Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	burrough_n	parish_n	town_n	5,480	4	10.8608	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85496	Reports of that learned and judicious clerk J. Gouldsborough, Esq. sometimes one of the protonotaries of the court of common pleas. Or his collection of choice cases, and matters, agitated in all the courts at Westminster, in the latter yeares of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. With learned arguments at the barr, and on the bench, and the grave resolutions, and judgements, thereupon, of the Chief Justices, Anderson, and Popham, and the rest of the judges of those times. Never before published, and now printed by his original copy. With short notes in the margent, of the chief matters therein contained, with the yeare, terme, and number roll, of many of the cases. And two exact tables, viz. A briefer, of the names of the severall cases, with the nature of the actions on which they are founded, and a larger, of all the remarkable things contained in the whole book. By W. S. of the Inner Temple, Esq;	Goldesborough, John, 1568-1618.; W. S., Esq, of the Inner Temple.	1653 (1653)	Wing G1450; Thomason E209_5; ESTC R10354	205,623	227

the Defendant divers Suits of Apparell that is to say a Sattin Dublet and Hose with silver and gold lace and one velvet Jerkin and Hose and one fustian Dublet and cloth Hose to-his own proper use the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintif forty pound when he should be required The Defendant pleaded that temp●re assumptionis he was within age and the Plaintif replyed that at the same time the sayd Defendant was servant and attending upon the Earl of Essex in his chamber and that this Apparel was delivered unto him for his necessary apparel during the said time of his said service and upon that the Defendant demurred and the Court caused the Declaration to be read openly in Court to see of what degree the Defendant was of his Addition and upon reading of the Record it appeared by the Declaration that the Defendant was there written Gentleman for which the Court agreed clearly that Sattin with gold and silver lace or Jerkin or Hose of Velvet are not necessary Apparel for a Gentleman Severa prises good in a declar and so an Infant is not bound to pay for such Apparell and therefore the Action for so much will not lye but for the residue to wit for the Dublet of fustian and Hose of cloth it seemeth the Action is well maintainable for the prices of every of them is set down severally in the Declaration Satisf of parcel Popham The Plaintif in his Declaration hath confessed he is satisfied of part of his contract but non constat for what part of the clothes the mony received was payd that is whether for the necessary or unnecessary Gawdy Truly it shall be intended for the necessary Apparel 100. GOodale brought an Information against one Butler Non-residence upon the Statute of 21 Hen. 8. cap. 13. for not being resident upon his Benefice whereof he was Parson by the space of six moneths for which the Defendant ought to forfeit for every moneths absence 10. l. And it was found by speciall Verdict that the Defendant had demissed his Parsonage-house to another excepting one chamber for himself And within the same Parish had hired another house and there kept Hospitality and was allwaies dwelling there And whether this be a Non-residence within the Statute for that he doth not dwel within the Parsonage-house but inhabiteth within the Parish in another house is the question Clinch Fenner were of opinion that if he be resident within his Parish albeit he doth not dwel within the Parsonage-house that yet this is a sufficient residence within the Statute for the Glebe land and other profits within the Parish makes the Benefice Beneficium for a Benefice is derived of this word Beneficium the which is a profit or a commodity and if he be resident in any part of his Parish he may well enough execute all the Functions Spirituall and Temporall and keep Hospitality to relieve his Parishioners and these were the chiefest points that the makers of the Statute intended to provide for Proviso And Fenner sayd the Proviso helpeth not and that the words of the Statute are That every Spirituall person ought to be resident at in or upon his Benefice in the disjunctive and if that be performed in any of those points then that sufficeth Cont. per Popham 68. But if the words were that he shall be resident upon his Benefice there peradventure he ought to dwell in the Parsonage-house onely Popham and Gawdy to the contrary For Residence is a commorancy and where he hath his Tithes that is a profit but yet it is no Benefice intended by the Statute for when the Statute saith that he shall be resident upon his Benefice this shall be expounded upon the Parsonage-house for the Statute may not be so unreasonably construed that only will compel the Parson to be resident in any other place of the Parish than where he hath his house And for that Colthurst and Be●ishins case in the Comment 20. Le Prior of Bath was seised of a Grange or Farm called Barton near Bath in Fee and he and the Covent leased that by Deed indented to H. B. and to his Wife for life the remainder to W. B. their Son for his life si ipse inhabitare vellet residens esse omnino de super praedict Grangium And if it shall be intended in this case that the Lessee may be resident upon any other place than in the Grange-house then by possibility the intent of the Lessor might be defeated utterly which was that the Grange-house should be repaired Allso a reason that moved the makers of the Statute to be of opinion to make the Parsons resident was for that by this means the Parsonage-house should be well kept in reparations Reparations and should not be left to the successor in Delapidations And the Proviso in the end of the Statute will not help the matter Proviso for the Proviso is that it shall be lawfull for any Spirituall person to take to farm any Mansion-house having but an Orchard or Garden in any City Burrough or Town so that by that they have no liberty of Non-residence by colour of the sayd Proviso Absence compulsary And Popham sayd if a man be Non-resident by compulsion that is not within the Law And if a Parson purchase a parcell of Land within his Parish and dwell upon that he purchased and lease out his Parsonage-house this is a means to make the Parsonage-house to come to destruction and ruin And the meaning of the Law-makers was Three things provided for by the Statute to provide for three things For Hospitality for Divine service and to prevent Delapidations and so in this case the Defendant is within the penalty of the Statute And to that my brother Fenner hath sayd That these words in at or upon will make a difference truly that is not so for those words are all of one substance in this case Et adj●rnatur 101. NOta that in a Scire fac between F●e and Balton of the County of Norfolk it was holden by Popham and Gawdy Fieri facias executed but not returned and not denyed by any if a Fieri fac goe forth to a Sherif and he levy the Debt of the goods of the Defendant but doth not retorn his Writ if the Plaintif after sue another Scire fac against the Defendant upon the Judgement he may plead this matter and the Plaintif shall be put to his remedy against the Sherif for the sale of the Defendants goods by the Sherif is good and not to be defeated and so is a good Plea in bar of the other Execution otherwise the Defendant shall be put to a great mischief vide 20 Hen. 6. 24. 29. 19 Edw. 3. Scire facias 44 E. 3. 18. Quaere if he shall not have an audita querela if the Plaintif take out a new Scire facias within the year 102. NOta per Mr.

