Boucher Turner Bolder and one other Turner appear and tender his Law Sir John Boucher and another plead Nil debent and the other was Outlawed and it was said that he ought to have joyned but it was resolved by the Court that they may sever in Bars but ought to joyn in Delatories For otherwise if one which never bargained be joyned in the action he must put his matter upon their pleadings And in Debt upon a joynt Obligation one may plead a Release the other Non est factum vide 48 E 3. 21. and vide Presidents in this case according to this resolution Sabud versus Râ—w â— Trin. 26 Eliz Rot. 821. Trin 26 Eliz Rot 821. Sabud against Robinson Matson and Loughton and Count sur emisset Waston and Loughton pleaded and Non sum informatus by Robinson Sed judicium inde cesset quousque the Issue be tryed and Venire facias awarded and found for the Plaintiff Peâ—iam T.P. H. P I.P. Hil 41 Eliz Rot 455. John Periam and Margaret his wife Executors of John Hart vrought an action of Debt upon Emisset against Thomasin Phelpes Widdow Henry Pittard and John Phelpes John Phelpes was Outlawed and Iudgment against Henry P. by Non sum informat and Thom P. plead Nil debet Fleet and Harrison Venire facias and Iudgment respited quousque c. and after tryall the Plaintiff had Iudgment Hil 13 Jac Rot 841. Fleet brought an action of Debt against Ja Harrison and Isaac Brooke upon Emissent And James H. waged his Law Iudgment against Isaac Brooke by nihil dicit Et quia Conveniens est quod judicium de loquela praedicta unicum sit versus praedictos Isaac Jacobum si contingat ipsum Jacob. de perficiend legem suam praedictam desicere Ideo parcat in judicium inde versus praefatum Isaac reddendum quosque praedictus Jacobus legem praedictam perficeret sive inde desiceret postea praedictus Jacobus perfecit legem suam Ideo consideratum est per Curiam quod praedictus querens nihil capiat per breve suum praedictum sed sit in miserecordia pro falso clamore suo inde quod praedictus Jacobus eat inde sine die And according to this President it was agreed per Curiam that so it ought to be Hil. 12 Jac. Rot. 3007. Reyner versus Waterhouse Ebor. Case JOhn Reyner brought an action upon the case against L Walterhouse Ven. fat de dâ—versis villis and declares that wheras he is and by the space of twenty years past have been an Inhabitant within the Town of Long Leverseidge in the Parish of Burstall And wheras the Inhabitants of Long Leverseidge aforesaid De tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum c. used to have a common way as well for Foot-men as for Horse-men to go and ride from the said Town of L. to the Parish Church of Burstall aforesaid on Lords daies and Festivall daies and other convenient times to hear Divine Service within the said Church and to carry bodies c. dying in the said Town to the said Church to be interred Modo forma sequent viz c. and shews the way through divers Closes in Long Leverseidge Little Leverseidge and Gomersall and over the Church-yard of the Church of Burstall and from thence unto the Church aforesaid and backward c. and shew one disturbance made by the Defendant by making of a Ditch in one of the Closes in Gomersall the Defendant pleaded Non culpab and found for the Plaintiff and in Arrest of Iudgment it was alledged that the Venire facias fuit de Gomersall tant And the Venire facias was quashed per Curiam and a new one awarded de L.L.G. Burstall Hil. 16 Jac. Bigg versus Malin BIgg brought an action upon the Case against Malin Case as Administrator and counts that whereas the Intestate was indebted to him in ten pounds and the Defendant also was indebted to him in forty shillings they accounted and upon account the Debt being twelve pounds In case upon Assumpsit against Executors it is not necessary to alledge Assets the Defendant being Administrator did assume and promise to pay it Et licet saepius requisitus non solvit And upon Non assumpsit pleaded the Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And by Finch it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not shewn in this Count sufficient consideration to charge the Defendant because that it doth not appear that the Defendant hath Assets But the Court disallowed that for if that were necessary it ought to be presumed to be found in the Verdict As in the case in consideration that the Plaintiff had sold and delivered to him twenty quarters of good and merchantable Barly the Defendant promise to pay him twenty pound Non Assumpsit the Plaintiff ought to prove the promise and the delivery And as in Debt against Executors upon a simple Contract it shall not need to be alledged that they had Assets to pay Debts by specialties yet good and that ought to be proved But it seemed to be agreed that if an Executor or Administrator which hath not Assets makes promise of payment if it be not mixed with any profit to himself viz. forbearance c there it shall not charge him But by Warburton if an Executor hath fifty pounds Assets and he promise to pay to a Creditor a hundred pounds that shall bind him for all for when he hath Assets for part the Plaintiff hath Iudgment for all and execution only for so much as is found And in this case the Plaintiff had Iudgment Brook versus Groves BRook brought a Quod permittat against Groves and after Imparlance the Defendant demanded a view and ruled by the Court that he might and vide 34 H 6. 