Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	4,616	5	7.4258	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25882	The arraignments, tryals and condemnations of Charles Cranburne and Robert Lowick for the horrid and execrable conspiracy to assassinate His Sacred Majesty King William in order to a French invasion of this kingdom who upon full evidence were found guilty of high-treason before His Majesty's justices of Oyer and Terminer at Westminster, and received sentence the 22d. of April, 1696, and were executed at Tyburn the 29th of the said month : in which tryals are contained all the learned arguments of the King's councel, and likewise the councel for the prisoners, upon the new act of Parliament for regulating tryals in cases of treason.	Cranburne, Charles, d. 1696.; Lowick, Robert, d. 1696.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3767; ESTC R18124	90,422	76

charg'd in the Indictment only the Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King L. C. J. Holt. Ay sure That is an Overt Act with a Witness the Indictment was not laid for Murdering the King but for Compassing his Death which is the Treason according to the Act of Parliament of 25th Ed. the 3d. and as an Overt Act they gave the cutting off his Head in Evidence Mr. Att. Gen. The Indictment says they Compass'd and Imagined the Kings death and they agreed to do it in this manner if this be not all one intire Sentence I know not what is L. C. J. Holt. As to your Case Mr. Mompesson which you quote out of Dyer it is possible a man may make an Assault at one time and at another time make an Assault and give a stroke but this is all one Act it does but specifie what was generally consulted off and proposed L. C. J. Treby Pray do you think a man may Demurr upon a Common Action of Battery where 't is said first at such a time and place Insultum fecit verberavti vulneravit because there is not a place set to every word Mr. Mompesson Indictments ought to be very curiously Penn'd and what is good in an Action will not be good in an Indictment with submission L. C. J. Treby But suppose you show'd it for Cause upon special Demurr Mr. Mompes My Lord I cannot tell what it wou'd amount unto L. C. J. Holt. You cannot quash the Indictment at this time that is not possible because the Indictment is good as to the rest supposing this was not so well as it might be Mr. Mompes Then my Lord I am in your Lordships Judgment whether they shall be admitted to give in Evidence this particular thing L. C. J. Holt. They may certainly give in Evidence the Agreement to have 40 men to kill the King as a proof of the Consultation Agreement and Consent to kill the King and the Consenting to have 40 Horsemen is an Evidence of their treating proposing and consulting to kill the King Then for your Objection of Quilibet suscepit to be one that is well enough it is all still but one Sentence Sir B. Shower One of which is it for they have not laid in the Indictment what it is whether it be one of the Four or one of the Forty L. C. J. Holt. Whether it be one of the Four or the Forty is not material for cannot one be found Guilty and the rest Acquitted the one is not charg'd with the Act of the other but they are several Offences and each must answer for himself in all Indictments Offences are several Suppose an Indictment of Conspiracy and it is laid in the Indictment that Four did Conspire can't you prove that two Conspired no Question you may It is not certainly necessary that every one shou'd be proved to have Conspired Suppose it were alledged that Four did beat a man and does not say Quilibet eorum beat him you may give in Evidence that one did beat him Sir B. Shower No Question of that in Case of a Battery but in the Case of a Conspiracy there must be more than one L. C. J. Holt. Nay I will ask you even in an Action of Conspiracy where the very Gist of the Action is Conspiring together cannot two be found Guilty and the rest Acquitted In Riots there must be Three or more It may be you 'll lay Ten but it is sufficient I hope if you prove it upon any Three of them Mr. Att. Gen. The Difference is betwixt Contracts and Crimes for Contracts they are joynt but Crimes they are in their own Nature several Mr. Soll. Gen. Besides my Lord though they be out of time yet this is not to the Abatement of the Indictment but to the Evidence how do they know but we will give it in Evidence that Christopher Knightly was one L. C. J. Treby Mr. Mompesson moves it as a Caveat against your giving it in Evidence Sir B. Shower If in an Outlawry against divers they leave out these words Nec eorum aliquis comperuit that is every day held to be nought and for that Reason we say the Quilibet eorum suscepit is necessary too and without being laid