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
A51911	Reports, or, new cases with divers resolutions and judgements given upon solemn arguments, and with great deliberation, and the reasons and causes of the said resolutions and judgements / collected by John March ...	England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; March, John, 1612-1657.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1648 (1648)	Wing M576; ESTC R6440	178,601	242

Case because it is but one clause the whole grant is void Another difference is Where the distinct clause is repugnant and where not where it is repugnant there it is void and the grant good quia utile per inutile non vitiatur But in our Case as I have said before it is one intire sentence M. 13. or 23 Iac. in this Court Rot. 679. Sympson and Southwells Case the very Case with our Case There was a surrender of a Copy tenant to the use of an Infant in ventre sa mier after the death of the surrenderor and there it was resolved by all the Judges except Dodderidge that the surrender was void First because it was to the use of an Infant in ventre sa mier and Secondly because it was to begin in futuro which is contrary to the rule in Law and Copy-tenants as it was there said ought to be guided by the rules of Law but Dodderidge doubted of it and he agreed the Case at Common Law that a freehold could not commence in futuro but he doubted of a Copyhold and he put the Case of surrender to the use of a Will But he said that Judgment was afterwards given by Coke Chief Justice in the name of all the other Judges that the surrender was void and therefore Quod querens nihil capiat per billam wherefore he concluded that the surrender was void and prayed the Judgment of the Court. Langhams Case 237. LAngham a Citizen and Freeman of London was committed to Newgate by the Court of Aldermen upon which he prayed a Habeas corpus which was granted upon which return was mane First it is set forth by the return that London is an ancient City and Incorporate by the name of Mayor Comminalty and Citizens and that every Freeman of the City ought to be sworn and that a Court of Record had been held time out of mind c. before the Mayor and Aldermen And that there is a custom that if any Freeman be elected Alderman that he ought to take an Oath cujus tenor sequitur in haec verba viz. You shall well serve the King in such a Ward in the Office of Alderman of which you are elected and you shall well intreat the people to keep the Peace and the Laws and Priviledges within and without the City you shall well observe and duly you shall come to the Court of Orphans and Hustings if you be not hindred by Command of the King or any other lawful cause you shall give good counsel to the Mayor you shall not sell Bread Ale Wine or Fish by retail c. Then is set forth a custome that if any person be chosen Alderman he shall be called to the Court and the Oath tendred to him and if he refuse to take it then he shall be committed until he take the Oath Then is set forth that by the Statute of 7 R. 2. all the customs of the City of London are confirmed And lastly is set forth that the 11 of Ian. Langham being a freeman of London and having taken the Oath of a freeman was debito modo electus Alderman of Portsoken-ward and being habilis idoneus was called the first of February to the Court of Aldermen and the Oath tendred to him and that he refused to be sworn in contemptum Curiae contra confuetudines c. wherefore according to the custom aforesaid he was committed by the Court of Aldermen to Newgate until he should take the Oath haec fuit causa c. To this retorn many exceptions were taken Maynard the retorn is insufficient for matter and form for form it is insufficient for the debito modo electus without shewing by whom and how is too general then it is insufficient for the matter for he is imprisoned generally and not until he takes the Oath which utterly takes away the liberty of the subject for by this means he may be imprisoned for ever Besides here is no notice given to him that he was chosen Alderman but they elect him and then tender him the Oath without telling him that he was chosen Alderman and therefore the retorn not good for it ought to be certain to every intent Further the Oath is naught and unreasonable for he ought to forswear his Trade for if he sell Bread Ale Wine or Fish before now he must swear that he shall never sell them by retail after which is hard and unreasonable for perhaps he may be impoverished after and so necessitated to use his Trade or otherwise perish wherefore for these reasons he conceived that the Retorn was insufficient Glynn upon the same side that the Retorn is insufficient and he stood upon the same exceptions before and he conceived that notice ought to be given to him that he was chosen Alderman for this reason because of the penalty which he incurs which is imprisonment and he compared it to the Cases in the 5 Rep. 113. b. 8 