9 10. accordant vide 6 E. 4. 1. and the Plea Quare impedit viz. the View was De tenementis predictis which was as well of the Lands to which the Nusance as of the Lands which was the Nusance View And the View in this action is but for fifteen daies Egerton versus Egerton THe Lady Egerton Wife of Sir John Egerton brought a Writ of Dower against Edward Egerton the Tenant at the day of Essoin did not cast any Essoin And the Demandant entred her exception at that time the Writ was not returned and upon motion to the Court for the tenant to be essoined notwithstanding the exception Dower it was resolved that notwithstanding the writ was not returned yet the Tenant might have his Essoin vide 2 E. 4. 11. 21 E. 4. 7 8. 30 H. 6. 1. that an Essoine may be before the Writ be returned and vide 2 H 7. 4. 10 E 4. 4. the Tenant may be Essoined at any day Essoin though the Writ be not returned as wel at the fourth daie as the day of Essoin unlesse the Essoin be challenged viz. an exception
shall be indicted shall not have Councell And the Attorney Generall was commanded to report our opinion to the King And this hapned to be demanded upon the generall inconvenience that might after ensue in the Case of the Earl of Bristoll to whom the King had allowed Councell Mich. 3 Car. MEmorand That the fifth of November at Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street there assembled the Lord Hide Lord Richardson Lord Walter Iustice Doderidge Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Jones Resolves concerning Souldiers Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey Iustice Crook Iustice Yelverton and Baron Trevor to consider of a Case which was propounded which was One receives Presse-money to serve the King in his Wars and is in the Kings Wages and with others is delivered to a Conductor to be brought to the Sea-side and with-draweth himself and runneth away without license The Question was if it were Felony And time being given before to advise concerning it all agreed besides Yelverton and my self that it was Felony And the sole question is if a Conductor be a Captain within the 7 H 7. cap 1. and the 3 H 8. cap 5. And they said that it is not necessary that he should be such a Captain as is to lead and command them in the War or that hath skill to instruct But such as hath the leading of them by agreement between the Deputy Lievtenants and them and that ought to provide for the Billeting of them and to carry them to the place of Randesvous And one part of a Captain is to conduct although that Conduxit be properly to hire a Souldier yet this name Conductor with whom it is so agreed by Indenture to conduct the Souldiers is a Captain within the intent of those Statutes and if it should not be so these Statutes which are for the defence of the Realm shall be of little force But it was agreed by them that if these Conductors which are so called of late times be hired to carry them but to one place and there another Conductor to receive them this is not within the Statute And it ought to be such a Conductor that can give license upon just cause to proceed It was said that they used to send Captains into the Country but then they were so chargable to the Country and full of disorder that upon complaint of the Iustices of Peace about 43 Eliz. this course was invented viz. That the Deputy Lievtenants should provide for them that were pressed for Coats and Conduct and they sent their Souldiers to a place appointed to be delivered to certain persons whom the Queen appointed to receive them And it was said that though this Case as it is propounded might be cleer yet there are many Circumstances which ought to be proved and that are loft to the discretion of them before that he should be tryed It was unanimously agreed that if one takes Presse-money and when he should be delivered over he withdraw himself that is not Felony although he is hired and retained to serve But my Brother Yelverton I were of opinion that this new name newly invented is not Captain within these penall Statutes which ought to be taken strictly vide Plowden 86. that penalties which concern life shall not be taken by equity but if they be within the words of the Statute then they shall As to kill his Mistresse is within the words for Mistresse is Master Another reason was that the Statutes provide punishment for Captains which want of their number or which pay not their Souldiers within six daies after they have received their pay upon pain of forfeiting all their Goods And the Statute did not intend other Captains in this point then was in the former and latter part therof But admitting that a Conductor is such a one to whom the Souldiers are delivered by Indenture with all Covenants usuall viz. To pay to them their Wages and to convey them to their appointed place and that he may give license to depart yet they agreed that it is the better and clearer way that they should be made Captains and so named in the Indentures for the King may change the Captain at his pleasure and then it should be no question It was agreed