cannot be given in Evidence and if it be laid it ought to have time and place L. C. J. Treby The Default of appearance must be a several thing and when he lays it joyntly non comperuerunt it may be true that all did not appear if any one made Default but when you Charge men with a Fact done though in the plural number yet it is a distinct separate Charge upon every one Cl. of Arr. Robert Lowick those men that thou shalt hear call'd and personally appear are to pass between our Soveraign Lord the King and you upon Tryal of your Life and Death if therefore you will Challenge them or any of them your time is to speak to them as they come to the Book to be sworn and before they be sworn George Ford. Lowick I do not except against him Cl. of Arr. Hold the Book to Mr. Ford. Cryer Look upon the Prisoner you shall well and truly try and true Deliverance make between our Soveraign Lord the King and the Prisoner at the Bar whom you shall have in Charge and a true Verdict give according to your Evidence So help you God Cl. of Arr. Thomas Trench Lowick I have nothing to say against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. John Wolfe Lowick I do not except against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. James Bodington Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. John Raymond Lowick I say nothing against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. George Hawes Lowick I do not except against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. Thomas Glover Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Matthew Bateman Lowick I do not except against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. James Partherith Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Joseph Blisset Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Alexander Forth Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Françis Chapman Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Nicholas Roberts Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Thomas Playstead Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. John Hall Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. William Partridge Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Peter Levigne Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Thomas Moody Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. Thomas Ramage Lowick I do not except against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. Edward Townesend Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. William Gunson Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. John Wyborne he did not appear William Strode Lowick I challenge him Cl. of Arr. William Wild. Lowick I do not except against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. William Pitts Lowick I do not except against him He was Sworn C. of Arr. William Smith Lowick I do not except against him He was Sworn Cl. of Arr. Moses Cook Lowick I

will not be well enough L. C. J. Holt. You had better have sav'd these kind of Exceptions 'till the Tryal was over Sir B. Shower But my Lord if there be one Overt Act ill laid I submit it whether they can give any Evidence of that Overt Act. L. C. J. Treby No doubt of that they cannot but we think it is as well laid as it could be laid L. C. J. Holt. Truly I am not well satified that it is necessary after you have laid the Proditoriè as to the particular Treason to lay it again to the Overt Act. For the Overt Act is but Evidence of the Treason The Treason it self lies in the Compassing which is an Act of the mind L. C. J. Treby You cannot Indict a Man of Treason for Assassinating or Killing the King but you must in every such Case frame the Indictment upon the Article for Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King which must be laid to be done Trayterously Then when afterwards you say the Person accused did Wound him or Imprison him or Consult and agree to Assassinate Him or did actually Assassinate Him these are but so many Overt Acts of Compassing the Death and you having first said that he did Proditorie compass and imagin the King's Death you have thereby shewn that you charge him with a greater Offence then Felony which my Lord Coke says is the use of the word Proditorie and that being thus done I do not apprehend it to be necessary that you should ad Proditorie to all the rest of the following particulars for they are only external Discoveries of the inward Treason and more properly deemed to be lividence of the Treason than to be the Treason it self L. C. J. Holt. The Treason is consummate in the Intention besides the words of the Statute make that the Treason not the Overt Act that is but Evidence and so it was held not upon this Exception but upon the reason that my Lord Speaks