Rep. 92. That the feoff●e of Land or a Bargain of a reversion by Deed indented and inrolled shall not take advantage of a condition for not payment of Rent reserved upon a lease upon a demand by them without notice given to the lessee for the penalty which insues of forfeiture of his Term. So in our Case he shall not incur the penalty of imprisonment for refusing to be sworn without notice given him that he 〈…〉 chosen Alderman He took another exception to the Oath because he is to swear that he shall observe all Laws and Customs of the said City generally which is not good for that which was lawful before p●radventure will not be lawful now for some Customs which were lawful in the time of R. 2. are now superstitious and therefore are not to be kept Further it is to keep all the customs within and without the City which is impossible to do Wherefore for these reasons he conceived the Retorn not to be good and prayed that the prisoner might be discharged Saint-Iohn Sollicitor of the same side The custom to imprison is not good Besides here the imprisonment is general so that he may be imprisoned for ever which is not good and the Statute confirms no customs but such as are good customs I agree that a custom for a Court of Record to fine and for want of payment to imprison may be good because the custom goes only to fine and not to imprisonment the Case of 1 H. 7. 6. of the custom of London for a Constable to enter a house and arrest a Priest and to imprison him for incontinencie comes not to our Case for that is for the keeping of the peace which concerns the Commonwealth as it is said in the Book and therefore may be good but it is not so in our Case A Corporation makes an ordinance and injoyns the observance of it under pain of imprisonment it hath been adjudged that the Ordinance is against the Statute of Magna Charta that Nullus

erect his Tavern For it is a disorderly Profession and not fit for every place And it was adjudged in this Court That a Brewhouse ought not to be erected in Fleet-street because it is in the heart of the City and would be annoyance to it And if one would set up a Butchers shop or a Tallow-Chandlers shop in Cheap-side it ought not to be for the great annoyance that would ensue And therefore the Mayor and Communalty may redress it And therefore the party was remanded and was advised by the Court to submit to the Government of the City Note the Recorder certified the Custom That the Mayor might appoint a place 35. Upon a Recovery in a Court-Baron against one he offered here to wage his Law And Justice Barckley doubted whether wager of Law would lie in such Case To which Justice Iones said Yes and Barckly agreed hereunto because the Recovery was in a base Court and not in a Court of Record Vide 2 E. 4. 36. No antient Mill is Tithable but Mills newly erected shall pay Tithes by the Statute of 9 E. 2. 5. Meade against Axe in a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment 37. THe Case was Axe brought an Action against Meade for these words spoken of the Plaintiff a Dyer by the D●fendant Thou art not worth a Groat And the Plaintiff added that these words amongst Citizens of such place where they were spoken have the common acceptation and doth tant amount as the calling of him Bankrupt The Errors which were assigned by Meade Plaintiff in the Writ of Error were 1. Because it is added that the words were spoken inter diversos ligeos and doth not say Citizens of the place where they have such acceptation 2. Because that the Judgment is Consideratum est and the words per Curiam left out And the Court was clear that for these two Errors the Judgment should be reversed But the Court was clear of Opinion That the words of themselves are not actionable and that the averment in this Case was idle and to no purpose because the words of themselves imply a plain and intelligent sense and meaning to every man And it was compared to the Cases Where there is no Latine for words there where words of no signification are put to express them there they ought to be explained by an Anglicè but where the words are significant there needs not any Anglicè Now if you will explain significant words under an Anglicè contrary to the meaning and true intendment of the word it self the Anglicè is void So in our Case of Averment The reason which was conceived wherefore the words of themselves are not Actionable Because that many men in their beginnings are not worth a Groat and yet their credit is good with the world But if he had laid specially That he was damnified and ha● lost his Credit and that none would trust him upon this special matter the words would be Actionable Bonds Case 38. IN Trespass the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant entred in his Land and did cut down and carry away two Loads of Grass in the Plaintiffs Soil in a certain piece of Ground in which the Trespass was supposed to be done to strow the floor of the Church and that he