Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	affair_n	great_a	king_n	2,752	5	3.4774	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64839	The reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt., late one of the justices of the Common-pleas in two parts : the first part containing select cases adjudged in the Kings-Bench, in the reign of K. Charles II, with three learned arguments, one in the Kings-Bench, by Sir Francis North, when Attorney General, and two in the Exchequer by Sir Matthew Hale, when Lord Chief Baron : with two tables, one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters : the second part containing choice cases adjudged in the Common-pleas, in the reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II and in the three first years of the reign of His now Majesty K. William and the late Q. Mary, while he was a judge in the said court, with the pleadings to the same : also several cases and pleadings thereupon in the Exchequer-Chamber upon writs of error from the Kings-Bench : together with many remarkable and curious cases in the Court of Chancery : whereto are added three exact tables, one of the cases, the other of the principal matters, and the third of the pleadings : with the allowance and approbation of the Lord Keeper an all the judges.	Ventris, Peyton, Sir, 1645-1691.; Guilford, Francis North, Baron, 1637-1685.; Hale, Matthew, Sir, 1609-1676.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1696 (1696)	Wing V235; ESTC R7440	737,128	910

Court for the proceedings are diverso respectu We proceed against Conventicles as being against the Peace and as being against the Laws of the Church and to prevent the broaching of Heterodor Opinions as in one Court we do agere civiliter by Action criminaliter by Information for the same matter Secondly The proceeding in this Case is according to the constant course of proceeding in their Court for when a Presentment is made they form Articles thereupon tibi articulamur objicimus c. but they never recite or mention the Presentment in the Articles and therefore it does not nor need it appear in them in this Case So that it cannot from hence he concluded to be a prosecution ex Officio mero Moreover 25 H. 8. when it was in force concerned Heresie only As to the Presentment made in this Case by the Curate 1. Those Canons are not to be questioned they have been always allowed having been confirmed by the King 2. The Rectors absence shall be intended 3. The Churchwardens themselves whose ancient and unquestioned Office it is to make Presentments don't take a particular Oath upon all the Presentments they make but they do it by vertue of their general Oath of Churchwardens and Ministers do the same as the Bishop of Sarum present in Court had asserted just before in verbo Sacerdotis or rather by vertue of their general Oath of Canonical Obedience 4. They are not bound to specifie the Presentment in their Articles and this is not so liable to the Objection of Mischief and Vnreasonableness as the Informations daily brought in the Kings-Bench in the Name of the Clerk of the Crown which Informations are approved and preserved by the very Statute of 18 Eliz. c. 5. And if there be no due Presentment 't is an Error which consists in not proceeding according to their Rules i. e. the Canon Law and the proper remedy for that is by Appeal and our Courts will not take notice whether they observe their own Laws Prohibitions are only to be granted when the Common Law is invaded and interfered with Thirdly As to the examining of the Party upon Oath here is no cause to mention it and indeed it is not their course for they only ask him ore tenus whether he will confess or deny the Articles if he deny them then there is litis contestatio and they proceed to examine Witnesses to prove it and if it be not proved the Informer is condemned in Costs Justice Wyld I am of Opinion that there should go no Prohibition We must Iudge only upon the Suggestion Here 't is suggested that the Defendant proceeded against the Plaintiff ex Officio but that may be understood two ways either that he proceeded officiose on his own head or that he proceeded out of Duty according to his Duty and nothing appears to the contrary of this last and then he did as he ought If the Plaintiff had suggested that by the Law of the Land there ought to be a Presentment by such persons in such manner c. he might have brought that into question Archer of the same Opinion We must give faith and credit to their proceedings and presume that they are according to their Law 4 Co. 29 The King with the Convocation may make Orders and Constitutions for the Government of the Church Tyrrell of the same Opinion But if the Suggestion were that no Presentment by a Curate were sufficient nor unless it were upon Oath c. I should have been Opinion for