Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n age_n die_v year_n 6,258 5 4.9578 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A26658 Select cases in B.R. 22, 23, & 24 Car. I Regis reported by John Aleyn ... ; with tables of the names of the cases and of the matters therein contained, also of the names of the learned councel who argued the same. England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; Aleyn, John. 1681 (1681) Wing A920; ESTC R19235 80,917 114

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

T. 22 Car. Rot. IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration of a Marriage Promise inter alia not good ought to set forth the whole Promise c. Inter al' promisit de payer tant puis Verdict pro Querent ' Judgment fuit done vers luy because he ought to set forth the whole promise which is entire Hinacre versus Lemon M. 22 Car. Rot. SLander Words charged with procuring Felony good The Defendant said of the Plaintiff she caused Mr. Langly's Servant to steal and purloin 30 and received them and sold them which was the cause why his Master broke and upon a Verdict and Iudgment in the Common Bench in a Writ of Error the Iudgment was affirmed because she is charged with procuring of Felony and receiving stollen Goods Haines versus Finch Debt upon a promise for bringing up Children good without saying they were the Plaintiff's AN Executor brought an Action of Debt upon a promise made with the Testator for bringing up of Children and Teaching and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon nil debet pleaded it was moved that Debt would not lie in the Case because it was not layed that they were the Plaintiff's Children But the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for Debt will lie upon a promise made by a stranger Debt upon a promise of money to marry a poor Virgin as in N. B. 122. k. If one promiseth money to another for marrying a poor Virgin Debt lieth but the parties agréed and so no Iudgment was given And Roll said that in Trevilian's Case Servant retain'd an Attorney for his Master and promises him his Fees Debt lies against the Servant where a Servant retained an Attorney for his Master and promised he should have his Fées an Action of Debt was brought thereupon by the Attorney against the Servant in C. B. and the Plaintiff recovered but upon Error in this Court a rule was given for the reversal of the Iudgment notwithstanding the like President shewn in Bradford's Case but he said that the Iudgment was not reversed upon the Roll and his opinion was that the Iudgment was good Edwards versus French T. 22 Car. Rot. 675. Slander whereby he lost his Marriage And no agreement of Marriage or mutual Love alledged and the words were spoken only in the innuendo yet good SLander The Plaintiff declares that whereas there was a Communication of Marriage betwéen the Plaintiff and one Mary Hicks who was worth 300 li. and that she deferred Marriage with the Plaintiff q. d. that verisimile fuit that they should be Married the Defendant in the hearing of divers persons said Mary Hicks is Mr. Edwards his Whore innuendo the Plaintiff whereupon Mary Hicks was refused to Marry the Plaintiff And after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved that there was no agréement of Marriage nor mutual love alledged betwéen the Plaintiff and M. H. 2. That the words were not alledged to be spoken of the Plaintiff but only in the innuendo yet upon good debate Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Osborne versus Brooke Trin. 22 Car. Rot. 677. SLander Captain Osborne is forsworn Slander Is forsworn and his Oath appears upon Record Act ' gist and his Oath appears upon Record The Defendant as to the first words pleads not guilty and as to the latter justifies that he was forsworn in finding of an indictment of Forcible Entry and upon de injuria sua propria as to the justification both issues were found for the Plaintiff And upon motion of Latch in arrest of judgment First if the Words themselves were actionable Secondly if the Iustification made them good and actionable and upon great debate judgment was given for the Plaintiff in both points First the Court did take the words being spoken together to be the same as if he had said he is forsworn upon Record Justification explains the Parties meaning to be of perjury which is as much as to call him perjured Secondly his justification hath explained his meaning in them to be of perjury And Tuke and Condie's Case was cited for this where the Defendant in an Action brought for saying You are forsworn justified that he was forsworn in an indictment of Battery and the issue upon the justification being found for the Plaintiff he had judgment in Common Bank which was afterwards affirmed in this Court and now allowed for good Law by both the Iudges yet two Objections were made by Latch against this judgment First that the Declaration of it self being insufficent in substance could not be made good by the Defendant's bar Secondly that the ground of the Action is the disgrace that the Plaintiff incurs before the Auditors now they must understand the words according to the common acceptation as they were spoken and not in the sense wherein the Defendant justifies the speaking of them and he cited a Case 21 Jac. betwéen Wheeler and Abbot where in Slander for saying Thou hast stollen my Piece innuend ' a Gun the Defendant justified that the Plaintiff did steal his Gun and though the Iustification which shewed the Defendant's meaning to be of a Gun was found against him and Piece was a word of an incertain signification which could not be explained by the Innuendo Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for the Reasons aforesaid Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Water's Case Ten in common makes a Wall against the house to prevent the others getting in no disscisin IN an Assise of a House in Westminster upon null ' tort c. pleaded and a tryal at the Bar the Evidence was that there were two Tenants in common of the House and one of them nailed up the Doors and made up a Wall against the House to prevent the others getting into the House and this was resolved no Disseisin and so the Iury were discharged But the point in Law would have béen that a Tradesman purchased Lands in fée to himself and his Wife and after became Bankrupt c. whether the Commissioners had power to sell so as to bar the Wife Taylor versus Usherwood Hill 18 Car. Rot. 87. Demise IN an eject ' firmae upon a special Verdict the Case was That one devised Land to one Elizabeth for her life and after her death to the eldest Heir male of her body and to the Heirs males of such Heir male so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth and if he be not of twenty four years of age at that time then that the Husband of Elizabeth shall hold them till he comes to that age and the profits to be disposed among the younger Children Elizabeth dieth her Heir male within the age of twenty four years and after he attained to that age and entred and demised to the Defendant And Hales argued for the Defendant That if the demise had rested in