cut two Load● there to estrew the floor of the Church and did not say that it is the same Trespass c. And it was adjudged Error But the Court was clear that the Prescription for cutting of grass to estrew the Church was good because it was but in the nature of an Easement And so to have a washing-place in the land of another and so the custom here in London to shoot in the land of another and so for the Inhabitants of a town to have a way over the land of another to their Church But Mr. Rolls who moved the Case at the Bar said That it was adjudged that Inhabitants of a town by custom should have an Easement over the Freehold or in the Freehold of a Stranger but not profit Apprender But as I remember the Plaintiffs Freehold lay near the Church and for that reason the Court might conceive the same to be but an Easement Vide 2 H. 3. cited by Justice Iones Vid. Gatewoods Case 6 Rep. 60. b. Conysbies Case 39. UPon the Lease of an House the Lessee Covenanted that he would Repair the House with convenient necessary and tenantable Reparations The Lessor brought Covenant and alleaged a breach of the Covenants in not repairing for want of Tiles and dawbing with Morter and did not shew that it was not Tenantable And the Opinion of the Court was that he ought to have shewed it for the house may want small Reparations as a Tile or two and a little Morter and yet have convenient necessary and tenantable Reparations 40. A Writ of Error was brought and the Error assigned was want of Pledges And the Judgment was reversed although it was after Verdict And so was it adjudged in Dr. Hussies case and Young and Youngs case in this Court and the Reason was given because that otherwise the King should lose his Amercement 41. Fish in the River are not Titheable if not by Custome 42. Two referred themselves to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators arbitrate that one of them should pay a certain sum to the other and the other in consideration thereof should acquit him of a Bond wherein they both were bounden to a third person in a 100 lib. eo circiter and it was objected That the Arbitrators had arbitrated a thing incertain by reason of these words eo circiter But the Opinion of the Court was That there was sufficient certainty because that in this Case it doth not lie in their power to know the direct sum and because a small variation is not material but if they as in Salmons case 5 Rep. will arbitrate that one shall be bound in a Bond to another and not express in what sum the same is utterly void for the incertainty Difference was taken where the Arbitrators arbitrate one party to do a thing which lieth in his power and where not without the help of a third person there the Arbitrament is void and in the principal Case the difference was taken by the Court where the Bond is forfeit and the penalty is incurred and where not or the day of payment is not incurred there payment at the day is a good discharge and acquittance but where it is incurred it is not But Justice Iones said That he might compel the Obligee upon payment although the Bond was forfeit to deliver the Bond by Subpoena in Chancery or that he suffer an Action to be brought against him and then to discharge it and pay it Goodman against VVest Debt upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. Cap. 9. 43. THere was an action brought against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas who procured Process to issue against the Defendant for his Testimony in his Cause and a Note of

liber homo imprisonetur c. and therefore naught and that is the 5 Rep. 64 a. Clarkes Case and therewith agrees the case of the City of London 8 Rep. 127. b. Mich. 14 15 Eliz. Marshalls Case in Harpers Reports there a Habeas corpus was directed to the Mayor of Exeter who returned a custom there that none but a freeman should set up a shop there and if any other did that he should be imprisoned and it was adjudged no good custom Mich. 21 E. 1. in the Common Pleas Rot. 318. upon a Habeas corpus the custom of Cambridge was retorned which was that the Vice-chancellor might imprison a Scholar taken in a suspicious place I conceive the same no good custom but it is not resolved Besides I conceive the return here is insufficient because that no notice was given to the party that he was chosen Alderman which I conceive ought to have been for the great penalty which follows wherefore he prayed that the prisoner might be discharged White of the same side the retorn is not good for want of notice and he said that it doth not appear that he was present at the election and no other notice appeareth by the Retorn and he said that the tender of the Oath did not imply notice further he said that the Oath is not good because he is to abjure his Trade Besides it is said in the Retorn that the custom is That Si aliquis liber homo be elected Alderman c. and doth not say habilis idoneus as it ought to be and therefore no good True it is that