a Prohibition I hold that the King and Convocation without the Parliament can't make any Canons which shall bind the Laity though they may the Clergy Vid. 35 H. 8. c. 19. Vaughan of the same Opinion If the Articles were exhibited meerly ex Officio i.e. out of the mind of the Chancellor himself they were not warrantable But there is no colour for this Suggestion for they appear to be the Information of a Publick Notary As to the Presentment which is thought requisite by the preamble of 25 H. 8. c. 14. declaratory of the Common Law or not it is sufficient Answer to say that the Act is repealed and therein the Preamble And for ought any man knows the Preamble was the Cause of the Repeal this has been the only specious Objection As to the Canons 3 Jacobi certainly they are of force tho' never confirmed by Act of Parliament Indeed no Canons of England stand confirmed by Act of Parliament yet they are the Laws which bind and govern in Ecclesiastick Affairs The Convocation with the License and assent of the King under the Great Seal may make Canons for regulation of the Church and that as well concerning Laicks as Ecclesiasticks and so is Linwood Indeed they cannot alter or infringe the Common Law Statute Law or Kings Prerogative but they may make alterations viz. in Eccleastical Matters or else they could make no new Canons All that is required of them in making of new Canons is that they confine themselves to Church Matters As no Human Law can be made which is contrary to the Divine Law and it is binding only in those things which are permissa by the Divine Law So no Canon Law can be made which is repugnant to the Law of the Land The Subject Matter is in the Case The permissa the things of Ecclesiastical Nature which are left indifferent by the Law of the Land in this Case we must presume there was a Presentment according to their Law if not the Remedy is by Appeal We ought not to assume the Iurisdiction of Iudging upon their Law but give way to their course of Proceedings Serjeant Ellis I only intended that Canons cannot be made to alter the Law without Parliament Curia We all agree as to the First Exception that the Spiritual Court may proceed against Conventicles as a Spiritual Offence tho' not as a Civil As to the Second That they have Conusans of all False Worshippers As to the Third That there is nocolour or occasion to make it Note The Course of the Spiritual Court is not to make a Significavit until forty days after the Excommunication General Citation is a cause of Prohibition for it ought to be expressed for what Cause But this is cured by Appearance or Appeal Termino Paschae Anno 1 Willielmi Mariae In Communi Banco Anonymus UPon a Suggestion of Devastavit of a Feme Executrix it was That the Baron and Feme devastaver ' converter ' ad usum ipsorum And upon the Issue it was found accordingly It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That they could not Convert to their own use And so in Trover and Conversion Quod converter ' ad usum ipsorum is not good Sed non allocatur For here the material part of the Issue was the Wasting which the Baron and Feme might do joyntly and the Conversion is nothing to the purpose Vid. 2. Sand. Issue upon a Devastavit Anonymus

was found in the Office The Countess also was alive at that time and so could not be seised into the Kings hands And as to the Statute of 7 Jacobi it is plain that it means a Naturalization by Parliament here for it appoints the Lord Chancellor or Keeper to Administer the Oaths if the Bill begin in the House of Lords and the Speaker to do it if it begin in the House of Commons And of this Opinion was Vaughan in these three last things tho' in the Principal Matter he agreed with the other two Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno 22 Car. II. In Communi Banco Thoms Harrison Ux ' versus Dr. Burwell IN an Action for suing in the Spiritual Court after a Prohibition sued out and delivered the Plaintiff sets forth that by an Act of Parliament made in the 32 H. 8. c. 38. it was enacted c. That from the first day c. all and every such Marriages as within this Church of England should be contracted between lawful persons as by this Act they declared all persons to be lawful that be not prohibited by Gods Law to marry such Marriages being Contracted and Solemnized in the face of the Church and consummate with Bodily Knowledge c. should be c. deemed judged and taken to be lawful good just and indissoluble notwithstanding any precontract c. and notwithstanding any Dispensation Prescription Law or other thing granted or confirmed by Act or otherwise and that no Reservation or Prohibition Gods Law except should trouble or impeach any Marriage without the Levitical Degrees and that no person of what Estate Condition or Degree whatsoever he or she be should c. be admitted to any of the