The Spanish Ambassador and Plages Case 1040. Plage was pressed with his Ship at Lisbone to carry the King of Spains Soldiers to such a Port and had their Letters from the Vice-Roy of Portugal to trade to Brasil he performed the Service of Transportation and 14 months after traded at Brasil and freighted his Ship there for the transportation of Goods to Hamborough and was bound with Sureâ—ies in the Custom-house of Brasil to pay the customes due to the King of Spain at St. Michaels the Ship by tempest was forced into England and did not touch at St. Michaels The Spanish Ambassador pretending the Goods to be forfeit to the King of Spain sued for them in the Admiralty here and a Sentence was there for the King of Spain to have the Goods Plage sued to the Lord Chancellor here to have an Appeal from that Sentence and an Appeal was granted him Sir Thomas Palmers Case 1041. Sir Thomas Palmer who was attainted of Treason in the time of Ed 6. for natural affection 7 Ed 6 by Indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life the remainder to I. S. for Life the remainder to the first Son of the said I. S. in tail the remainder to his eighth Son he was attainted before I. S. had any Son It was Resolved that by the Attainder the Son of I. S. was barred which was afterwards born and the Fee-simple was in the Crown discharged of all the Remainders Jepps and Tunbridges Case 1042. The Defendant delivered a brief of the cause to some of the Jâ—rors impannelled before they appeared for their Instructions This was adjudged an offence for which he was Sentenced in the Star-chamber And in this case it was Resolved that the Plaintiff and Defendant himself may labor the Jurors to appear but a stranger cannot so do 2. That the writing of a Letter or a request by wordâ— by one not a party to the Suit to the Jurors to appear is Maintenance 3. It is not lawful for the party himself to instruct the Jurors either by writing or by word nor to promise them any Reward for their appearance for it is Embracery in them aswell as in a stranger Sis Tho. Dâ—wbridgecourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys Case 1043. The Defendant was decreed â—n Chanceâ—y to pay 1000 l. to the Plaintiff after the Decree the Defendant procured the Son of Sir Thomas by a Letter of Attorney which he had from his Father to agree only the Suit for 200 l. whereof 100 l. was paid in hand and the rest to be paid at a day certain to make a Release which the Son did in his own name but not in the name of his Father It was the opinion of the Justices and also of the Lord Chancellor that this Release was void Crew and Vernons Case in the Star-chamber 1644 Sir Randolph Crew and all those whose Estate c. he had in the Mannor of Crew time out of mind c. had had Turf to born in the House of Crew-hall in a great Waste called Okehanger Moor being interâ—upted he sued in the Exchequer at Chester whereupon Affidavit of the possession 60. years his possession was established After the hearing of the Cause there Vernon interrupted the servants of Crew and with Harrows tore the Turffs for which cause a Bill was exhibited in the Star-chamber against the said Vernon and others they put in a scandalous Answer saying that the Judge at Chester ought not in Justice have made such an Order and called the Affidavit an equivocating Affidavit and affirmed the owners of the Mannor of Crew had taken the Turff but by License and Vernon affirmed to the Court that he had a Release to shew for the discharging of the Prescription but no such Prescription could be shewed nor was but a Grant of Turff to be there taken In this case it was Resolved by the Court the Prescription was not determined by the new Grant but the Grant enured as a confirmation and so the title of Prescription remained 2. Resolved that the words spoken of the Court of Chester were very scandalous and the Affidavit which he called an equivocating Affidavit was approved by the whole wherefore the Defendants were sentenced and fined by the Court and the defendants were to acknowledge their offence to the Court of Chester Sir Anthony Barkers Case 1046. I. S. exhiâ—ited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Sir Anthony Barker and divers other Gentry of Credit and charged the Defendants with the forging of the Will of M. P. and with many undue practices in drawing the said M. P. to make such a Will At the hearing of the Cause the Plaintiff relinquished the Forgery confessing it was no Forgery but would have insisted upon the practices of the Defendants for drawing the said M. P. to make the Will The Court refused to permit the Plaintiff to insist upon the practices for if he would have insisted upon the practices he ought to have confessed the Will and then have shewed the undue practises used to draw her to make such Will Wherefore the Plaintiff was fined 200 l. to the King and