off in Case of the Regecides of King Charles the First That the Indictment should not be for Killing the King but for Compassing and Imagining his Death and the Killing was alledged as an Overt Act. Sir B. Shower It must be so if it were for levying of War L. C. J. Holt. Most true for levying the War is the Treason but in this Case we think it is no exception Mr. Att. Gen. Thent let us have the Fifth Sir B. Shower Then my Lord here is another Thing It is a Question whether there be any Overt Act presented by the Jury at all The Indictment say's Juratores pro Domino Rege presentant that they as false Traytors did Compass the Death of the King and the Slaughter of his Subjects and they did Meet and Consult and Agree how to do it Et ijdem Christopherus Knightley and the rest to fulfil their said Trayterous Intentions and Imaginations did Afterwards the tenth of February Buy Arms and Horses Now our Objection is that it does not appear that any one of these Overt Acts are the presentment of the Jury With Submission they ought to have begun it again either with a Quodque or something that should have referred it to the first Juratores presentant or else they must have begun quite again with a Juratores Ulterius presentant and not have coupled them as this is with an ulterius presentant and not have Coupled them as this is with an Et. The most forms begin with an Ulterius presentant but here we find no Overt Act is so Introduced They might present part and not present the other part for any thing that does appear Every Thing ought to be laid positively as the Jury's Dictum it may be onely the Clerks saying and not the Juries for any thing that do's appear Your Lordship remembers the Case of the King and Trobridge Trobridge upon a Writ of Error to Reverse a Judgment for Erecting and Continuing a Cottage against the form of the Statute now Contra formam Statuti was in the begining of the Indictment but not in the Conclusion to the Erecting but not to the Continuing And tho there was there Juratores Ulterius dicunt it was not super Sacramentum suum and they did not say he did continue it against the Statute and there being no formal presentment that he maintain'd the Cottage notwithstanding the Act Et did no so Couple it to the first part as to make it a good presentment So we say in this Case this is a fault and different from all the Common Forms there ought to be a Direct presentment of each Overt Act and not Coupled by an Et. For Et will not do it for it is a Distinct Overt Act every one and should have been Et Quod Consultaverunt quodque Agreaverunt that a certain number should do so and so and to be sure it should have been so at the last Overt Act which is onely Et ijdem Christophorus Knightley did Buy Arms and Horses Now this last Et being a loose Conjunction Copulative in common Sence ought to Refer to that which they had agreed upon for that is last mention'd there and the natural Sence leads thither and not to the begining of the Bill Juratores presentant quod Mr. Phipps I shall not trouble your Lordship further they ought to have put in a Quodque or an Ulterius presentant Mr. Att. Gen. Where would you have the Quodque or the Vlterius presentant Mr. Phipps Either to every Overt Act or at least to that last Mr. At. Ge. The Indictment setsforth that they Commited such and such Treason Their objection is that Quodque is not put in to every overt Act and our Answer is That the first Quod governs all that relates to that Treason It may be if there were two distinct Treasons in the Indictment when you come to set forth the Second Treason you should say Juratores ulterius presentant the Second Treason but the Overt Acts to prove the same Treason are all parts of that Treason and make but one Species of Treason which is the imagining the Death of the King There 's the Treason and to bring it to pass they did so and so This my Lord must be part of the finding of the Jury as well as the Treason it self of which these are the Overt Acts. But then if you will lay the levying of War in the same Indictment then it may be you must say Juratores ulterius presentant quod c. But it had been a strange Absurdity to say Juratores ulterius presentant such and such Overt Acts For the Overt Act is not a further Indictment but only a setting forth that which is Evidence upon which they found the Indictment for Treason Mr. Sol. Gen. What the Indictment says is a direct Affirmation as can be all along in the Presentment of the Jury that the Prisoner and others did compass and imagine the Death of the King and to bring it about