Spiritual Courts within this the Kings Realm or any his Graces other Lands and Dominions to any Process Plea or Allegation contrary to this foresaid Act. And sets forth further That one Abbot had Issue Robert and Bartholomew that Robert had Issue Mary who married Robert Harrison and by him had Issue Thomas the Plaintiff that Bartholomew took to Wife Jane Brown who is now the other Plaintiff and that Bartholomew died without Issue and that then the Plaintiffs intermarried they say that he and she were free from any Marriage or Contract with any other person and the Marriage was solemnized according to the Orders and Rules of the Church and that this is a good Marriage by the Laws of God and Man and that A. B. a Notary intending to dissolve this Marriage contrary to the said Act cited the Plaintiffs before Dr. Burwell and articled against them in this manner That within the Jurisdiction c. reciting the Alliance c. and that the said T. H. took the said Jane Abbot to Wife de facto cum de jure non potuit nec debuit and so they committed Incest c. Hereupon Dr. Burwell Demurs and prays a Consultation It had been divers tunes argued at the B●r and now Vaughan Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court in this manner Vaughan 'T is the pleasure of my Brothers that I deliver their Opinion in this Case and what I do deliver I do not deliver as their Opinion only but as the Opinion of all the Iudges of England for they have met together by the Kings Command several times to debate and consider of this Case and they all agree that no Consultation be granted This is a Case of great expectation and perhaps the only Case which has been solemnly resolved since the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made there are but three Cases concerning it Man's Case 1 Cro. 228. Mo. 907. Parson's Case 1 Inst 235. and Remington's Case Hob. 181. I must in the first place premise that perhaps if we the Iudges had been makers of the Law this Question had not been but we are to proceed upon the Laws as made and cannot alter them This is not a thing of our promotion and this I speak to satisfie such as might object against us This Statute was made in a time when the Popes Power was warmly pursued and Laws were then made which in the circumstances of another time would not have been made I will first give the Reasons the Iudges went upon in their Resolution and then I will also give some Reasons to satisfie People abroad for I know the Case will meet with many censures First Of the former Antiently the Kings Temporal Courts had nothing to do with the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Marriage it was wholly of Ecclesiastical Conisance the Statute de Circumspecte agatis is that the Temporal Iudges should not punish the Spiritual Courts for holding Pleas of those things quae mere sunt spiritualia viz. pro Fornicatione Adulterio hujusmodi and Sir Ed. Coke 2 Inst 488. expounding those words Et hujusmodi he says and he says very right that these are to be taken for Offences of like nature as the two Offences here particularly expressed be viz. as sollicitation of any Womens Chastity which is lesser than these and for Incest which is greater Here is an undoubted evidence that the Temporal Courts used to prohibit c. and the ancientness of that is unquestioned but it seems they did border in their Prohibitions sometimes upon things which were Spiritual which they ought not to have done There was no time but in which some Marriages were lawful and some unlawful but if a man were formerly questioned about such a matter he had no relief from the Temporal Courts By the Ancient Common Law Marriages were unlawful as far as they had names of Kindred viz. to the fourth Degree from Cousin Germans inclusively and therein it irritated the Civil Law but in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the 3d it was ordained thus Sancitum est prohibitionem copulationis conjugalis quartum gradum non excedere and so it stands in all places under the Common Law at this day in Popish Countries with us it has received alteration by this Statute in this matter there is a Reason very much sticks with many viz. That the Temporal Courts are not skilled in the Laws by which this is to be judged and therefore that it is not fit that they should determine concerning it 'T is true the word Cognitio signifies both but yet there is a great difference between Skill and Cognizance But I say further That the Temporal Iudges may well enough have both for though the knowledge of the Canon Law be not adequatum subjectum to a Common Lawyer yet 't is commune subjectum There are four Statutes which have made great alteration in the Cognisance of this matter 25 H. 8. 22. 28 H. 8. c. 7. 28 H. 8. c. 16. and this of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The first indeed is repeased because it was interwoven with matter of Succession of the Crown c. which was set aside But the Second viz. 28 H. 8. cap. 7. is syllabically the same as to this purpose the words are