the Court gave Damages to each of the Defendants and the reason why they gave damages they declared to be because the Bill being scandalous no action lay for the Defendants at Law because the Bill was prefered before competent Judges to punish the Offences if there had been any and therefore it was reason by reason of such defect of the Common Law in giving damages the Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause supplied the said defect Goodricks Case 1047. Goodrick at a Tavero said to D. being a Master of Arts at Cambridge That there was late a great Contestation befor the King betwixt the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northampton Lord Privy Seal because the Archbishop enformed that since the said Lord had been Warden of the Cinque Ports there were more Jesuites and Seminary Priests come into the Realm then before which he said was the Newes of the Court Another offence was That Ingram a Merchant had heard at Ligorne in Florence by two Students out of the Colledge at Rome that the Earl of Northampton writ a Letter to Cardinal Bellaâ—ine to pray him that no answer should be made to his book which he had Written upon the Treason of Garnet the Jesuite because he writ it only ad placandum Regem faciendum populum The Defendants were found Guilty upon their Confessions It was Resolved by the Justices it was a slander within the Statute of Z. R. 2. which moved sedition betwixt the King and his Nobles and that although the publisher did produce his author of such false newes yet he himself was punishable and if one saith there is common Rumor that such a one hath done such an act an action upon the Case lyeth although he doth produce his Author And in this Case it was agreed that if one sayes to another the effect of
Devisees took their estates respectively by the Will or by the Feoffment if by the Will it was void for a third part and a Tenancy in common If by the Feoffment it was good for the whole 2. point when the use of the Feoffment is expressed to such persons as should be declared by the Will and he deviseth the Land if the same shall be said to be a limitation of the use according to the Authority The case not Resolved because the Justices were divided in their opinions It was adjourned Prat and Phanners Case 652. Debt upon Obligation The condition was Whereas Suits have bin brought prosecuted betwixt the Defendant and A his Wife which controversies are now finally to be ended betwixt them if the Defendant do not from henceforth commence and prosecute any Suit or Action in any Court or Courts Spiritual or Temporal against the said A. his Wife for any matter precedent or cause from the beginning of the World but shall from henceforth during the natural Lives of him the Defendant and A. his Wife account of use and maintaine the said A. as his lawful wife to all intents c. then c. The Defendant pleaded he had not brought any Action in any Court against the said A. after the said Obligation and that before A. was married to him she was married to I. S. who is yet alive for which cause he cannot accept of and maintain the said A. as his lawfull wife according to the Form of the Condition upon which it was demurred It was Resolved that the material part of the Condition did consist in the first part of the Condition if he do not prosecute any Suit and the Defendant having pleaded an Issuable Plea to that it is not material if he plead to the latter part of it or not and if his Justification be insufficient the Plaintiff ought not to have demurred upon it But the Court held his Justification to be good because the Condition as to that part is against the Law of God and so the Obligation void And whereas it was objected that he is estopped to plead the special matter of her former Marriage because in the Condition she is called A. his wife The Court said he was not estopped by it because he may confess and avoid it for she may be his Wife as to some purposes but as to use her as a lawfull wife she is not his wife Lloyd and Wilkingsons Case 653. In Ejectione firme the case was A. Rector of C. by Indenture between him of the one part and E. R. W. and T. of the other part devised the same to E. for 80. years if she should so long live and should not alien the premises and if she should die within the Term or should alien that then her Estate should cease and that then the same should remain to R. pro durant ' residuo praedicti termini praedict ' 80. annorum and if he should alien c. ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the same should remain to W. pro durant ' tot annis praedict termini 80. annorum si c. and if he should alien ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the said A. concessit praemissa durante tot annis praedict ' 80. annorum quod ad tunc continuarent remanerent in expiratis to T. his Executors and Assignes A. died F. died E. and R. died The Administrator of F. entred and assigned over the same In this Case it was Resolved That the Demise to R. and W. were void because that the Estate which E. had was not for 80. years absolutely but sub modo under a condition and then the Demise to them pro tot annis quot remanerent after the death of the said E. pro durante residuo termini praedict ' 80. annorum was void for there could not be a residue of the said Term because that determined by the death of E. 2. Resolved That the Lease and Limitation to F. was void for the uncertainty for it was uncertain at the making of the Lease how many years should be behind at the time of the death of E. 3. Resolved That the Demise and Limitation to T. was not good because that R. and W. survived F. which was against the express Limitation for his Estate was limited upon two Contingents Pigot and Hearns Case 654. In Trover and Conversion the case was this The Lord of the Mannor of B. in the Parish of D. did prescribe that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estate c. had used from time to time whereof c. to pay to the Parson of D. the now Plaintiff and his Predecessors 6 l. per an for all manner of Tythes growing within the said Parish and that by reason thereof he and all those whose Estates c. Lords of the said Mannors had used time whereof c. to have Decimam garbam decimum cumulum garbarum of all of his Tenements within the said Mannor It was in this case Resolved that it was a good Prescription and that a Modus decimandi by the Lord for himself and all the Tenants of his Mannor from barring the Parson to demand tythes in kind is a good Prescription because it might have a lawful commencement 2. It was Resolved That it was a good Prescription to have Decimam garbam in or Decimum cumulum garbarum or gramorum or the tenth Shock for he hath it as a profit appender and not as Tythes 3. Resolved in this case that if the Queen be Lady of the Mannor she might prescribe to have Tythes for that she is capable of them she being Persona mixta capax Spiritualis Jurisdictionis Holcrofts Case 655. A seised of Lands in Fee levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to B. his Son for the Term of his Life only so long and untill he attempt to alien and then to the use of C. and the Heirs Males of his Body during the Life of B. and immediately after his death to the use of the first begotten Son of B. then after to be begotten and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to his Second Third or Fourth Son to be begotten in lawful Marriage and if it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Heir Male of his Body then to the use of C. and the Heirs Male of his Body with diverse Remainders over in tail the remainders to the right Heirs of A. A. dyed B. having only one Son born after the Indenture and Fine which dyed without Issue Male joyned in a Fine with C. to I. S. and I. D. who rendred the Land to B. for 80. years next following if the said B. so long lived and immediately after his Decease to the first begotten Son of the said B. or which afterwards he should beget and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to the Second or Third
he was not a person Qualified to take two benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities It was agreed that a Countesse a Widdow had power to retain two Chaplains who might purchase Dispensation for plurality But when she had once retained two she could not retain a third Chaplin who might purchase Dispensation within the Statute and therefore in the principal Case the Retainer of Priory being the third Chaplain was not good nor his dispensation good and so the Queen for want of Presentation of the Patron and Ordinary had good title to present Oldbery and Grogonds Case 729. Debt upon an Obligation for payment of certain money at a day certain The Defendant pleaded that the same was agreed to be paid for the Resignation of a Parson of his Benefices to the intent another might be presented unto it and so upon a Symoniacal agreement The Court held it no plea for that an averment shall not be that it was to be paid for other cause then the Obligation expresseth Agor and Candishes Case 730. An information was brought in the Exchequer by an Informer tam pro Domina Regina quam prose ipso upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. cap. 2. of Retainers and Judgment was there given the Informer to have one Moyety of the forfeiture and the Queen the other Moyety Error was brought upon the Judgment and assigned for Error that the Statute limits the party to sue in the Kings Kings Bench and divers other Courts but speaks not of the Exchequer It was the opinnion of the Justices that for that cause the Judgment was erroneous as to the Informer only Then it was moved that the Judgment might be and stand good for the whole forfeiture to the Queen