. SLander
party might deliver the Lease by virtue of the authority given him ore tenus notwithstanding the Letter of Attorney but then he must swear he did it by virtue of that for if he did it by virtue of the Letter of Attorney the other authority will not avail the delivery and it was said that he could not deliver it by virtue of both authorities quod quare Pasc 24 Car. Banco Regis Lawrence versus Kete and others IN an Ejectione firmae Ejectione firmae upon Issue whether it were a Devise by Will in writing or not between Mrs. Dunsh Widow and Edmund Dunsh the Heir The Case upon the Evidence was That Dunsh the Husband being sick said that he devised all his Lands to his Wife for life and limited several remainders of several parcels of them and about an hour after wished and desired that one Kete were there to write his Will whereupon the Wife without acquainting her Husband with it sent for Kete who from the mouth of the Witnesses which heard the Devise wrote the same but because they differed in their Testimony touching the limitation of the remainders he wrote two Wills and this was without privity of the Husband who before the writing finished became senseless and soon after died And the original Writings were both lost but a Copy testified to be of the same effect was produced and after much Dispute it was agreed by the Court and so given in charge to the Iury. 1. That an actual Devise by word is no sufficient ground for a stranger to write the Will but there ought to be an Actual Will and desire that it should be written and a bare wishing is not sufficient but there ought to be an actual willing 2. That this desire ought to be in some short space after the Devise so that it be as one continued act for if the Devise be at one time and at another time the Devisor sends for one to write his Will a new Declaration will be necessary to make it effectual 3. That an actual desire of the Husband that Kete were there to write his Will was a sufficient ground for the Wife to send for him though the Devisor gave no express directions to doe it 4. That the writing of the Will from the mouth of Witnesses was sufficient and it need not be from the mouth of the Testator 5. If Witnesses agree as to the Devise for life the Will stands good for that though they disagree as to the limitation of the remainders 6. Though the Devisor becomes senseless before the Will be written yet if it be written before he dies it is a good Will in writing 7. If a Will continue in writing at the time of the death of the Testator though it be lost or burnt afterwards it stands good but if it be burnt at the time of his death then the Devise is void And the next day the Iury gave a Verdict against the Will because the Evidence was not clear as to the desire of the Devisor to send for Kete but there was a motion for a new Trial upon pretence of partiality in some of the Iurors sed non praevaluit Hill versus Armstrong Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 931. IN an Action of Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition to pay 300 li. to the Plaintiff and to adde 3 li. to every Hundred if it were demanded The Defendant pleaded payment of the 300 li. and that he added 3 li. to every Hundred secundam formam conditionis praedict ' The Plaintiff traversed the addition of 3 li. to every Hundred secundum formam conditionis praedict ' And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff ought to have alledged a Demand And for this cause Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for this being matter of substance without which the Plaintiff had no cause of Action was not helped by the Issue nor Verdict notwithstanding the words secundum formam conditionis which was pretended to imply a Demand Hill Uxor ' versus Bird alios LEtters of Administration of the Goods of Sir John Lamb Intestate were committed by the Prerogative Court to the Wife of Hill being near to the Intestate and upon a suggestion of a Suit there by others of equal degree for a distribution of the Goods of the Intestate according to agreement made by the Administration as was pretended Hale prayed a Prohibition and it was granted for the Statute wills that Administrator be granted to the next of kin for their advantage and when the Ordinary c. hath once executed his power according to the Statute he cannot alter it nor hath any power to compell the Administrator to make distribution notwithstanding the Agreement And Hale said that the Court there threatned to repeal the Letters granted unless she would bring in a true Inventory of the Estate of the Intestate and give a true account of her Administration to which Roll answered that the Court there may cite her to bring in an Inventory and to give an account but if it appear that they goe about to repeal the Letters for not doing of it you shall have a Prohibition which was not denied by Bacon And Hale would have had a Prohibition against all the Cosins as well those that sued there as others because the proceedings there being ore tenus the rest may joyn in the Suit when they will but the Court denied to grant any Prohibition quia timet c. Pasc 24 Car. Creswell Uxor versus Ventres Uxor Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 969. SLander Slander Thou didst and dost buy and didst receive stollen Goods witness a Featherbed-Tike thou hast in thy House and the Cloath thy mans Clothes are made of And I will prove it And thou didst know that they were stollen And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon the motion of Wilde That the words do not charge the Plaintiff with Felonious receiving And though she knew that they were stollen this doth not argue that she was consenting to the stealing for she might come by them honestly and rightfully as if they were sold afterward in Market overt Iudgment was stayd And Roll said he had known Iudgment arrested for the like reason Spatchurst versus Sir Mat. Minns Hil. 23 Car. Rot. 1407. IN Debt Debt by an Administrator for Rent reserved upon Assignment of a terme of years in a House in St. Martins in Campis by Déed made by the Intestate The Plaintiff alledges that the Defendant had enjoyed the House pro durante toto praedicto Termino and for 90 li. due at 1643. Termino adtunc nondum finito the Action is brought And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved by Boreman That this reservation is not properly of a Rent but of a Sum in gross and for a Sum in gross no Action lieth till the last day of payment now it doth not appear that the last day
