Tales might be of the other County only Davies versus Gardiner 3. AN Action upon the case for a Slander was brought by Anne Davies against Iohn Gardiner That wheras there was a Communication of a Marriage to be had between the Plaintiff and one Anthony Elcock the Defendant to the intent to hinder the said Marriage said and published that there was a Grocer in London that did get her with Child and that she had Vide this case reported Cook lib. 4. 16. b the Child by the said Grocer wherby she lost her Marriage To which the Defendant pleaded not guilty and was found guilty at the Assises at Aylesbury to the Damages of 200. marks And now it was alledged in Arrest of Iudgment that this matter appeareth to be meerly spirituall and therfore not determinable at common Law but to be prosecuted in the spirituall Court. But per Curiam the Action lies here for a woman not maried candot by intendment have so great advancement as by her Marriage wherby she is sure of maintenance for her life or during her Marriage and Dower and other benefits which the temporall Laws gives by reason of her Marriage and therfore by this slander she is greatly prejudiced in that which is to be her temporall advancement for which it is reason to give her remedy by way of Action at common Law As if a woman keep a Victualling house to which divers of great credit repair wherby she hath her livelyhood and one will say to her Guests that as they respect their credits they take care how they they use such a house for there the woman is known to be a Bawd wherby the Guests avoid her house to the losse of her husband shall not she in this case have an Action at common Law for such a slander It is cleer that shee will So if one saith that a woman is a common Strumpet and that it is a slander to them to come to her house wherby she looseth the adâ—antage which she was wont to have by her Guests she shall have her Action â—or this at common Law So here upon these collaterall circumstances wherby it may appear that she hath more prejudice then can be by calling of one Harlot and the like And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hillary Term 36 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. IN Michaelmas Term 33 34 Eliz. Rot. 181. William and Joane his wife Administratrir of Andrew Stock brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit made to the Intestate for the payment of 5 l. to William Stock who imparled untill Tuesday next after Octa. Hillary next which was the 24th day of January and then the Defendâ—nt demanded Oyer of the Letters of Administration which were entred in haec verba Wherby it appeareth that the Letters of Administration were committed to the said Joane by Thomas Taylor Batchelor of Law Commissary to the Bishop of London c. wherby the Defendant pleaded that after the last continuance â—he said Letters Patents of Administâ—ation sealed with the Seal of the Vicar Generall of the said Bishop which he useth in this behalf and brought here into Court bearing date the 27th day of January 1591. which was three daies after the continuance committed the Administration to the said Defendant And pleaded further the Act of 37 H. 8. which sayes that it shall be lawfull hereafter for any person being a Doctor of the Law to be Chancellor Commissary or to exercise Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction albeit he were a meer Lay person so that such a person be a Doctor as aforesaid and avers that at the time of the committing of the Administration to the said Joane the said Thomas Taylor was a meer Lay person and not Doctor Legis civilis nec minister allocatus according to the Laws of the Church of England wherby he had no lawfull power to commit the Administration Vpon which it was demurred generally and by all the Court the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover for we are to consider what our Law was in this case before this Statute of 37 H. 8. And albeit a Doctor then affirmed that the Canon Law was that there was a meer nullity in such Administration so although the party that did it not being a Clark nor Doctor according to the Stat. of 37 H. 8. yet all the Iustices agreed that the Administration so committed will be adjudged in our Law to be of force and effect being shewn under the Seal of the Officer and committed by him who is reputed the Officer who ought to do it and is invested in the Office untill it be avoided by sentence and yet such an avoidance shall not make a mans act to be made void no more then if a meer Lay-man be presented to a benefice albeit this be a meer nullity in our Law and void yet we adjudge the Church full according to the publike admission constitution and induction and not according to the capacity of the person which is a thing secret untill such a one be deprived for it by sentence in the spirituall Court and yet the Church shall be