that 7 H 7. cap 1. extends only to them who are retained and pressed to serve the King upon the Sea or upon the Land beyond the Sea And the Statute of 3 H 8. cap 5. adds only the Land here And the Statute makes departure without license from the Captain Felony and the Statute 3 H 8. without license from the Lievtenant And the Statute of 7 H 7. makes the tryall to be in the County where they shall be taken before the Iustices of the Shire as they may try other Felonies within their Commission The Statute of 3 H 8. makes their tryall before the Iustices of the County where they are taken and this being a new Felony and made tryable against the Common Law which appoint tryals by Iurors of the County where the Fact is committed and appoint a speciall Iudge viz. Iustices of Peace that is only tryable before them and not before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer who cannot try any thing but that which is done in the same County But this if all be not done in that County where they are taken makes it tryable only before the Iustices of Peace of the County where they are taken In this point all were not resolved but required longer-time vide 2 Inst 56. Sir Richard Champions Case A Writ of Covenant is prosecuted Jan 23. returnable Oct. Purisicat A Fine of Oct. Puris where the Caption was Feb. 14. 1. The Dedimus potestatem is tested 23 Jan the Iudge certifie the Concord takes Febr. 14. which is two daies after the Term at which time the Writ of Covenant is not depending the Fine is haec est finalis Concordia facta in Oct. Purif And after it is recorded in 15 Pasch and yet adjudged a good Fine vide the Statute of 23 Eliz. 3. Dyer 220. b. Carels Case Mich. 4 Car. Jones versus Powell JOhn Jones Plaintiff against James Powell Defendant in an action â—â— on the Case for a Nusance count That the Plaintiff 10. August 1 Caroli was and is and for forty years last past hath been possessed for divers years yet during of a Messuage Nusans 1. in which he and his family did by the time aforesaid dwell And by all that time hath been Register to the Bishop of Gloc. and kept his Office there that the said Defendant the tenth day of August and ever since hath held in possession another house over against the Plaintiffs And they being so possessed the Defendant the said 10. of Aug. erected a Brew-house and a Privy in the said house and burned Sea-coles in the said Brew-house so that by the Smoke stench and unwholsome vapors coming from the said Coles and Privy the Plaintiff and his family cannot dwell in the said house
he had nothing else to say but submit himself to the mercy of the King And there execution was awarded and a Roll made therof and so it was done in Lepu's case as the President was shewn and he was committed to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex and by them he was brought to the Gatehouse and the next day which day the Lord Mayor of London came to Westminster to take his Oath he was beheaded in the great Court at Westminster and he died in a good and religious manner and spake much without any fear of death submitted himself to the Block and by his death gained great reputation in this life and by the grace and mercy of God remission of his sins and eternall life afterwards c. Bishop and others FAther Tenant in tail hath Issue two Sons the Father with the eldest Son makes a Feoffment with Warranty the eldest Son dies Lineall Warranty and after the Father dies the younger Son brought his Formedon and this Feoffment with warranty of the eldest Son is pleaded in Bar and upon Demurrer Iudgment for the Demandant For it is but a lineall Warranty and then without Assets it is no Bar for though the eldest Son dye in the life of the Father yet the younger Son by possibility might have the Land as Heir to him Mich. 16 Jacobi AN action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for perjury against one that was produc't as a Witnesse in an action of Trespasse and deposed falsely And upon Nil debet pleaded the Plaintiff was non-suit Costs shal not be allowed upon a non-suit in an action brought upon the Statute 5 Eliz. of Perjury And whether the Defendant should have costs or no was moved by Serjeant Harvy and that stands upon the words of the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 16. the words are In any Action Suit Bill upon the Case or upon any Statute for any Offence or wrong personall immediatly supposed to be done to the Plaintiff The opinion of the Court was that the Defendant should not have costs upon this non-suit because that this action is founded upon a Statute made long after the making of that Statute Also this is not an immediate wrong to the Plaintiff but to the Secondary for it is an immediate wrong to the truth and such Statutes which are intended by this Act shall be like to Trespasse done to the party himself as Ravishment of Ward Also it is not aided by the Statute of 4 Jacobi cap 3. for that gives costs to the Defendant where the Plaintiff shall have costs if he recover And Mr. Brownlow the Prothonatory said that it had been ruled so before for the Plaintiff should not have costs if he recover because the Act 5 Eliz. gives a Penalty viz. a forfeiture of twenty pounds against