brought in the Exchequer but I think it was for delay only Term Mich. 24 Car. Banco Regis Udal versus Udal IN a Trover and Conversion of 400 Load of Timber Vpon not guilty pleaded the Iury found by special Verdict that Sir William Udal being seized in fée of the Mannor of Horton whereof the Land where the Timber grew was parcel did Covenant by Indenture to levy a Fine to the use of himself in Tail the Remainder to such persons and for such Estates as he should limit by Indenture and for want of such limitation the remainder to the Defendant for life the remainder to his eldest Son in Tail and to his tenth Son and for want of such Issue the remainder to W. U. for life the remainder to his eldest Son in Tail c. and so to his tenth Son the remainder to the right heirs of Sir William with a Proviso that upon tender of 5 s. c. he might revoke those uses and limit others and levyed a fine accordingly And after by another Indenture reciting the uses of the first and the Proviso in it made a new limitation to the use of himself in tail the remainder to the Defendant for life with like remainder ut supra to his Sons the remainder to W. U. for life with like remainders to his Sons the remainder to the Plaintiff in Tail c. according to his power and the clause in the said Indentures and dyed without Issue and the Defendant neither himself nor W. U. having any Son cut down the Timber and years after sold part of it and the Plaintiff seised the rest which the Defendant did take again from the Plaintiff and sold the same and if c. And the case being argued Trin. Pasch ult and this Term it was resolved by Bacon and Roll. 1. That if there be tenant for life the remainder for life and tenant for life cut down Timber trées he that hath the Inheritance may seise them although he cannot have an Action of waste during the life of him in remainder For 1. The particular tenant hath not the absolute property in the Trées but only a special Interest in them so long as they continue annexed to the Land And therefore a Termer cannot grant away his term excepting the trées but the exception is void for that he cannot have a distinct interest in them but only relative to the land And so it is resolved in Sanders Case Lib. 5. 12. f. and so Mainard said it was resolved 10 Car. in Whites case in the Court of Wards in case of lesseé for life but where a Lease for years was made without Impeachment of waste such an exception was adjudged good as he said in Sir Alan Piercy's Case and so Bacon said it was adjudged 9 Car. in Dame Billinglys Case Then the remainder for life betters not the interest of the tenant for life in the Trées but only is an impediment for the time to the bringing of an Action of waste and therefore after the death of him in remainder for life an Action will lye for waste done in his life time And so it is adjudged in Pagets Case Lib. 5. 76. g. and so Mainard said it was adjudged Mich. 14 E. 2. in a Case not Printed that where he in reversion upon an estate for life granted his reversion for life and the tenant for life made waste and then the grantée of the reversion dyed that an Action of waste would lye against the tenant for life which proves that the cutting down of the Trées by the Tenant was tortious 2. It was resolved that the mean remainders in contingency though of an estate inheritance alter not the case for an estate in contingency is no estate till the contingency happen And therefore it was agréed that the Plaintiff might have had an Action of waste in this Case had there not béen a remainder for life in esse notwithstanding the mean contingent remainders 3. It was resolved that a Trover and Conversion in this Case would lye for all the Timber trées though the Plaintiff never seized parcel of them for by the cutting down of them an absolute property was vested in the Plaintiff unless they had béen cut down for reparations and so imployed in convenient time And for this Bury and Heards Case was cited by the Court which commenced in this Court 20 Jac. and depended seven years where a stranger entred into Lands leased for life and cut down Timber trées and barked them and the lessor before seisure brought a Trover for the bark and had Iudgment to recover notwithstanding that the cutting down and barking was all at one time whereupon it was then objected that the distinct property of a chattle was never settled in the lessor and the book of 13 H. 7. 9. g. cited that Trespass vi armis doth not lye against lessée for years who cuts down Timber trées and sells them Per Curiam Which Case was then affirmed for good Law but there it was agréed That if lessée for years cuts down Timber trees and lets them lye and after carries them away so that the taking and carrying away be not as one continued act but that there be some time for the distinct property of a divided chattle to settle in the lessor that an Action of Trespass vi armis would lye in such case against the lessee And that in such case felony might be committed of them but not where they were taken and carried away at the same time Vide 3 In. 109. a. c. 4. 63. f. And it was resolved in that Case of Bury and Heard that although the lessee had a special Interest in the trees as for necessary reparations c. yet the Action would lye for the lessor for the Interest of the lessee was determined by the cutting down unless he had cause for necessary reparations which had there been yet might the lessor have his Action but if the lessee in such case had brought his Action and recovered this would have been a good bar against the lessor but in the principal case there was years distance between the cutting down and the sale And also the Defendant by the sale made himself an absolute wrong doer for though there had been cause for reparation yet the Trees being cut down and sold though other Trees had been bought with the money and imployed in reparations this would not have excused him in an Action of Waste And an exception was taken by Latch to the execution of the power of Sir William upon the limitation of the uses by the last Indenture for that it was made with relation to the Proviso And five shillings were not tendered which was the Condition of the power thereby reserved and then Sir William being tenant in Tail the reversion to himself in fee by the first Indenture and dying without Issue the Defendant being his heir was seised in fee but the exception was clearly disallowed both for