every Wife may be defrauded of her land by joyning in a fine which were a great inconvenience and contrary to this ground in Law that the Husband cannot dispose of the Wifes lands without her consent And although that if the Wife had not shewed her agreement or disagreement then it should have been to the use limitted by the Husband yet here she hath shewed an express disassent and so by their variance both their declarations are void Quare impedit as in a Quare impedit by two if both make severall titles both shall be barred and so judgment shall be given against the Plaintif No Vse limited Peryam to the same intent First it is a plain case that if a Husband and Wife levie a fine and limit no use then the use is to them as the land was before Vse what it is for the use is the profit of the land and the Wife alone cannot limit the use for during the coverture she hath submitted her will to the will of her Husband Silence And if they both levie a fine and he onely by Indenture limits uses Limitation after fine if she do nothing then his limitation is good and the case of Vavisour adjudged here that a limitation after the fine is good And here the Husband hath limited the use to himself for life Who shall limit uses and afterwards they both agree in the limitation now if the residue in which they agree shall be good I will shew my opinion therein likewise because that also may come in question hereafter And I think that this shall not bind the inheritance for it is a ground in Law that limiters of uses shall be such as have power interest and auctority of the land and no further As if Tenant for life and he in reversion joyn in a fine Fine Tenant for life shall limit but for his life but here by the death of the Wife the ability of the Husband is gone for he had no issue by her and therefore his use shall bee gone allso for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience but if they had joyned in the limitation then the inheritance of the Wife had been bound Inheritance shall be bound by agreement and so it is if the Law can intend that she had agreed And to say that the Conisees shall take it from the Husband and Wife and therefore the Wife to be concluded is but small reason for she may confesse the Record well enough as appeareth by the case of Eare and Snow in the Com. and no man can limit uses further than he hath the land and here the limitation for the inheritance after the death of the wife cannot be good and for their variance both are void And so I think judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Rodes to the same intent for the Jury hath found that the Wife did not agree and this speciall finding shall avoid all other common intendments Intendment And the intendment of the party shall overthrow the intendment of the Law and he cited Eare and Snowes case where it was found that the wife had nothing And he cannot limit uses farther than he hath estate in the land and therefore judgment shall be given against the Plaintif Anderson then enter judgment accordingly 14. AN Action upon the statute of Hue and cry was brought against the hundred of Dunmow in Essex Robbery in the night and the Jury found a speciall verdict that the Plaintif was robbed about three a clock in morning before day light and thereupon prayed the advise of the Court And now all the Judges were agreed that for because the Robbery was done in the night and not in the day therefore the Hundred shall not be charged and they commanded to enter iudgment accordingly 15 BEtween Cogan and Cogan the case was Copulative that the Defendant had sold certain land sowen with oad to the Plaintif and that if any restraint shall be by proclamation or otherwise that it should not be lawfull to the Plaintif to sow and make oad then he should have certain mony back again and after proclamation came that no man should sow oad within four miles of any market Town or clothing Town or City or within eight miles of any Mansion House of the Queen and the Plaintif shewed the Land was within foure miles of a Market Town and because he did not averr that it was a Cloathing Town also the Defendant demurred in law And all the Judges held that he had shewed sufficient cause of his Demurrer for the meaning was to restrain by the proclamation aswell all manner of market Townes as those market Townes which were clothing Townes And after Puckering shewed that the restraint was onely from sowing oad and not from making and their Contract was that if any restraint should be from sowing and making in the copulative whereby he thought the Plaintif should be barred quod Curia concessit 16. BEtween Cock and Baldwin the case was Pas 29. Eliz. that a lease was made for 21 yeares to one Tr●w penny and Elizabeth his wife Rot. 1410. if he and shee Copulative or any child or children between them lawfully begotten should live so long And after they were married the wife died without issue if the lease be thereby determined or no was the question because it is in the conjunctive he and she and now one of them is dead without issue and this case is not like Chapmans case in the Commentaries where one covenants to infeoff B. and his heires for there it is impossible to Emfeoff his heires as long as B. Lease to a for life shall live and therefore there it shall bee taken in the disjuctive and the same Serjeant said that if A. Lease for life of 2 lets land to two for life if one dye the other shall have all by survivour because they took it by way of interest Difference but if I let land to two to have and to hold for the lives of two other if one of them dye the lease is gone quod fuit concessum and here the lease shall be determined by the death of one because so was the intent Rodes the meaning seemeth to be conrrary for by the or which commeth afterward it appeareth that they should have their lives in it Peryam Anderson and Wyndham said that it appeareth by the disjunctive sentence which commeth afterward that the intent was that the lease shall not be determined by the death of one of them and the reason which moved the Lord Anderson to think so was because the state was made before the marriage and so it is as a joynture to the wife and therefore not determined by the death of the one And after they all gave judgment accordingly 17. WAlgrave brought trespass quare vi armis against Somersetbeing Tenant at will Trespass vi armis against Tenant at Will