the Witnesse and forty pounds against the Suborner and so the Plaintiff if he had recovered should not have had any costs and therfore it is not aided by the Statute of 4 Jacobi Mich. 16 Jacobi Conesbies Case THe Lady Conesby being the Wife of Sir Ralph Conesby was cited into the Ecclesiasticall Court by Mr. Watts Prohibition who had married Elizabeth the Grand-child of the Father of Sir Ralph to which Grand-child by Will one Legacy of a hundred pounds was devised and that was pass 3 Jac. by the Lady Conesby Executor of the first Testator and upon payment an Acquittance under the hand and Seal of the said Watts was c. in the presence of two Witnesses now dead And this being denied and they allowing of no proof by comparison of hands nor by circumstances but only proof of them which wrote it or of them which saw them subscribe And by their Law an Acquittance of the Husband for a Legacy to the Wife without the Wife is not sufficient also if Watts himself will deny it upon his Oath there it shall stand against all proofs A Prohibition was granted upon the motion of Serjeant John Moore and after Serjeant Harvy had said all that he could say Trin. 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Kind versus Ammery KInd Plaintiff in a Replevin against Ammery Replevin The Avowry was for a Rent-charge and the Grant was of a rent of twelve pounds payable at two Feasts Demand not necessary in an Avowry for a Rent-charge and if it vs behind for the space of a month after any of the said Feasts it being lawfully demanded that he might distrain and for Rent arrear at the Annunciation and by the space of a month after and not paid he distrained And the Plaintiff demurred upon this Avowry and shewes for cause that it is not shewn that the Avowant made any demand before the Distresse And Serjeant Harris relied upon a Case which was An 31 Eliz. as he said and vouched the number Roll Bosdens case that upon demurrer between Bosden and Downes there the Avowry was not good for the same cause And Maunds case Coke lib. 7 fol. 28. implies that it ought to be demanded but it is not issuable if it be at the day or after And he said it was debated 31 Eliz. whether it was form or substance which shall not need to be shewn upon Demurrer But the Court agreed that no actuall demand was necessary to procede the Distresse in this case but that the Distresse is a demand But if the Grant has been penned in this form if it be arrear at such a Feast and for a month after demand that then he may distrain otherwise it is for there the Distresse is limited to the month after the demand And so it was adjudged in this Court between Coppleston and Langford Trin. 3. Car. Rot. 2865. Copplestone Langford Replevin between Beriman and Bower Avowry for Rent granted out of ten acres of Land in Crediton payable at such a Feast upon the Town stone upon the Key in Barnstable if it be lawfully demanded with clause of Distresse and the Distresse was before demand and upon demurrer it was resolved a good Distresse without demand vide Dyer 348. Booton against the Bishop of Rochester A Quare impedit was brought by Booton against the Bishop of Rochester who pleads that he claims nothing but as Ordinary and yet pleads further that the Clerk which the Plaintiff present had before contracted with the Plaintiff Simoniacally Insufficient return on a Writ in Quare Impedit to the Arch bishop and therfore because he was Simoniacus he refused him and that the Church was then void and so remained void wherupon the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury who returned that before the coming of this Writ viz. 4 July the Church was full of one Mr. Doctor Grant ex collatione of the said Bishop of Rochester which had collated by Laps and this return was adjudged insufficient First it is clear that though the six months passe yet if the Patron present the Bishop ought to admit although it
refusall was within the time of six years and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that the request is the cause of the Action for without it he could not have his action And the sole matter upon which Davenport insisted was that this was a Contract by the Husband wherupon the Plaintiff might have an action of Debt against him and then it is but an Assumpsit in Law and the request is not cause of action And therfore he said as well as Debt lies upon the delivery of Cloath to a Taylor for the making Garments therof so an action of Debt lies for the summ accompanying the speciall matter viz. for the payment of so much as the making shall be reasonably worth vide Coke lib 4. fol 147. so Debt lies as well against the said Sir Arthur upon this promise being made then and there he vouched 34 E 1. Fitz Debt 167. vet N. B. fol 62. 30 E 3. 18. 19. 