in our Law void but from the time of deprivation of which notice ought to be given to the Patron So here he remains as to our Law an Officer untill his authority be defeated by sentence of the spirituall Court otherwise great mischief will happen for an infinite number of Administrations may be drawn in question by Averment that he who granted them was a meer lay person and so make such Garboils in the Common-wealth which is not to be suffered for the inconveniency which will happen by it and therfore our Law which is founded upon reason shall judge of it according to the open appearance of the Officer to wit that he hath a grant made to him and not according to the private capacity of the person and this is not altered by the said Statuts which is made in affirmation of it and makes the authority of a Doctor of Law absolute not to be defeated by the Civill or Canon Law which is not in the other case But yet it doth not make this case of worse condition then it was at Common Law And by all the pleading of the Administration committed to the Defendant is not good because it appeareth by the date of it that it was made after the day of the last continuance and therfore could not have been pleaded untill a new continuance after And by the Doctor the last Administration does not avoid the first but in case where there is an especial revecation of the first But they did not speak of the doublenesse because the Demurrer was generall and not speciall and also because the other matters were so cleer 2. IN Trespasse for carrying away certain Loads of Hay the case hapned to be this The Plaintiff pretending Title to certain Hay which the defend had standing in certain Land to be more sure to have the Action passe for Property him
disguised For the wholness and closness of your Garments they do signifie integrity to be used in your advices and secrecy in your councels And in that the Garments being single and unlined it betokeneth that you should be sincere and plain in your advises and not double carrying your opinion to your self one way and you advise it your Client clean another way The two Tongues do signifie that as you should have one Tongue for the Rich for your Fee as a reward for your long studies and labours so should you also have another Tongue as ready without reward to defend the Poor and Oppressed And therin to shew your seves thankfull to God for all that which he hath bestowed upon you And for the Rings you give as Gold is amongst all Mettals the purest so should you be of all others of your Profession the perfectest both in knowledge and in the other Virtues before remembred And in that it is a Ring and round without end it betokeneth that you have made a perpetuall Vow to this your Profession and Calling and are as it were wedded unto it And therfore I heartily wish you may alwaies walk therin according as appertaineth to your Calling And this done the ancienst Serjeant beginneth to recite his pleading and so each after other in order And that done the ancientest kneeleth down before the chief Justice of England and so the rest before the Justices and Barons as they are in ancienty and had severally by the said chief Justice their Coifs put upon their heads and then their red Hoods upon their shoulders and then the Serjeants return to their Chambers and put on their party colourd Garments and so walk on to Westminster the one after the other as they be in ancienty bare-headed with all their Coifs on and so are in their turn presented the one after the other by two of the ancientest Serjeants And after their pleadings recited they give their Rings in the Court by some friends and so are therupon set in their place at the Bar according to their ancienty And all this done they return to their Chambers and there put on their black Gowns and red Hoods and come into the Hall each standing at his Table according to his ancienty bare-headed with his Coif on and after setteth himself upon the Bench having a whole mess of meat with two courses of many Dishes served unto him And in the afternoon they put on their Purple Gowns and then go in order to Pauls where it hath been accustomed that they heard Service and had a Sermon Edwards versus Halinder 4. IN an Action upon the Case by Rice Edwards against Edward Halinder The Plaintiff declared by his Bill that one Edward Banister was seised in his Demesne as of Fee of a Messuage in such a Parish and Ward in London and being so seised did let to him the Cellar of the same house the 23. day of April 32 Eliz. for a week from the same day and so from week to week so long as the parties should please at such a Rent by the week wherby he was possessed And further that the said Edward Banister being seised of the said house as is aforesaid afterwards to wit 29. July in the 32. year aforesaid gave to the said Defendant Officium Anglice the Warehouse of the said