the Words so that he be of twenty four years of age at the time of the death of Elizabeth it would have béen a contingent limitation upon the being of that age at that time Where words make a contingency by the intent of the party but now that by a mean disposal of the Profits he fills up that space of time it appears he did not mean to make that limitation a contingency to the Remainder but upon that supposal to provide for the younger Children and the Case was adjourned Pasc 23 Car. Banco Regis Needler versus Guest Trin. 17 Car. Rot. 1324. IN an Action of Covenant Covenant for 2 s. for copying every Quire of Paper Breach that he copied four Quire and three Sheets for which 8 s. 3 d. was due And that there could be no apportionment for the Covenant was to allow him 2 s. a Quire but not pro rata If he had averred 3 d. to be the usual fees for copying three Sheets he might have helped himself The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant being an Attorney covenanted to take the Plaintiff for his Clerk and to allow him 2 s. for every Quire of Paper that he should Copy out and 1 d. for every Shéet that he should engross and so much for such and such things and all usual fées and among other breaches he alledged that he copied out a Bill containing four Quires and thrée Shéets for which 8 s. 3 d. was due to him which the Defendant hath not paid And upon a Verdict and Iudgment for the Plaintiff in C. B. it was moved for error that there could be no apportionment in this Case for the Covenant was to allow him 2 s. for copying a Quire but not pro rata And for this cause upon good debate the Iudgment was reversed but it was holden that if he had averred 3 d. to be the usual fée for copying thrée Shéets of Paper he might have helped himself upon that Clause Vincent versus Fursy Hil. 22 Rot. IN an Action of Trespass for entring into his House Trespass and breaking duas Cistas and for taking diversa genera apparatuum in Cista praedicta existent and for beating his Servant per quod Servitium amisit after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon motion in arrest of judgment it was agréed First that one may have a general Action of Trespass and a special Action upon the Case in one Action Secondly that the words diversa genera apparatuum were too incertain of themselves but being referred to a Chest wherein they lay they were reduced to sufficient certainty but because two Chests were mentioned before and the Apparel was alledged to be in Cista praedicta in the singular number so that it appears not in which they were judgment was given against the Plaintiff Stoughton versus Day Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 486. IN Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition That whereas the Plaintiff is Sheriff of Surry and hath made Cornelius Trapp his Bailiff of the Hundred of Brixto if he should execute his Office c. and make true returns of all Warrants directed to him then c. The Defendant upon Oyer pleads particularly performance to all the Plaintiff replies that process was directed to him to levy Issues upon J. S. and that he made his Warrant to Trapp to execute the same which Warrant he did not return and upon a demurrer Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff because he did not shew that the Issues were to be levied within the Hundred of Brixto for it was resolved that though the words of the Condition were general to make return of all Warrants directed to him yet it was to be understood of such only as were to be executed within the Hundred of which he was made Bailiff Capel versus Allen. Hil. 22 Car. Rot. 639. IN Debt Debt upon a Bond with Condition to perform an Award the Plaintiff upon nullum arbitrium pleaded by the Defendant sets forth that the Arbitrators did award de supra praemissis modo forma sequenti viz. That the Defendant should pay so much to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff should pay for the Writings of the award and it was adjudged a void Award because but of one side for it did not appear that the other party was bound to pay for the Writings which was the only recompence for the Defendant And this also is matter subsequent to the submission and so cannot be intended a good recompence Johnson versus Barret auters IN an Action of Trespass Trespass for carrying away Soil and Timber c. Vpon Trial at the Bar the Question arose upon a Key that was erected in Yarmouth and destroyed by the Bailiffs and Burgesses of the Town and Roll said that if it were erected betwéen the high Water-mark and low Water-mark then it belonged to him that had the Land adjoyning But Hale did earnestly affirm the contrary viz. that it belonged to the King of common right But it was clearly agréed that if it were erected beneath the low Water-mark then it belonged to the King It was likewise agréed that an Intruder upon the King's possession might have an Action of Trespass against a Stranger but he could not make a Lease whereupon the Lessee might maintain an Ejectione firmae Whitacre versus Hillidell H. 22 Car. Rot. 1318. SLander Slander Margaret Whitacre is a Thief and stole my Wood and I will have her put in Bridewell and upon motion in an arrest of Iudgment after Verdict it was agréed by Bacon and Roll that those words she is a Thief and stole my Wood of themselves were actionable and Cases cited accordingly But Bacon held that the latter words qualified the former for the Statute 43 Eliz. cap. 7. enacteth that persons that steal Wood growing which is not Felony shall be whipped if they make not satisfaction now Bridewell is known to be a place where such penalties are inflicted so that upon all the words it shall be intended an accusation of such an offence the penalty whereof is whipping and not of Felony But Roll contra totis viribus because the words she is a Thief are single and the other accumulative being brought in by the word And but if it had béen for she stole c. then they are explanatory And this difference hath béen alwaies taken in this course But Bacon denied the diference and cited Clerke and Gilbert's Case Hob. 331. thou art a Thief and hast stollen twenty load of my Furzis and adjudged not actionable and no difference allowed betwéen and and for but Roll flatly denied that Case to be Law 2. To accuse one of petit Larceny will bear action and for that the offendor shall be whipped so that might be his meaning and he said that where the first words are a plain and direct Slander the subsequent words that should take of their effect ought to carry in them a very strong Intendment that they were