for it was said that a Judgment might be reversed in part and stand for the other part and divers Presidents vouched to that purpose But the Court was of opinion because the first Judgment gave but a Moyery to the Queen this Court had not power to give more nor encrease it but only had power to affirme the Judgement Boddy and Hargraves Case 731. Debt upon a Lease for years was brought against the Administrator in the Debet detinet It was adjudged well brought because the Rent was encreased in the time of the Administrator himself But it was said That in all Cases where the Executor or Administrator brings an Action for a duty Testamentary it ought to be only in the Detinâ—t because the duty demanded ought to be Assets Layton and Garnonces Case 732. A man recovered Debt in Co. B. and had Judgment and he took forth Processe and the party was taken upon a Capias utlagatum within the year after the Judgment upon Processe continued without any discontinuance against him It was adjudged in this Case that he should be in Execution at the suit of the party without prayer because the processe was continued Parker and Sir Ed. cleeves Case 733. The Case was A. seised of three acres of equall value conveyed by act executed two of them for the Joynture of his Wife and the third he conveyed by act executed to the use of such persons and of such estates as he should declare by his last Will afterwards he devised the Land to one under whom the Plaintiff claimed In this Case it was amongst other poynts Resolved that he could not devise the Land because he had Conveyed two parts before by act executed in his life time Sydnam and Courtneys Case 734. Sir George Sydnam possessed of divers Leases for years gave them to his Daughter who was the Wife of C and to the Heirs of her body and if she dyed withot Issue that they should remain to such person of Combe Sydnam which Combe Sydnam he devised to his Cosen and his Heirs males in default of the Issue of the body of his daughter There was a Clause in the Will that his daughter should not alter the Leases but that they should remain according to the Will and made his Daughter his Executrix and dyed C. caused the Daughter to enter upon the Leases as Executrix and so waive the Legacy and afterwards the Daughter dyed without Issue Then C. caused an Administration to be taken of the goods of Sir George Sydenham which was at the Costs of C. and then to convey over the Leases to C. The Heir of Sir Geoâ—ge complained in Chancery and the Leases decreed unto him for the two fraudes which were used by C. in the Obliging of the Leases because the Daughter had them upon special trust and although it was said in this Case that the entail of the Leases was not good yet because there was a trust in the Daughter and expressed in the Will It was said the parties were compellable to execute the Trust and the Lord Chancellour resembled it to the Case where an Assignment was made of a Lease upon an expresse Trust to one and the Heirs of his body and afterwards to another and the Heirs of his body and the Assignes were Compelled to execute the Trust and to suffer the Issues in Tail to take the profits of the Lands The Countesse of Waâ—wicks Case 735. The Case was A. seised in Fee enfeoffed I. S. who dyed without Issue having Issue M. his Sister and Heir of the whole blood and T. of the half blood their Father being long before attainted of Felony dyed seised M. entred and enfeoffed the Countesse The point was if the Corruption of the blood of the Father had disabled the Course of discent and Inheritance between the Brother and Sister Quaere not Resolved Sprakes Case 736. A Copyholder makes a Lease for years Resolved that the Lessee may maintain Ejectione firme though the Lease be not warranted by the Custom Fisher and Smiths Case 737. Note It was Resolved in this Case That if a man plead a Bargain and Sale in which no consideration of mony is expressed there it must be averred that it was for mony and the words for divers considerations will not imply mony but if the deed be for a Competent sum of mony though the certainty of the sum be not expressed it is good enough Worsloy and Charnocks Case 738. A Statute Merchant was by Mâ—ttimus removed out of the Chancery in C. B. an execution awarded there super tenorem Recordi Resolved 1. That Error lyes in B. R. although the Original be in the Chancery and the Execution in C. B. 2. Resolved that in that Case the Conusor cannot alledge for Error that the Statute wants one of the Seales that ought to be to it because he hath admitted the same in C. B. 739. Debt in B. R. upon Mutuatas for 50 l. the Defendant pleaded an Attachment in London and had found pledges and because the pledges were not put in at the day of the last default but at another day it was holden No plea and Judgment was for the Plaintiff Washington and Burgons Case 740. It was holden by the