Messuage being right over the said Cellar for a week from thenceforth and so from week to week so long as the parties should please paying such a Rent wherby the Defendant was therof possessed accordingly And the Plaintiff being possessed of the said Cellar and the Defendant of the Warehouse as aforesaid and the Plaintiff then having in the said Cellar three Butts of Sack to the value of 40 l. c. The Defendant the 30 day of July in the 32. year aforesaid put such a quantity of weight and burthen of Merchandize into the said Warehouse and therby did so overburthen the floor of the said Warehouse so that by the force and weight of the said burthen the said floor the said 30. day of July was broken and by force therof did fall and that therby the Merchandize that were in the said Warehouse did fall out of the said Warehouse into the said Cellar upon the said Vessels of Wine and by force therof brake the said Vessels of Wine wherby the said Wine did flye out of the said Vessels and became of no value to the Plaintiffs damage of a hundred pound c. To which the Defendant saith That within a small time before the Trespasse committed the floor of the said Warehouse sustained as great a burthen of Merchandize as this was And that the Warehouse was demised to him as the Plaintiff hath alledged to lay in it 30. Tun weight wherby he was possessed and so possessed the said 30. day of July did put into the said Warehouse but 14. Tun weight of Merchandize and that the damages which the Plaintiff had by the breaking of the floor was because the floor at the time of the laying of the merchandise upon it also before the lease made to him therof was so rotten and a great part of the Wall upon which the said floor lyes so much decayed that for default of Reparations and supporting therof by those to whom the reparations did belong before the Lease therof made it suddainly brake which matter he is ready to aver Wherupon the Plaintiff demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Exchequer upon which a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber and the Error assigned was that the Iudgment ought to have been given for the Defendant because that now it appeareth that there was not any default in the Defendant for he was not to repair that which was so ruinous at the time of his Lease and therfore if it did bear so much lately before it cannot fall by the default of the Defendant in the weight put upon it but by the ruinousnes of the thing demised And yet by the advice of the Iustices the Iudgment was this Term affirmed for the Plaintiff hath alledged expresly that the floor brake by the weight of the Merchandize put upon it which ought to be confessed and avoided or traversed wheras here he answers but argumentatively to wit that it did bear more before therfore that he did not break it by this weight or that it was so ruinous that it brake Ergo not by the weight wheras here it is expresly alledged that it brake by the weight put upon it and if lesser weight had been put it would not have broken And he who takes such a ruinous house ought to mind well what weight he put into it at his perill so that it be not so much that another shall take any damage by it But if it had fallen of it self without any weight put upon it or that it had fallen by the default only of the posts in the Cellar which support the floor with which the
dies and afterwards John his Son and Heir dies without Issue the reversion by this descends to the said Christopher who dies leaving Issue And upon this Case made in the Court of Wards the two chief Iustices Popham and Anderson agreed first That upon the devise and death of the Father the said Christopher and William were Joynt-tenants of the Land and not Tenants in Common notwithstanding the word severally because it is coupled with the said word joyntly But yet they agreed also that by the descent from John to Christopher the Fee-simple was executed in the said Christopher for the Moyety in the same Mannor as if he had purchased the Reversion of the whole or of this Moyety and that it is not like to the Case where Land is given and to the Heirs of one of them in which case for the benefit of the Survivorship it is not executed to divide the Ioynture because the Estates are made at one and the same time together and therfore not like to the case where the Inheritance cometh to the particular Estate by severall and divided means And a Decree was made accordingly Trin. 36. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1. IT was agreed by all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer upon an Assembly made at Serjeants-Inn after search made for the ancient Presidents and upon good deliberation taken If a man have two houses and inhabit somtimes in one and somtimes in the other if that House in which he doth not then inhabity be broken in the night to the intent to steal the Goods then being in his house that this is Burglary although no person bee then in the House and that now by the new Statute made such an Offender shall not have his Clergy for before the Statutes were made which take away Clergy in case of Burglary where any person was put in fear no mention was made in the Inditements of Burglary that any person was in the House But it was generall that the house of such a one Noctanter fregit and such Goods then there Felonice cepit And the breaking of a Church in the night to steal the Goods there is Burglary although no person be in it because this is the place to keep the Goods of the Parish And in the same manner the house of every one is the proper place to preserve his Goods although no person be there And that the Law was alwaies so it is to be collected by the course of the Statutes therof made for first the Statute of 23 H. 8. doth not take Clergy from any in case of Burglary unlesse some of the same Family be in the house and put in fear And in 5 Eliz. 6. The Offendor shall be ousted of his Clergy if any of the Family be in the house be they sleeping or waking And these Statutes were the cause that it was used of late time to put in the Inditements of Burglary that some person of the Family was then in the house to put them from their Clergy But this doth not prove that it shall not be Burglary but where some person was in the house and by 18 Eliz. Clergy is taken away in all cases of Burglary generally without making mention of any person to be there which enforce the resolution aforesaid and according to it they all agreed hereafter to put it in Execution Finch versus Riseley 2. IN this Term the case betweeen Finch and Riseley was in question before all the Iustices and Barons for this assembled at Serjeants-Inn in Fleetstreet where after Arguments heard by the Councell of the parties upon this point only If the Queen make a Lease for years rendring Rent with a Proviso that the Rent be not paid at the day limited that the Lease shall cease without making mention that it was to be paid at the receit whether the Lease shall cease upon the default of payment before Office found therof And by Periam and some of the Iustices the Lease stall not cease untill an Office be found of the default because it is a matter in Fait which determines it to wit the not-payment And by Gawdy it shall be taken as if it had been for the not-payment that the Proviso had been that the Lease shall be forfeited In which case it is not detennined untill Re-entry made for the forfeiture which in the Queens case ought alwaies to be by Office which countervails the re-entry of a common person As where the Queen makes a Lease rendring Rent and for default of payment a Re-entry albeit the Rent be not paid yet untill Office found therof the Rent continues Popham Anderson and the greater part of the Iustices and Barons resolved that it was cleer in this case that Ipso facto upon the default of payment the Lease was determined according to the very purport of the contract beyond which it cannot have any beeing and therfore there needs no Office in the case But where it is that it shall be forfeited or that he shall re-enter there untill advantage taken of the forfeiture in the one case or untill re-entry made in the other case the Term alwaies continues by the contract And where in the case of a common person there is need of a re-entry to undo the Estate there in the case of the King there needs an Office to determine the Estate for an Office in the Kings case countervails an entry for the King in person cannot make the entry And upon this resolution of the greater part of the Iustices in Mich. Term 31 32 Eliz. the same case was in question in the Office of Pleas in the Exchequer between the said Moil Finch Plaintiff and Thomas Throgmorton and others Defendants and there adjudged by Manwood late chief Baron and all the other Barons unanimously after long argument at the Bar and Bench that the Lease was void upon default of payment of the Rent according to the Proviso of the Lease and this immediatly without Office for the reasens before remembred upon which Iudgment was given a Writ of Error was brought before the Lord Keeper of the great Seal and the Lord Treasurer of England where it long depended and after many arguments the Iudgment given in the Exchequer by the advice of Popham and Anderson was affirmed and that upon this reason for the Proviso shall be taken to be a limitation to determine the Estate and not a Condition to undo the Estate which cannot be defeated in case of a Condition but by entry in case of a common person and but by Office which countervails an entry in the case of the Queen And this Iudgment was so affirmed in Mich. Term 36 37 Eliz. Smiths Case 3 IT was found by Diem clausit extremum after the death of Richard Smith that in consideration of a marriage to be had between Margaret Smith and William Littleton a younger Son to Sir John Littleton Knight and of 1300. marks paid by the said Sir John to the said