it is averred in the Retorn that he was habilis idoneus but it is not alledged to be part of the custom and therefore that doth not help it wherefore he prayed that the prisoner might be discharged Gardiner Recorder for the City that the Retorn is sufficient and first for the debito modo electus where it was objected that the same was too general to that he answered that no traverse can be taken upon it and therefore it is sufficient for there is not such certainty required in a Retorn upon a Habeas corpus as in pleading as it is resolved in the Case of the City of London 8 Rep. 127. b. 128. a. and according to that it is resolved in 9 H. 6 44. a. where it is said that if the cause in it self be sufficient upon the Retorn it sufficeth although it be false and although there be not so precise certainty in it and there it is resolved that the party cannot take issue upon the Retorn and yet there is no prejudice by it for if it be false you may have a Writ of false imprisonment and therewith agrees 11 Rep. 99. a. h. Iames Baggs Case and Anne Bedingfields Case 9 Rep. 19. whereupon a Ne unque accouple in legal Matrimony pleaded the Bishop certified quod infra nominat ' E. A. legitimo matrimonio copulati fuerunt to which Certificate saith the Book being brief and direct in the point no exception was ever taken and if a Retorn upon a Haleas corpus should have all circumstances it would be so long and perplexing that there would be no end of it and he conceived the retorn sufficient notwithstanding that Objection Now for the exception that the Plaintiff had not notice of his election to be Alderman to that he answered that it appeareth clearly that he had notice for it app●a●reth that the same day that he was elected he was called to take the Oath and that was tendred to him and he refused to be sworn which certainly implies that he had notice For the exception that the Oath is unreasonable because he was to abjure his Trade which is in prejudice of the Common-wealth from the using of which no man can bind himself much less abjure against it To that he answered that notwithstanding that the Oath is lawful and you forswear no more than the Law doth prohibit you for it doth not extend to all Trades but only to such as sell Bread Ale Wine and Fish and it is against Law and Reason that he who hath the Jurisdiction of Bread Ale c. and may punish the misusage of it that he should exercise the same Trade himself wherefore he conceived that notwithstanding that exception the Retorn is sufficient For the objection to the Oath that he ought to swear that he will keep all the priviledges of the City whereas in truth there are many Priviledges which are now unlawful although that before they were lawful and therefore the same ought not to be kept to that he answered that the Oath is good notwithstanding that Objection for i● ought to be intended that he shall keep all priviledges and customs reasonable which agree with the times in which we live and not such as are superstitious and unreasonable For the Objection that the custom is unreasonable because it trencheth much upon the liberty of the Subject and against the Statute of Magna Charta that the body of a Freeman should be imprisoned and the rather because here the imprisonment is general and he may be imprisoned for ever to that it was answered that the City hath customs as unreasonable as in this Case as the custom in L. 5 E. 4. 30. 11 H. 6. 3. 2 H. 4. 12. That the Creditor may arrest the Debtor before the day of payment to give better security and that is altogether against the Rule of Law Besides they have a custom which you shall find in 1 H. 7. 6. and 2 H●● 4. 12. That a Constable upon suspition of incontinencie may enter the house of a stranger and arrest the body of the offender and commit him to prison and that is a good custom and yet it is against the Law trencheth also upon the liberty of the Subject Besides they have a custom that no person being not free of the City shall keep shop there and that is adjudged a good custom although it be to restrain trading which is against the rule of the Law also 8 Rep. 125. The Case of the City of London And for the objection that it is unreasonable because that the imprisonment is general to that he said it was a good objection if it were true but that is mistaken for the retorn is expresly that he shall be imprisoned until he hath taken the Oath which is not general for if he take the Oath he shall be discharged and here he said that this Government by Aldermen in this City is one of the most ancient Governments in the Kingdom beyond time of memory and is a Government which of necessity ought to he supported or otherwise the City would immediately be brought to ruine for we cannot hold a Court without thirteen Aldermen which ought to have care of the Orphans and make Laws for the well government of the City and that is of great consequence to all the Kingdom and concerns the Government of