27 H 8. Tatams case But the Court inclined that no action of Debt lay against Sir Arthur upon this Assumpsit but only an action of the case upon the request Mich. 4 Car. Treford versus Holmes Case Assumpsit in consideration of forbearance TReford brought an action upon the Case against Holmes as Executor and counted that wheras the Testator was indebted to the Plaintiff the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the said Debt for a reasonable time assumed to pay it And this promise was made in December and he shew forbearance untill March next And upon Non assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Thinn moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no sufficient consideration for the incertainty of the time if it had been for a little time it had not been good But the Court adjudged it good for the Court ought to judge of the time whether it be reasonable vide Isaac Sidleys case before Then he moved another Exception which was that he had not shewn and averred in the Count that the Defendant had Assets at the time of the promise vide Coke lib 9. fol 93. 94. Baines Case that ought to come on the other part or otherwise it shall be upon Evidence if it be necessary And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Mich. 5 Car. A strange increase of Water in Westminster-Hall MEmorand That on Friday the twenty third day of October by reason of the greatnesse of the Spring-tyde and a great Flood the Hall of Westminster was so full of water that neither the Serjeants could come to the Bar nor any stand in the Hall for there was a Boat that rowed up and down there and therfore all that was done my Brother Harvey went to the Stairs which came out of the Exchequer and rode to the Treasury and by this way went and set in the Court and Adjourned all the Iuries for it was the fourth day del tres Mich. And after that we were in the Exchequer Chamber and heard four or five motions of the Prothonatories there This comming into Court was not of necessity unlesse it had been the Essoin day or that the Court should be Adjourned as Craft Animar The Chancery and Kings Bench sate for they came by the Court of Wards Freeman versus Stacy Mich. 5 Car. BEtween Freeman and Stacy upon a speciall Verdict the Case was y The Plaintiff count upon a Lease by Indenture for one and twenty years rendring Rent and in debt for the arrearages of this Rent it appears that the arrearages of the Rent for which the action was brought were due six years and more before the action brought And the Lord Richardson was of opinion Arrearages of Rent reserved by Indenture is not within the act of 21 Jac. of Limitations that Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff because the Statute of the 21. of King James cap. 16. extends to Debts for arrearages of Rent expresly But I and my Brother Harvey and Brother Yelverton concurred that this action of Debt being upon a Lease by Indenture is not limited to any time by this Statute but is out of it and shall be brought as before the making of this Statute The words are All actions of debt grounded upon any lending or Contract without specialty All actions of Debt for arrearages of Rent c. And this is an action upon a Contract by specialty 4 H 6. 31. he ought to declare upon the Indenture and it is a Contract viz. a Lease And there is cause of using the Indenture every half year And it was resembled to the case upon the Statute of 32 H 8. of Limitation a Rent-charge which is founded upon a Deed or a Reservation of a Rent upon a Fee-â—â—mple by Deed are not within the Statute of Limitation And nothing in this Statute was intended to be limited which was founded upon a Deed And the words Debt for arrearages of Rent are supplyed and satisfied by the arrearages of Rent upon a Demise without Deed. And as to the Obligation that he proof of payment might be wanting when the occasion is brought so long after the Rent became due that might be objected to Debt upon an Obligation where the day of payment is for a long time past And afterward the Lord Richardson mutata opinione agreed with us And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 6 Car. Shervin versus Cartwright SHervin brought a Writ De rationabile parte bonorum against Cartwright and counted of Custom in the County of Nottingham Rationabl pars bonorum is not within the â— Statute of 21â— Jac. of Limitations and shew all specially and the conclusion was that he detaineth particular Goods of the party Plaintiff which appertained to him as his part and portion And upon Non detinet pleaded it was found that the Plaintiff was intituled to this Action many years before the Statute of 21 Jac. and that he had not brought his action within the time limited by the said Statute And upon the speciall Verdict the Case being argued by Serjeant Ward for the Plaintiff it was adjudged for the Plaintiff First because that this Action is an Originall Writ in the Register and is not mentioned in the said Act and though that the Issue is Non detinet yet this is no action of Detinue for a Writ of Detinue lies not for money unlesse it be in bags but a Rationabile parte bonorum lies for money in Pecuniis numeratis vide the Book of Entries Rationabile parte bonorum And this action lies not before the Debts be paid And the Account was that therby it might be known for what it should be brought and that in many cases requires longer time then the Statute gives Another reason was that Statutes are not made to extend to those cases which seldom or never happen as this case is but to those that frequently happen Also this Statute tolls the Common Law and shall not be extended to equity And upon all these