alter the intendment that the Law hath otherwise of the words And Gawdy agreed also that in such cases the Defendant may plead the generall Issue and upon the matter also the Jury ought to find him not guilty But Popham and Clench sayd that this was a dangerous matter to be put in the mouthes of the Lay Gents as hath been said before and therfore to put it to the Iudgment of the Law by pleading And for the exception they ought to have shewn here where by whom and against whom the Petition was delivered to this they said that the exception was to no purpose for this was but a conveyance to the Speech used which Speech was the substance of the Bar and in this they put the case of the Lord Cromwell which was in this Court 22 Eliz. Rot. 752. In an Action upon the Statute of Scandalum Magnatum by him brought against Thomas Dye Clark for saying to the Lord Cromwel It is no news though you like not of me for you like of those that maintain Sedition against the Queens proceedings in which the Defendant said that he was Vicar of North Linham in the County of Norf. and that the Plaintff mentioned one Vincent Goodwyn Clark at such a time and one Iohn Trendle at such another time neither of them being licenced to preach in the said Church against the will of the said Defendant and shew how they severally preached there in their Sermons and shew certainly in what point Seditious Doctrine against the Laws of the Church as against the Crosse used in Baptisme and the wearing of the Surplice and that afterwards in speech therupon between the said Plaintiff and him the Plaintiff said to the Defendant That the Defendant was a false Knave and said in English words that he liked not of the Defendant wherupon the Defendant said the words comprised in the Declaration Innuendo That he liked of the said Goodwyn and Trendle who maintain Sedition Innuendo seditious Doctrine against the Queens proceedings Innuendo predict Leges Stat. Ecclâ—siae hujus regni Angl. c. And the Plaintiff was put to answer Scilicet de injuria sua propria absque tali causa c. And note in this case the Defendant would first have justified for the matter preached by one and it was not allowed by the Court but he was put to speak to both or otherwise it had not been good because his speeches were in the plurall number to wit That he liked of those which refers to more then to one And it was said in this case that the word Subject might have severall significations according to the circumstance wherupon it is spoken As Subiect generally without more is to be intended of the Queen but according to the circumstance it may be said Subject of England or Subject of Ireland or Subject to the Law or subject to any other authority or power set over him or subject to his Affections And if a man saith of another that he is a Subject and therfore he ought to serve the Queen in her Warrs and he answers that he is sorry for that and is grieved for it no Action wil lye for this because the grievance refers to service which is to be done and not to his Subjection as a Subject Dillon versus Fraine 9. IN Trespasse brought by William Dillon Esquire against John Fraine See this in Cook lib. 1. 120. bâ— the name of Chudleighs case for breaking of his Close at Tavestock in the County of Devon called Seden upon not guilty and a speciall Verdict the case appeared to be this to wit that Sir Richard Chudleigh Knight was seised in his Demesne as of Fee of the Mannor of Hescot with the Appurtenances in the County of Devon of which the said Close was parcel and so seised 26 April 3 4 Phil. Mar. by his Deed of Feoffment of the same date enfeoffed Sir Tho. Saintleger Knight and others and their Heirs of the said Mannor to the use of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh and his Heirs of the body of the said Elizabeth then the wife of Richard Bainfield Esquire lawfully begotten and for default of such Issue then to the use of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh and of his Heirs of the bodies of other wives of other persons lawfully begotten And for default of such Heirs then to the use of the performance of the Will of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh for 10. years after his decease and after the said Term finished then to the use of the said Sir John Saintleger and his Co-feoffees and their Heirs during the life of Christopher Chudleigh Son and Heir apparant of the said Sir Richard and after the death of the said Christopher then to the use of the first Issue Male of the body of the said Christopher and to the Heirs Males of the body of this first Issue Male and for default of such Issue to the second Issue Male of the body of the said Christopher to the Heirs Males of the body of this second Issue Male and so to the tenth Issue Male And for default of such Issue then to the use of Thomas Chudleigh another Son of the said Sir Richard and of the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten And for default of such Issue to the use of Oliver Chudleigh another Son of the said Sir Richard and of the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten And for default of such Issue to the use of Nicholas Chudleigh another Son of the said Sir Richard and of the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh for ever wherby they were seised accordingly after which the 17th of Novemb. 