Sentence till you come to the end of it then it is compleat when you show what was the Effect of the Consultation what they were agreed upon and not till then Mr. Mompesson A Man's holding up his Hand is an Assault but he must actually strike to be Guilty of Murder So a Man may debate and yet not agree it is the Agreement that is the Treason L. C. J. Holt. Read the Indictment Cl. of Arr. DEcimo die Februarii anno Regni dicti Domini Regis nunc septimo diversis aliis diebus vicibus tam antea quam postea apud Parochiam Sancti Pauli Covent-Garden proedict ’ in Comitatu proedict ’ falsè malitiosè Diabolicè proditoriè Compassaverunt Imaginati Machinati fuerunt Excogitaverunt Designaverunt Intendebant dictum Dominum Regem nunc occidere interficere murdrare stragem miserabilem inter fideles subditos ipsius Domini Regis per totum hoc Regnum Anglioe passere causare ad easdem nefandissimas nequissimas Diabolicas proditiones proditorias compassationes machinationes proposita sua proedicta perimplend ’ perficiend ’ ad effectum redigend ’ ipsi iidem Christopherus Knightley Robertus Lowick Ambrosius Rookewood Carolus Cranburne quam plurimi alii falsi proditores Jurator ’ proedictis ignoti postea scilicet eodem decimo die Februarii anno supradicto apud Parochiam proedictam in Com ’ proedicto ac diversis aliis diebus vicibus tam antea quam postea ibidem alibi in eodem Com ’ falsò malitiosè advisatè clandestinè proditoriè ac vi armis conveniebant proposuer ’ tractaver ’ consultaver ’ consenser ’ aggregaver ’ ad ipsum Dominum Regem nunc ex insidiis dolo percutiend ’ Anglicè to assassinate interficiend murdrand ’ ad execrabilem horrendam detestabilem Assassination ’ Anglicè Assassination Interfectionem ill ’ citius exequend perpetrand ’ postea scilicet eisdem die anno ac diversis aliis diebus vicibus apud paroch ’ proed ’ in Com ’ proedicto proditoriè tractaver ’ proposuer ’ consultaver ’ de viis modis mediis ac tempore loco ubi quando qualiter quomodo dictum Dominum Regem sic ex insidiis facilius interficerent consenser ’ aggregaverunt assenser ’ quod quadragint ’ homines Equestres aut eo circiter quor ’ iidem Christopherus Knightley Robertus Lowick Ambrosius Rookewood Carolus Cranburne sorent quatuor quilibet eor ’ proditoriè super se suscepit esse unum cum Bombardis sclopis sclopetis pulvere bombardico globulis plumbeis onerat ’ cum gladiis ensibus aliis Armis armat ’ insidiati forent essent in subsessu Anglicè in Ambush ad eundem Dominum Regem in Rheda sua Anglicè his Coach existen quando foris iret invadend ’ Quodque quidem competens numerus de hominibus illis sic armat ’ in satellites Anglicè the Guards ipsius Domini Regis eum tunc attendend secum existen ’ aggressi forent eos expugnarent devincerent dum alii eorundem hominum sic armat ’ ipsum Dominum Regem percuterent interficerent occiderent murdrarent Mr. Mompesson The Consult is like the Assault and the Agreement is like the Stroke L. C. J. Treby It is a nice Case as you wou'd have it but I think it is very natural as the King's Councel put it at first they lay the Consultation of the Ways and Means how it shou'd be done and then they conclude that thus it shall be done all which makes but one intire thing L. C. J. Holt. They say they met that day at St. Paul Covent-Garden that 's in the beginning and did consult how to Kill the King and they consented and agreed among themselves that it shou'd be done in this manner Does not this referr to both Time and Place in the beginning It is a continuing on of the same Sentence and makes all but one and the same Act it is the Result of the Consultation at that time and place Sir B. Shower But my Lord it might be at another place they might Consult at one place and Conclude at another Mr. Conyers But it is laid to be at the same place for no other place does appear and it is one continued Sentence L. C. J. Treby You wou'd make the Repetition so frequent and reiterated that it wou'd become absurd Mr. Att. Gen. Indeed I do not know what these Gentlemen wou'd have Sir B. Shower We wou'd have this Indictment as all others are the Precedents are as we say and we hope this shall pursue 'em or else be quasht L. C. J. Holt. Look ye here Sir Bartholomew Shower Suppose this part shou'd not be right that will not Vitiate the whole Indictment Mr. Mompesson But your Lordship wont suffer them to give Evidence of that part that is Vitious L. C. J. Holt. Yes yes it comes within the first Words of the Time and Place laid they may give Evidence of it because this is but a setting forth the Manner agreed upon for the Execution of the Design that was before consulted and treated off it is comprehended in the former Words and if they had omitted this out of the Indictment the Indictment had been never the worse there had been a sufficient overt-Overt-Act alledged to prove the Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King for if People at such a place and time meet and propose