Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	citizen_n	commonalty_n	mayor_n	5,655	4	11.2176	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47712	The fourth part of the reports of several cases of law argued and adjudged in the several courts at Westminster, in the time of the late Queen Elizabeths reign collected by a learned professor of the law, William Leonard, Esq. ... published by William Hughes of Grayes-Inn, Esq. ; with tables of the names of the cases, and of the matters contained in this book.; Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster. Part 4	Leonard, William.; Hughes, William, of Gray's Inn.	1687 (1687)	Wing L1102; ESTC R19612	240,523	272

or his Servant had put the Horse to grass and afterward the Horse is stollen there an Action upon the Case doth lye Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs Citizens and Commonalty of the City of Norwich the Original Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City And Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriffs of the said City but to the Coroners Sed non allocatur for the Sheriffs are parcel of the Corporation as it is to see by the name by which they of Norwich are incorporated And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself and therefore by the Award of the Court the Writ was allowed to be good Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVIII. Sir John Bromes Case SIr John Brome 33 H. 8. acknowledged a Fine of certain Lands the Kings Silver was entred and the Conusans taken but the Fine was never engrossed and now he who claimed under the Fine came in Court and prayed that the Fine might be engrossed and the Court examined them upon their Oaths to what use the Fine was levied and in the Seisin and Possession of what persons the Lands whereof the Fine was levied had been after the Fine Vpon which Examination it appeared fully to the Court that the Party to whom the Fine was levied was seized after the Fine and suffered a Common Recovery of the Land and that the said Land had been enjoyed according to the said Fine at all such times since c. Whereupon the Court commanded that the Fine be ingrossed Vide Acc. 8 Eliz. Dyer 254. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXCIX The Lord Dacres and Philip Fines Case THe Case between the Lord Dacres and Fines was Tenant in Tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life of Lands holden in Capite levied a Fine thereof without Licence 3 Leon. 261. and Process issued against the Tenants for Life It was holden by all the Barons that by Plea he should be discharged it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands ubicunque in Anglia the Fine for Alienation should be levied upon them But it was moved If the Tenant should be driven to plead it because it appears upon Record that the Conusor was but Tenant in Tail in Remainder and that was in an Office containing such matter which was pleaded by another in another Cause before by which Office it appeared that the Lord Dacres was Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to Philip Fines and now Fines had levied a Fine sur Conusans de droit c. and because the same appeared on Record Manwood awarded that the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be stayed Trin. 29 Eliz. CC. Paston and Townsends Case IN Trespass by Paston against Townsend The Defendant pleaded that Tindal was seized in Fee by protestation and dyed seized and the Land descended To which the Plaintiff replyed and said c absque hoc that Tindal was seized in Fee upon which they were at Issue On the part of the Defendant to prove the Issue it was given in Evidence to prove the Issue in his right that the said Tindal long time before his death was seized and aliened and never after was seized It was said that that Evidence did not prove the Issue for the Defendant for the Seisin in Fee intended in the Issue is in the nature of a dying seized and so Periam conceived that the Defendants Plea did not intend any other Seisin a dying seized and the dying seized is taken by Protestation to avoid the doubleness So as the Seisin upon which the Issue is taken ought to be intended a Seisin continuing until the time of the death of Tindal and Seisin at large or a general Seisin at any time during the life of Tindal quod Anderson concessit Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCI. Griffith and Prices Case ERror by Griffith against Price upon a Iudgment in Chester in Ejectione firmae and the Error assigned was because the Original bore date 16 April 28 Eliz. and the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment 17 April 28 Eliz. So as it appeareth that the Action was brought before there was any cause of Action and that was holden to be Error And also Ejectione firmae is not a personal Action and afterwards the Iudgment was Reversed Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCII. Harris and Caverleys Case A Iudgment was given in London between Harris and Caverley upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for buying of Woolls and upon that Error was brought in the Kings Bench quod nota For this Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in London ought to be sued before the Maior Vide ● N. B. 22 23. And Wray asked Wherefore the Writ of Error was brought here To which it was answered by Dodding Clark that the Record was removed by Certiorari out of the Kings Bench at the Suit of the Defendant to the purpose to bring a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet And the Error was assigned in this that by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is enacted that upon every Information that shall be exhibited a special Note shall be made of the Day Month and Year of the exhibiting of the same into any Office or to any Officer who lawfully may receive the same And here upon this Information there is not any such Note according to the said Statute And in truth no Information may be exhibited for there is not any Officer there appointed for that matter for the entry in such Cases in that Court is Talis venit deliberavit hic in Curia Miloni Sands c. But in the Case at Bar the Entry is Talis venit deliberavit in Curia but without shewing to whom But note that the words of the said Statute of 18 Eliz. are in the disjunctive into any Office or to any Officer and that such Information shall not be of Record but from that time forwards and not before wherefore here this Information is not upon Record and then no Iudgment can be given upon it Cook This Information may be well sued in London for the words of the said Statute of 5 E. 6. give Suit in any Court of Record of the King And the Court in London is a Court of Record of the King and every Court of Record hath an Officer to receive Declarations and Pleas and if it be delivered into the Office it is good enough 2. The Offence is laid in the Parish of Bow in Warda de Cheap alibi in Civitate London and so there is not any place laid where the Offence shall be tryed Cook This Alibi is a Nugation Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCIII Peuson and Higbeds Case IN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that in consideration that he by his Servant had delivered to the Defendant two Bills