5 6. Phil. Mar. the said Sir Richard died without any Heir of the body of any of the wives before mentioned And after that the said Christopher took to wife one Christian Strecheley after which to wit the 14th day of August 1 Eliz. the said Sir John Saintleger and the other Feoffees by their Deed of the same date enfeoffed the said Christopher of the said Mannor to have and to hold to him and his Heirs for ever to the use of the said Christopher and his Heirs the said Oliver Chudleigh then being living after which to wit the 20th day of September 3 Eliz the said Christopher had Issue of his body lawfully begotten one Strechly Chudleigh his first Issue Male And after this to wit the 30. day of March 5 Eliz. the said Christopher had Issue of his body lawfully begotten one John Chudleigh his second Issue Male after which to wit the first day of July 6 Eliz. the said Christopher by his Deed indented of the same date and inrolled within six months according to the Statute bargained and sold the said Mannor to Sir John Chichester Knight and to his Heirs and in the interint also between the date of this Deed and in the inrolement therof to
made their Election to have the one or the other it is not to be granted over by generall words But by the dissolution of the Hospitall the grant for want of Election before is gone and determined And further wheras the King made his Grant of the Hospitall and of all the said rent of Fagots and Focals without making mention of 20 s. for the same it was moved that if it doth passe to the King yet it doth not passe from him to the Major c. in as much as he granted it precisely as a Fuell wheras it was in him as a Rent of Fuell or of money at his Election and therfore the King deceived in his Grant And further here he hath made Conusance for the Fuell without making mention of their Election to have it one way or another before the taking but all the Court agreed that the Conusance was good and that the return shall be awarded to him who made the Conusance first because that this case is quite out of the case of Election because the rent which is granted is only out of the Fagots and Astlewood and the 20 s. granted is not as a distinct thing but granted as a recompence or satisfaction of that because the Grant is of the Fagots c. or of 20 s. for the same so that in such a case the Seisin of the 20 s. is a good Seisin of the Fagots and Focals and sufficeth to maintain an Assise upon this Seisin for the Fuell but not for the 20 s. as money paid for Suit of Court is good Seisin of the Suit And the 20 s. here is not granted in nature of a Rent of so much but as an allowance in satisfaction for the Fuell And Popham conceived that he shall have an Action of debt for this 20 s. for the fuell after the Election made if he will as for a Nomine poene because it is not the principall thing granted of which the Inheritance is but a casuall Accident in recompence therof if he will have it or otherwise he may distrain for it because it is so limited to be done by the Grant it self But they shall never have assurance of the 20 s. as a thing of Inheritance because it is not the thing of which the Inheritance is granted but only granted in allowance and satisfaction of it and therfore not to be resembled to the cases where 20. quarters of Corn or 20 s. Rent is granted to one and his Heirs or other such thing which stands meerly in the disjunctive to wit to have or take the one or the other And therfore suppose the Prior was to carry the Fuell yearly to the Hospitall at the Feast of S. Michael and yet then the Master and Brethren might have refused the Fuell and held themselves to have the 20 s. by force of the Grant for then originally the Election ought to have been made there But upon the Covenant which cometh afterwards on the other part the notice ought to have been given in April yearly before but if it be not done there lies but an Action of Covenant for the not doing of it for this will not alter the nature of the Grant which was full and perfect in Law before And here he needs not make this appearance in the Conusance that any Election was made before the taking of the Cattel because the Grant is of the Fuell it self and if the other had made Election