the way and means how to effect it do you think the Indictment wou'd not be good enough without laying the particular means agreed upon Certainly it had been well enough if this had been omitted Do you think they cannot give in Evidence this as a Proof of the Overt Act Certainly they may Sir B. Shower The Question will be my Lord then upon the whole Whether the Conclusion of the Indictment contra legiantiae suae Debitum shall be taken Distributively to every Fact and if so then there ought to be time and place alledg'd to every Fact L. C. J. Holt. Suppose you lay several Overt Acts and prove but one yet he is to be found Guilty of the High Treason which is the Imagination and Compassing the Death of the King which is the Crime laid in the Indictment then suppose this was left out of the Indictment they might give it in Evidence as a Proof of the Overt Act that is well laid for time and place and therefore though it be express'd and not so fully and particularly laid we cannot quash the Indictment for it because the Indictment would have been good though that had been omitted L. C. J. Treby That is certainly true it is no Cause for quashing the Indictment Mr. Soll. Gen. The Indictments against the Regicides were for Compassing the Death of the King and they gave in Evidence that he was put to Death though they

Harrison and I together and Sir George Barclay came to us I believe there were about 14 or 16 in the House there Sir George Barclay told me Mr. Lowick was to meet me and two more at an Inn by St. Giles's Pound and that we were to go together to seize the Prince of Orange the 22th L. C. J. H. Did you meet him Captain Fisher I did not meet him it being put off by the King 's not going Abroad L. C. J. H. This does not affect Mr. Lowick at all Mr. Attor Gen. It does not we acknowledge but at that time which you speak of the 8th of February had you any knowledge of the Assassination Captain Fisher There was no Assassination at that time at least it was not then declared Mr. Attor Gen. What was your Discourse about then Captain Fisher There was Notice of the King 's preparing to come for England Mr. Attor Gen. You say Mr. Harrison was there Captain Fisher Yes and Talkt very little about the matter but only that there were Preparations for the King 's coming Mr. Attor Gen. What did Lowick say to you Captain Fisher I have told you all that Mr. Lowick said to me Mr. Attor Gen. Repeat it again Captain Fisher He said he would be ready to serve his Master to the uttermost of his Power Mr. Cowper Had you no discourse about an Act of Parliament Captain Fisher Mr. Lowick said it was not convenient to Talk with more then one at any time for there was an Act of Parliament on Foot that under two Witnesses nothing should affect a Mans Life in Treason Mr. Attor Gen. The Act of Parliament was then a making L. C. J. H. When Mr. Lowick said he wou'd serve his Master what Discourse had you about it Captain Fisher Mr. Lowick said not a word within but at the Door he said he wou'd serve his Master to his Power Mr. Attor Gen. What was that that they wou'd not Talk with above one at a time Captain Fisher Nothing that was thought Treasonable Practices shou'd be Discours'd of before above one at a time so I understood it Mr. Sol. Gen. Then my Lord we have done Sir B. Shower May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury I am of Counsel in this case for the Prisoner at the Bar and we do hope here is not Evidence sufficient to convict him of High Treason the Question is not whether there was a Plot or a Conspiracy to Assassinate the King or to prepare for an Invasion but all that you are to consider Gentlemen is whether the Evidence against Mr. Lowick be sufficient to convince you that he did design to Seize and Assassinate the King there are three Witnesses produc'd but we think this last Witness Fisher his Testimony does not hurt him in the least We know your Lordship will Declare and Direct the Jury that the Evidence in a case of Treason ought to be plain not only with respect to the Fact that it was done but also of such Facts as are the Evidences of a man's intentions and those are not to be Construed by Strains and Intendments or Implications unless they be such as Evidently Naturally and to common Understanding express the Intention it cannot be good Evidence in Treason Now we say that Captain Fisher has said nothing at all that will affect the Prisoner for al that he says is that the Eighth of February he said he was ready to serve his Master to the utmost of his Power and any words as well as these may be Construed to make a Man Guilty of Treasonable Intentions for it might be a Recollection of Favours Received or it might be a Grateful intent to serve him upon particular occasions