the said Grant to the said Lord Owners of the Soil there might dig there It was further moved in this Case That the said Lord had demised the said Interest to one Laycott who assigned it over to A. and B. and if the said Assignment to two were good or not was a further question for if to two so he might do to twenty and so a surcharge might be to the Tenant of the Soil And as to that the said Iustices were of Opinion That the said Assignment to two was good But the two Assignees ought not to work severally but together with one Stock and with such Workmen as belonged to them two And Note it was holden in this Case That this word Proviso being coupled with other words of Covenant and Grant did not create a Condition but should be of the same nature as other words of Grant. CCLIX Pasc 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found upon a Special Verdict in Trespass that the place where c. was Copyhold Land and that the Custom there is That every Feme covert there might devise her customary Lands to her Husband and surrender the same in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons and it was further found That A. was seized of certain Copy Land having Issue B. and C. his Daughters and dyed they both took Husbands and B. devised her part by her Will to her Husband in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons and afterwards at another day she surrendred to the use of her Husband who was admitted accordingly the Wife dyed the Husband continued the possession and the Husband of the other Daughter brought Trespass Rhodes Serjeant The Custom is not good neither for the Surrender nor for the Will for it is not certain what Estate she might devise by the Custom and also it is against reason that a Feme covert surrender to the use of her Husband And he cited the Case in Fitz. 13 E. 3. Dum fuit intra Aetatem 3. where Custom is pleaded in the City of Gloucest That every person might alien his Land when he knew how to tell 12 d. and to measure an Ell of Cloath and that Custom was disallowed for the incertainty for he ought to have shewed the certainty of the time scil at what age and the certain number of years Vide also 19 E. 2. Fitz. Gard. 127. That an Infant should be out of Ward when he could do as aforesaid And as to the Surrender it is against reason that a Feme covert should give to her Husband for the Wife hath not any will but the will of her Husband and the Statute of Wills utterly excepts Feme coverts as an unreasonable thing to suffer them to make Devises and although the Statute doth not extend to Customary Lands yet the like reason the like Law. But by Anderson the Equity of that Act extends to Copyholds as also doth the Statute of Limitations And it was said by some of the Serjeants that because the Husband was admitted Trespass did not lye against him for his Entry was continued with a lawful Ceremony In this case it was moved by Anderson If a Copyholder maketh a Lease for years by word if the Lessee might maintain Ejectione firmae and he conceived not for that ought to be a Title in facto and not by conclusion for neither the Iudge nor the Iury are estopped And he said that if the Tenant at will makes a Lease for years that it is not a good Lease between the parties to it but that the Lessee might well say that he had nothing c. Mead contrary And Anderson said The Book of 12 E. 4. 12. is not Law scil If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years it is not Disseisin but the said Book is contrary Also Anderson said That in the principal Case the Presciption is not well laid Quod quaelibet foemina cooperta viro poterit c. whereas there should be also words scil Et usae fuerunt c. And it was said That if the Devise be good then the Plaintiff and Defendant are Tenants in Common and the Action not maintainable Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLX Jeroms Case JErome made an Affray of which complaint being made to the Mayor the said Mayor sent the Defendant being Constable to bring the said Jerome to him by virtue of which they went to the house of the Plaintiff and signified to him the command of the Mayor and would have brought the Plaintiff to him and the Plaintiffs Wife assaulted them and they gently lay their hands upon the Wife which is the said Assault Battery and Wounding c. upon which it was demurred Cooke for the Plaintiff Customs The Custom is not good nor reasonable vide Magna Charta 29. Nullus liber homo capiatur nec imprisonetur c. nisi c. per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae Ergo shall not be taken and imprisoned upon a bare suggestion Vide 24 E. 3. Br. Commissions 3. That where a Commission issued to apprehend all who were notoriously suspected for Felons and Trespassors although they were not Indicted it was holden against Law and therefore was revoked Vide the Statute of 1 E. 3. cap. 9. 25 E. 3. 4. 28 E. 3. 3. Justice of Peace not by Prescription 37 E. 3. 18. 42 E. 3. 33. 2. To be a Iustice of Peace doth not lye in Prescription for no Iustice of Peace was before the Statute of 1 E. 3. and the beginning of them being known Prescription cannot be 3. Admit that the Mayor was a Iustice of the Peace yet he cannot determine any thing out of Sessions 4. The Prescription is That the Mayor may send for him and doth not say within the City and it shall be an unreasonable Prescription to say that the Mayor may send for him for in such case in any place within England may he send 5. It is not shewed that they had a Corporation which might prescribe 6. The Wounding is not answered for Molliter injicere manus cannot be taken for a Wounding nor for an answer to the Battery Fleetwood Serjeant and Recorder of London If the Statute of Magna Charta should be observed no Felon is duly handled at Newgate and here we have not pleaded by way of Prescription but of Vsage Consuetudo and Vsage are all one And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the Plea in bar was holden to be naught because the Wounding was not answered and the Custom is too general and also for the fourth Exception Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXI Goram and Fowks Case Prohibition THe Case was The Defendant libelled in the Spiritual Court that whereas he was Administrator to one A. and was bound in the Spiritual Court to bring in a true Inventory of all the Goods of the Intestate that the Plaintiff detained Jura Credita by reason of which