King cannot pardon Murder by pardon of feloniam feloniacam interfectionem without a special non obstante of the Statute 980. Resolved by the Justices that if an Executor pay a Debt due upon a present Obligation it is no Devastavit though there be a Statute or Recognisance broken for not performance of Covenants Ellis and Warâ—es Case 981. Debt The case was W. was endebted to A. 100 l. upon an usurious contract and A. was endebted to E. the Plaintiff 100 l. a just Debt for which W. and A. were bound to E. In Debt brought upon this Obligation W. the Defendant pleaded the Usury betwixt him and A. The Plaintâ—ff said that before that bond upon usury W. was indebted to him and bound for his debt and that he knew not of the usurious Contract betwixt W. and A. It was Resolved the Obligation made by W. the Defendant was a good bond pro vero debâ—to and that it was not usury in the Plaintiff and the usurious Contract betwixt W. and A. should not prejudice the Plaintiff Hall and Trusseâ—ls Case 982. Debt brought against the Defendant the Defendant pleaded an Attainder of himself after the debt due to the Plaintiff adjudged no plea. Oldcot and Levells Case 983. It was Resolved in this Case That a surrender by Tenant in Tail of a Copyhold was not a Discontinuance Also that a surrender by Tenant for life to the use of another in Fee was not a forfeiture 984. Note it was holden by the Court That if one will turn the extent upon the extendors for extending the Lands or goods at too high a Rate he must do it at the first day of the Return or not at all Griffith and Smiths Case 985. A man possessed of a Term for years of a Rectory and Lands devised the profits thereof for so many years as he should live and after he devised the profits to 20. of his poor Kindred and that after the death of his Wife the Rectory should be let by the advice of his over-seers and the Rent distributed to his said poor Kindred and made his Wife his Exâ—cutrix It was Resolved in this Case by all the Justices in the Exchequer Chamber that although a devise of the profits is a devise of the Land it self if there be no other circumstance in the Case yet because in this Case the devisor hath declared that the poor Kindred should not have the property oâ— the Term and he appoints a Lease to be made for Rent and the Rent to be distributed amongst them that the Executors should have the Term upon the Consideration to make the Lease and distribution and that the poor Kindred had only Trust and no Interest in the Term. 986. A man having spent his estate and living in great necessity said to his Wife that he was weary of his life and that he would kill himself The Wife said that then she would dye also with him he prayed her that she would go and buy Ratsbane and they would drink it together which she did and put it in drink and both of them drank of it the Husband dyed but the Wife recovered by vomiting Quâ—re if it was Murder in the Wife Not Resolved Baker and Bacons Case 987. The King having by the Statute of Dissolution all the Tyâ—â—es within St. Edmonds-Bury granted omnes decimaâ— nostras grandrum soem es in Buâ—y Sancti Edmundi Ac omnes alias decimas nostras infra Bury praedict ' quas Eleemosynaâ—â—us monasterii praedicti colligere solebâ—t Resolved that the Tâ—thes passed which the Almoner used to collect and that the Relation is to be expounded to the ac omnes alias decimas and not to the whole sentence 988. Note Tr. 2 Jac. in the Star Chamber It was Resolved by all the Justices of England that the Deprivation of â—uritan Ministers by High Commissioners for their refusal to conforme themselves to the Ceremonies appointed by the late Canons was Lawfull because the King hath the supream Ecclesiastical power which he hath delegated to them by which they had power of the Deprivation by the Canons of the Realm and the Statute of 1 Eliz doth not give them any new power but explaines and declares their ancient power 2. Resolved that the King may without Parliament make Institutions for the Government of the Clergy and may deprive them if they do not obey them and so the Commissioners may deprive them but they cannot make any Institution without the King 3. Resolved that to frame Petitions and to collect hands of multitudes of people to prefer to the King publike causes is an offence finable at discretion and deserves the punishment next to Treason and Fellony because it tends to raise Sedition Rebellion and discontent amongst the people 989. It was Resolved by all the Justices of England That Clergy is not allowable for Piracy upon an Indictment upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. unlesse the Piracy be done in a Creek in which the Common Law before the said Statute had Jurisdiction but not if it be done in alâ—o mari for such is felony by the Civil Law in which no Clergy was allowed 2. Resolved if the King