but that is no Evidence upon this Indictment Suppose it was to serve him upon the supposed intended Invasion yet with submission that is not Eviednce of the Overt Act laid here here is no Overt Act mentioned of preparing Arms or Incouraging Men or Seducing the King's Subjects in order to the better restoring of the late King James or the expected Landing of the French or the like All that 's laid to the Prisoner's charge is the Compasting the King's Death and a Design to Assassinate him in his Coach and in order to the Assassination he was to buy Armes and Horses now all that he says is quite of another Nature of a quite different Strain and has no tendency to this matter and nothing he says that Lowick shou'd say but is applicable the other way and tends more Naturally to the Invasion then to the Assassination Your Lordship observes there was some notice taken of what Mr. Lowick shou'd say concerning the Act of Parliament that he would not talk with above one at a time how far when life is concern'd such loose discourse ought to be inforc'd before a Jury I must leave to your Lordship tho a Man may be Innocent yet he may be Cautious and the more Innocent perhaps the more Cautious but that is applicable to the Invasion too and has no Relation to the Treason in this Indictment more than any other It shows he was more wary then others were but it is not applicable to the Fact that he now stands charged with Then the whole of the Evidence depends upon the Testimony of Mr. Harris and Mr. Bertram and we think they are not two Witnesses to one thing and what they say must be strained and intended and presumed to make Evidence of Treason for what Mr. Harris says about the Discourses between him and the late King James about Receiving Orders from Sir George Barclay and his passage over from France and the several Stages he and Mr. Hare travel'd and the Discourses between Sir George Barclay and him Your Lordship will acquaint the Jury that is no Evidence to affect Mr. Lowick no● what Berkenhead and Hare agreed upon does any way affect Mr. Lowick for those things may be all true and yet Mr. Lowick innocent of what he stands charged with in this Indictment he says that upon the first Saturday he saw Mr. Lowick at the Confectioners but he cannot say he staid there at all there was not a word spoken by Mr. Lowick that he remembers then but what he says that seems to touch and the only thing that touches Mr. Lowick in all this Evidence is that that upon Monday Tuesday Wednesday or Thursday it is a pretty large time between the Fifteenth and the Twenty second he was talking with Mr. Lowick about the Barbarity of this business and that Lowick after all said he would obey Orders now with submission my Lord to make that to have Relation to the Assassination must be by a forc'd strain'd Intendment he does not Declare what the Orders were nay he does not affirm there were any Orders for the Assassination but only that he would obey Orders here 's no Order by Writing no Order by Parole that Mr. Lowick declared he would obey as to

they did consult together and did agree to make use of such and such Means and were to have a Party of 40 Men and they bought Arms and Horses Now it does not repeat quodque or ulterius presentant quod to every one of those Sentences that they did so and so and that they did so and so Now I would feign know the Difference between saying and they did such a thing and saying and that they did such a thing That 's all the Difference that they think to overturn this Indictment for The omitting of a Juratores ulterius presentant certainly is nothing for the first Presentment runs through the whole Indictment and there does not need an Vlterius Sir B. Shower Certainly there should have been a Quodque at least L. C. J. Holt. No indeed I think it is better as it is than as you would have had it because the first Quod goes through the whole That in Order thereunto he did so and so would you have it said quod in Order thereunto he did so and so but that may be good Sense I think it is not so good as the other This Indictment is for one sort of Treason and that is for compassing the Death of the King and it is I think more proper to have but one Quod than to have more for it makes the whole Indictment more entire As to the Juratores ulterius presentant that is never proper where the Species of Treason is the same For indeed if there had been two distinct Treasons the one for compassing the Death of the King and the other for levying of War in that Case you must bring it in by ulterius presentant because they are two several Offences tho' comprisd in one Bill and they are in Law as two Indictments And so it is in the Case that you mention'd of Cottages It is one Offence to erect a