before to have the 20 s. for the Fuell this ought to have been shewn on the other side in Bar of the Avowry to wit that he brought to them the Fuell yearly according to the Grant and that they refused it and required the 20 s. every time for it in which case for every such refusall and Election to have the 20 s. for it it had excluded him to have any Fuell for this year so refused And by Popham also you may see a great diversity between this case where a man is to deliver to another 20. Loads of Wood or 20. Loads of Hay yearly out of such Land and he does not tender them for divers years and where a man is to take so much Fuell or Hay out of the Land of another and he takes it not for divers years for in the former case the party who is not satisfied shâ—ll have all the arrears be it never so prejudiciall to the Grantor because it was through his own default that it was not paid but in the other case as appeareth 27 H. 6. 10. he shall not have any remedy for the arrears for the years past because he took them not yearly as they were due which shâ—ll not turn the other party to prejudice that he shall want Fuell or Hay himself by reason of the arrears which hapned through the default of him who ought to take it and the Iudgment was given for him who made the Conusance and it is entred in the Kings Bench Mich. 33. 34. Eliz. Rot. 229. Southwells Case 5. AT the end of this Term upon the proceeding against Southwell the Iesuite it was moved by the Attorney-general to Popham chief Iustice the Master of the Rolls Periam chief Baron Walmsley and Owen Iustices and Ewens one of the Barons of the Exchecquer upon the form of Indictments upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. for Iesuits c If it need be comprehended in the Indictment of a Iesuite who cometh into the Realm of England or any Dominions of the Queen or shall be taken therin 40. daies after the end of this Session of Parliament that if he doth not submit himself within three daies of his landing if he cometh in after the 40. daies according to the Proviso of the Statute or that he was not so infirm of his body where he came in before the 40. daies that he was not able to passe out of the Realm by the time prescribed at first because that it is comprised in the body of the Act that it shall not be lawfull for any Iesuite c. being born within this Realm or any other the Queens Dominions made after the Feast of S. John Baptist in the first year of her Raign or after this to be made by any authority derived c. from the See of Rome to come be or remain in any part of this Realm c. otherwise then in such speciall cases and upon such speciall occasions and for such time only which is expressed in this Act and if he does that this offence shall be adjudged high Treason c. And after deliberation taken and consideration and conference amongst themselves had they all resolved that the better course was to omit this in the Indictment notwithstanding it be comprised in the body of the Act in the same manner as if it had been only in a Proviso in which case it is to the Prisoner to help him by means of such a Proviso if he can do it for the words other then c. are
very plain case Crew chief Iustice agreed and in his argument he affirmed what Jones said that a generall Iudgment shall not be given against the Heir if he do not plead falsly that he hath no Assets and not upon Nihil dicit And so Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff shall have Execution of the Moyety of the Lands discended to the Defendant and so note the diversity of debt against the Heir and Scire facias against the Heir Dickenson versus Greenhow Hill 1. Car. In the Kings Bench Intr. Hill 18. Jac. Rot. 189. IN an Attachment upon a Prohibition the Plaintiff declared that where Robert the last Abbot of Cokersham in Lancashire was seised in Fee of three acres of Land parcel of his Monastery and that the Abbot and his Com-monks and all the Predecessors of the Abbot were time out of mind of the order and rule of Praemonstratenses and that the order of Praemonstratenses and all Monks therof were time out of mind discharged of payment of tithes for their Lands and Tenements Quamdiu manibus propriis aut sumptubus excolâ—bant And that the said Abbot and all his Predecessors time out of mind had holden the said three acres discharged of payment of Tithes Quamdiu c. and so held them untill the dissolution of the Monastery and shew the surrender to H. 8. and the Statute of 31 H. 8 by force wherof H. 8. was seised and held them discharged and from him derive them to E. 6. and from E. 6. to Queen Mary and from her to Queen Elizabeth and from her in the 42. year of her Raign to Wagstaff and from him by mean conveyances to Dickenson the Plaintiff Quorum pretextu he was seised and enjoyed them in Propria manurantia and shew the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. wherby