pardon all Felonies by the Common Law or any Statute Felony done super altum mare is not pardoned Adyn and Ayâ—es Case 990. A Fieri sacias went to the Sherâ—ff â—o do Execution he seised certain Wood and after 〈…〉 discharged of his Office he â—old the Wood for satisfying the Execution It was adjudged that the sale was good upon the Statute of 34 H. 6. cap. 5. because he was charged with the value Sheldon and Handburyes Case 991. A Woman in the time she was separated from her Husband got a sum of money and with it bought Lands and took an Assuâ—ance thereof in the name of B. in trust B. lying sick at the request of the Woman made a Lease for 200. years to S. the Plaintiff upon condition he should pay the profits to the said Woman and also if B. lived to the first day of June following and then paid 12 d. to S. the Lease should be void B. lived to the day but did not pay the 12 d. but afterwards for 100 l. he made Lease to the Defendant with Covenants to save the Lessee from all Incumbrances B. dyed S. not having notice before of the Lease made to him entred It was the opinion of the Justices in this Case that the Lease made by B. to S. at the request of the Woman in part of the performance of the Trust was not a fraudulent Lease within the Statute of 27 Eliz to defraude purchasor because he was in Conscience to perform the Trust to one who did not direct any second sale also at the time of the second Lease the power to revoke was void and the first Lease absolute Holder and Farleyes Case 992. Resolved that if a Woman be dowable of a Copyhold by Custome if the Husband after the Marriage make a Lease for years
Issues and Profits thereof upon poor Scholles in Oxon and Cambridge or elsewhere such as shall intend to study Dâ—vinity and enter into Holy Orders according to the intent and true meaning of the said A. It was the opinion of the Lord Chancellor in the Chancery and of the Judges Assistants upon the hearing of this Cause and so Resolved and Decreed That the said conveyance made upon the hopes trusts confidences and meanings aforesaid were pernitious and dangerous to the State of the Commonwealth and if the profits of the Lands should be imployed according to the hopes trusts and meanings before mentioned the same would be bestowed upon Traitors Jesuits and Seminary Priests and others Enemies to the Crown and Dignity of this Kingdom and therefore it was Adjudged and so afterwards Decreed that all the before mentioned confidences hopes trusts and meanings were unlawfull and meerly void The Lady Russel and the Earl of Nottinghams Case 1025. The Lady Russel having the Office of the custody of the Castle of D. for her Life by Grant from the Queen Eliz. and the Earl having the Inheritance thereof by Grant also from the Queen the Earl sent his Servants with stuff to the said Castle and with Housholdstuff and Furniture to prepare for his Lodging there the Lady Russel Servants denied them to enter pretending the Lady was to have the use and disposing of it during her Life and shut the Doors thereof The Servants of the Earl opened the Doors with Iron Barrs and afterwards entred The Question was if the entry was a Riot in the Servants of the Earl It was Resolved it was no Riot because the Castle did belong to the Earl in Propriety and the Lady having but the custody of it with a Sallary the Earl was always in possession and when the Servants broke open the Doors with force they were but Trespassors to their Master and not to the Lady And in this case it was holden by the Justices That if one hath the custody of a castle or house for Life and he denies the owner to enter into the Castle and shut the Doors against him that it is a forfeiture of the custody of the castle or house Yelland and Fiâ—his Case 1026. A. covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life with divers Remainders over to others to some for Life and to others in tail the Reversion to himself in Fee Afterwards he made a Lease for years to a Stranger and afterwards during the Term he revoked The Court was divided in opinion if his power of Revocation was not suspended during the Term It was the opinion of Coke Chief Justice he might revoke all the uses but the Term. The Lord Greys Case 1027. The Lord being Lord of the Mannor of B. the Tenants joyned in a Petition to the King for the custom of the Mannor which custom they set forth to be that after the death of the Tenant for Life of a Copyhold the Lord is compellable to make an Estate to the elest Son for Life and if he hath no Son to the daughter They subscribed their name to a Blank giving power to B. one of them to write what Petition he pleased and they agreed in bearing of the charge of it raâ—eably It was holden by the Justices in this case That the joyning in the Suit and in the raâ—eable charge was lawful but for subscribing the Blank it was conceâ—ved by them it