Cottage and another Offence to continue a Cottage and they are to have several Punishments and because they were jumbled them both together in one Indictment that Indictment was held to be nought For by Law the Indictment for erecting a Cottage ought to conclude contra formam Statuti and then the Jury must begin again ulterius presentant quod the Cottage was continu'd against the Form of the Statute because they are several Offences But here the High Treason is but one and the same Offence and the other things are but Overt Acts to manifest this Treason the compassing the Death of the King and truly I think it is better as it is Mr. Phipps I have seen several Precedents of Indictments where the several Overt Acts were to the same High Treason but still they had each an ulterius presentant Mr. At. Gen. I believe it is hard to find many Indictments in the same Words I am sure all are not L. C. Baron Is it not as great an Affirmation to say and they did such a thing as to say and that they did such a thing L. C. J. Holt. I cannot reconcile it to my Reason but it should be as good Sense without that as with L. C. J. Treby In a long Deed it begins This Indenture witnesseth that the Party granted so and so and the Party Covenants thus and thus and so it goes on commonly without renewing the Word That to the subsequent Clauses But yet the first Expression This Indenture witnesseth that governs the whole Deed tho' it be many Skins of Parchment L. C. J. Holt. If you begin with an Indenture you begin That it witnesseth so and so without Renewing unless it be a very distinct Thing S. B. Shower My Lord we think that Similitude makes for us A. B. Covenants so and so in a Conveyance and then further that so and so L. C. J. Holt. But there you restrain that in the Beginning of the Covenant to every Particular in that Covenant Mr. At. Gen. Will your Lordship please to call the Jury now L. C. J. Holt. Have you a Mind to go on with the Trial or to go to Dinner Mr. At. Gen. I believe your Lordship can try but one more to Night and that may be as well after Dinner as before L. C. J. Holt. Well then adjourn till 5 a Clock and in the mean time you Keeper knock off the Prisoners Fetters Keeper They shall my Lord. Then the Court adjourned till 5 a Clock in the Afternoon it being then about 3. Post Meridiem the 21st of April 96. The Court returned and was resum'd about 6 in the Evening Cl. of Ar. Keeper of Newgate bring Charles Cranburne to the Bar which was done Charles Cranburne hold up thy Hand which he did Those good Men that you shall hear called and personally appear are to pass between our Sovereign Lord the King and you upon Tryal of your Life and Death and therefore if you will challenge them or any of them your time is to speak unto them as they come to the Book to be sworn and before they be sworn Cranburne My Lord I humbly desire I may have Pen Ink and Paper Court Aye Aye He had them Cl. of Ar. Where is George Ford Cryer Vouz Avez Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. William Underhill Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. William Withers Cranburne I challenge him Mr. Phipps If your Lordship pleases those that were of the last Jury I hope shall not be call'd of this Jury This Prisoner being tryed upon the same Indictment the last was L. C. J. Holt. If they be not it shall be in Ease to them but it is not in favour of you Mr. Phipps We humbly conceive having given their Verdict upon the same Indictment they are not such indifferent Persons as the Law intends they should be and think it is good reason they should not serve upon this Jury L. C. J. Holt. What tho' it be upon the same Indictment the Evidence is not the same for they are distinct Offences Mr. Phipps I do not know whether it be a good Cause of Challenge but submit it to your Lordship L. C. J. Holt. Well you may doubt of it if you please and try the Exception Cl. of Ar. Thomas Trench Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. John Wolfe Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. James Bodington Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. Jonathan Andrews He did not appear John Raymond Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. George Hawes Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. Francis Barry Cranburne I challenge him Cl. of Ar. Arthur Bailey Cranburne I challenge him he was upon the last Jury L. C. J. Holt. That is no reason Will you challenge him peremptorily Cranburne I do challenge him Cl. of Ar. John Caine. Cranburne I don't except against him Cl. of Ar. Hold Mr. Caine the Book Cryer Cryer Look upon the Prisoner Sir You shall well and truly try and true Deliverance make between our Sovereign Lord the King and the Prisoner at the Bar whom