it is enacted that Tithes shall be paid as usually they were c. Quorum pretextu the Plaintiff held the three acres discharged of Tithes and that notwithstanding and against the Prohibition the Defendant did draw him into Plea for them in Court Christian and the Iudge therof held plea and the Defendant did there prosecute him to the disinherison of the Crown And upon this the Defendant demurred and prayed a consultation And Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant argued for the Defendant that a Consultation should be granted because that his matter of discharge is double 1. His Priviledge 2. The prescription and if either of them will not help him then he ought to be charged For the Priviledge he took it that the Praemonstratenses never had such a priviledge It is a Maxime in Law All Lands chargable with Tithes that all persons ought to pay Tithes and all Lands shall be charged with them of common right but also there are divers discharges of them and allowed by our Law as is manifest by the orders of Templers Hospitalers and Cistertians which discharges our Law allows and these are 1. By prescription 2. By reall composition 3. By priviledge obtained and that by two wais 1. Either by the Bull of the Pope for he taking upon himself to be the great Dispensâ—r and Steward of the Church took upon him to discharge them but this as it is holden by the Canon he could not absolutely do but might divert them to a Clergy-man or grant to another to hold them by way of retainer and this ought to be to a Clergy-man also Or 2. By a generall Counsell for some orders were discharged by generall Counsels So some obtained Priviledges by the Popes Bulls which are his Patents some by Counsels which are as his Statutes and Decrees were as Iudgments but yet none of them had ever any force in our Law nor did bind us in England more then voluntarily retained and approved by usage and custom for as it is said in 11 H 4. the Pope cannot alter the Law of England and this is evident for in all cases where the Bulls or Constitutions of the Pope crosse the Law of the Land they have alwaies been rejected The Popes Bulls of four sorts as for instance 1 In the Bulls which are of four sorts 1. Of Provision 2. Of Citation 3. Of Exemption And 4. Of Excommunication And as for those of Excommunication it appeareth that it was Treason at Common Law and that the Treasurer did kneel to E. 2. for one who brought them in and in the perpetuall course of the Books afterwards they have alwaies been disallowed in Pleas. So his Bulls of Citation before the Statute of Provision was a hainous offence and so are Bulls of Provision and Exemption For his Canons where they were against the Law they were neglected It appeareth by the Canon Quod nullus capiat beneficium a Laico and yet notwithstanding continued long after for Benefices and does yet for Bishopricks that the Clergy shall take them from the King and a lay-hand And also there is a Canon for exemption of Clarks out of temporall Iurisdiction but yet as Brain saith 10 H. 7. 18. it was never observed here So the Canon saith that the time of the Laps shall be accounted Per septimanas but our Law not regarding this saith that it shall be accounted Per menses in the Calender as it is expresly adjudged in 5 E. 3. Rot. 100. Rot. claus in turri And there is a great reason for it as it is in 29 H. 3. memb 5. in turri It is not necessary for Bishops of England to go to generall Councells so as in Parliament those that do not â—end Knights or Burgesses shall not be bound by Statutes And the Counsels of Lyons of Bigamis c. are expounded by Statutes how they shal be taken so that it they have a Priviledge as in truth they have by the Popes Bulls if it were not allowed in England they are not of force to priviledge them against the Common Law of the Land for payment of Tithes but this was never here allowed And now for the Prescription this cannot help them for Monks are not of Evangelicall Priesthood to wit capable of Tithes in the Pernamy but meerly Lay-men and then as the Bishop of Winchesters case is they cannot prescribe in non decimando And Bede saith of them that they are Merè laici so that if their Priviledge were allowed their Prescription will not help them The priviledge of Praemonstratenses was by the Counsell generall of for their discharge which denies that all religious persons should be discharged of Tithes of Lands in their own hands Quamdiu c. But afterwards Adrian restrained it to Templars Hospitalars and Cistertians omitting the Praemonstratenses and the decree of Adrian was received also wherby the Law took notice of the discharge of the said three Orders True it is that the Praemonstratenses have a Bull of Pope Innocent the third of discharge and as large liberties as the Cistertians but they never put this in ure And it seems 1. That there were of them 29. Abbots