was censurable in the Star-chamber because it was an illegal combination although the â—â—mplaint be not censurable But for the custom the Justices were of opinion that the same was against Law The Dean and Canons of Windsor and Pâ—nâ—ins Case 1028. The Dean and Canons made an agreement betwixt them by Lotts to have an assurance of a Lease to 〈◊〉 of them of certain Possessions of the Church the Lotts being cast so as each knew his Lease They made the assurance in this manner viz. The Corporation entred into a Bond of 500 l. to the Canon who was to have the Lease and the Canon entred into an Obligation of the same Sum to pay to the Colledge 5â—0 l. The intent of the agreement was that the one 500 l. should be estopped for the other 500 l. and the Corporation was to have only the 10 l. for the Lease This Case being in Chancery it was Decreed by the Lord Chancellor That the Obligation of 500 l. made by the Dean and Canons to each Canon was void by the Statute of 18 Eliz. which speaks of Bonds and Covenants to be void for making a Lease contrary to the Statute of 13 Eliz. Hussies Case 1029. Hussey a Bastard purchased a Mannor of the Queen and made his Will by which he devised the Mannor Afterwards he made a Feoffment of the Mannor to the use of such persons and for such Estate as he had declared by his Will It was adjudged that the Feoffment was a countermand of the Will and yet the Will was sufficient to declare the use of the Feoffment Shâ—te and Mallorys Case 1030. Lessee for 40 years of the Queen made a Lease for 21. years rendring Rent and afterwards granted totum statum suum to the Plaintiff to whom the Lessee for 21 years refused to attorn or pay the Rent It was decreed in Chancery that he should attorn and pay the Rent because the Plaintiff had no means to compel the Attornment and yet without Attornment the Reversion to which the Rent was incident was in the Grantee and in this case it was said that where a Rent was devised without distress the Chancellor had power to coâ—pel the Tenant to pay it and yet the Rent is in the Devise by the Devise Cole and Moores Case 1031. A. possessed of a Lease for years devised in this manner viz. I give and bequeath all the years to come after my decease in my Farms c. to J. M. to enjoy and receive the profits thereof during his Life paying such Rentâ— I am bound to pay and all such Annuities as I have given and such Estates as I do give by my Will and if be die before the years to come in my Farms bâ— fully expired I give and assign the rest of my years to come to my Soâ—â— P. C. and the said P. C. shall then pay yearly to A. M. 26 l. during her Life and if she die before her Husband J. M. then I give to E. M. 60 l. 13 s. 4 d. out of my Farms to be paid â—er during six years and made J. M. her Executor and died J. M. prâ—ved the Will and had Asâ—etts 3000 l. P. C. made his Will in the Life of J. M. and there did bequeath to R. C. his Son all the Lands leased and all his Term of years Estate Life Interest to come and enduring R. C. preferred his Bill in Chancery against J. M. for endeavâ—â—ing to defraud the possibility by conveying the Term away to Friends in trust for his own use J. M.
for not paying of Prisage she pleaded she was Libera foemina de London and pleaded the Charteâ— of 1 E. 3. vide the Charter at large put in this case in Buâ—strodes Reports It was after many loâ—g Arguments adjudged in this case that the husband of the Defendant was a compleat citizen in every respect and that those Wines remaining in the hands of his wife were bona civium and so within the discharge to be freed from the payment of Prisage Wheeler and Heydon Case 1056. Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tythes and declared that I. S. was Parson of S. and let him the Rectory for six years if he so long lived and continued Parson there It was found that the Parson made the Lease for six years and the words if he continued Parson there were omitted in the Lease It was the opinion of the Justices that this variance betwixt the Lease and the Declaration and the Lease found is all one in substance and the addition in the Declaration is no more then what the Law tacite implies Heydon Shepherd and others Case 1057. Error in Parliament the case was In Assize brought against the Defendant Judgment was given for the Plaintiff he brought Error in the Kings Bench and there the Judgment was affirmed and upon that Judgment he brought Error in Parliament It was Resolved that a Writ of Error did not lie in Parliament to reverse a Judgment given in the Kings Bench in Error brought there for that there is a double Judgement and the reversal of a Judgment in a Writ of Error given shall not reverse the first Judgment but that execution shall issue upon the first Judgment in the Assize The Case of the Sheriffs of Bristol 1058. The Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupts committed a Bankrupt to their custody for refusing to be examined upon Interrogatories and they let him escape whereupon Action upon the case was brought against them It was objected the Action did not lie because he was not committed till satisfaction of the Debt But Resolved the Action did well lie the commitment being only for refusing to be examined upon Interrogatories although it doth not appear what the Interrogatories were so as the Court might judge whether they were lawful or not for they shall be intended lawfull till the contrary be shewed Hill and Hawkes Case 1059. Trover and Conversion of four Bushels of Wheat The Defendant justified that the Bayliffs of L. time out of mind had used to choose one to be Bell-man for keeping the Market-place clean and the Bell-man and his Predecessors had used time out of mind c. to take out of every Sack of Corn which contained more then a Bushel a Quart for the Toll of the corn brought in Sacks to the Market to be sold and that he was chosen Bell-man by the Bayliffs and that the Plaintiff brought a Sack of corn containing four Bushels to be sold and he took a Quart for Toll It was adjudged a good custom although the corn was not sold but only brought there to be sold but without a special custome Toll shall not be paid of Corn brought to sell if it be not sold 1060. Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleaded non est factum it was so that the Bond was sealed and delivered by the Defendant but that afterwards viz. Vicecomiti Comitatus Oxon without the privity of the Plaintiff were interlined in a place not material wherefore adjudged it was a good Bond but if it had bin in a place material or with the privity of the Plaintiff the Obligor the Bond had bin void Poole and Godfreys Case 1061. Action upon the case against the Defendant a Sommoner in the Spiritual Court and having a Citation against the Plaintiff he retorned that he had summoned the Plaintiff whereas in truth he never summoned him for which the Plaintiff was excommunicated to his great damage It was adjudged that the Action did lie Mansfields Case 1062. Information against him because he being a Recusant convict went five miles from the place of his confinement he pleaded a License of four Justices of the Peace but because he did not show that he did take the Oath of Allegiance before the License nor that the License was granted by the privity of the Bishop or the Lieutenant the Plea was disallowed Jesson and Bruns Case 1063. Debt in Yarmouth there the Bail was taken The Cause was removed in B. R. and there new Bail found and the same Term a Procedendo was awarded Adjudged the first Bail should stand and was not discharged by removing of the Record but otherwise if the Procedendo had been awarded in another Term. Wrights Case 1064. It was Resolved in this Case That if any English Court holds Plea of a thing whereof Judgment is given at the common Law a Prohibition lies upon the Statute of 27 E. 3. cap. 1 and 4 H. 4. cap. 23. And therefore whereas the Plaintiff brought Trespass in B. R. and Judgment was against him and after he exhibited a Bill in the Court of Dutchy for the same matter a Prohibition was awarded Worrali and Harpers Case 1065. A seised in Fee of the Mannors of G and N. both holden in capite covenanted to stand seised of G. to the use of himself and his wife and the Heirs Males of their two bodies the Remainder over in tail and of N. to the use of himself and his wife for their Lives the remainder to the Heirs of his own body Afterwards he purchased Soccage Lands and devised that they should be sold by his Executors who sold them to the Plaintiff It was Resolved that the Devise was good for two parts of the Soccage Lands only and not void for the whole Soccage Lands for they held that the Reversion expectant upon the Estate tail of the Land holden in capite was a good Impediment to devise more then two parts of the Soccage Lands Glanviles Case 1066. The case was A Jewel of Gold with a Diamond was sold by Glanvile to Courtney It was affirmed by Glanvil to be a good Diamond whereas it was but a Topaz so as Courtney was deceived for the Jewel was sold to him for 300 l whereas in truth it was not worth 30 l. Glanvil got a Judgment in the Kings Bench against Courtney for 800 l. upon non suum informatus by assent of the parties Upon a Bill preferred in Chancery and upon examination of the cause it was decreed that Glanvil should take back the Jewel and should have a 100 l. and should acknowledge satisfaction of the Judgment which he refused to do and for breach of this Decree he was committed and upon an Habtas corpus brought in B. R. he was discharged and it was said a Suit in Chancery after a Judgment at the common Law and to be reversed was not good by the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. and the Statute of 4 H. 4. and divers