c. adjudged the paying the 10 l was a Condition precedent 5 or 15 H. 7. 10. is our Case in Point if the Plaintiff had alledged that he had offered to work and the Defendant had hindred him it had been good The want of the Averment is not helped by the Verdict for 32 H. 8. extends not to Declarations or Avowry's but only to Pleading if otherwise there had béen no need of 21 Jac. cap. 13. to cure the want of averring the Parties Life Twisden Contra. There is no need of the Averrment there being Reciprocal promises upon which the Parties have mutual remedies and relyed upon the case 1 Roll. 46. Rainsford agreed with Hale Et Ajornatur Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 23 24 Car. II. In Banco Regis Harwoods Case HE was committed to Newgate by the Court of Orphans and upon an Habeas Corpus it was returned That the City of London is an ancient City and that time out of mind the Mayor and Aldermen have had the custody of Orphans within the City until the Age of 21 or Marriage and that there hath been time out of mind a Court of Record called the Court of Orphans holden before them having Conusance of all matters concerning Orphans and that they had power to give Licence to Marry a Woman which was their Orphan or to deny it upon reasonable cause and if any one did Marry such Orphan without Licence first had from the said Court that they might impose a reasonable Fine upon him and if he should refuse to pay it or to give Security to commit him to Prison It was also returned That Harwood did Marry such an Orphan without Licence first obtained whereupon he being present in Court they fined him 40 l and he refusing to pay it or give Security was committed To this return First it was objected That this Custom shall not bind Strangers in 1 Cro. 689. Deanes Case who was imprisoned for refusing to find Sureties for the Good Behaviour which was demanded of him because he called an Alderman Fool. It was returned That if a Freeman commit such an Offence c. So in Andrews Case in Hutton 30. one was Imprisoned for not giving Security for the payment of a Legacy devised by his Testator to an Orphan he is returned to be a Freeman Secondly This Custom as returned is unreasonable for it would oblige Strangers at what distance soever from London who cannot take notice who are Orphans of the City yet they should incur a penalty by Marrying them without leave from the City and they have not returned that Harwood Married the Orphan within the City and therefore it must be intended that he did not and in all other Points most advantagiously for him in regard he cannot shew the truth of his Case by pleading to the Return In an Action upon the Statute of Labourers the Plaintiff declared That he retained a Servant at London and that the Defendant retained him within the Term he had contracted with him for The Defendant pleaded that he found him vagrant in another County and there retained him and held that it was a good plea for he was not bound to take notice of a retenier by the Plaintiff when it was in another County 17 E. 4. 7. b. The difference is taken between Customs general such as Gavelkind and private particular Customs the one everyone shall take notice of but not the other 3 Cro. Launder and Brooks Case The Court of Orphans is a particular Iurisdiction and not to be extended all over England and it appears by the Books that they may have a Ravishment of Ward F.N. B. 142 B. Hob. 95. which therefore seems to be their proper remedy rather than the course they have now taken Thirdly The Custom is unreasonable that they should impose the Fine who are to have it and so to be Iudges and Parties Fourthly It was alledged That the Fine was unreasonable which is not to be proportioned to the Portion the Orphan is to have which was shewn in the Return to be 800 l but to the crime for it doth not appear that the City is to have the value of the Marriage or any benefit by it and in this Case there was no disparagement for his quality deserved such a Portion and he had the consent of her Friends But notwithstanding these Exceptions to the Return it was resolved by all the Court that he should be remanded As to the 1 that it is not returned Harwood is a Freeman the Court resolved that it is not material for in many Cases Strangers are bound by the Customs of London as that of Foreign bought and Foreign sold was resolved to be a good Custom 15 Car. 2. between Hutchins and Players in Communi Banco 2. Tho' it appears the Marriage was in a Foreign County and not shewn that he had Notice it is all one for if that might be an excuse the Government of Orphans by the City of London would be utterly insignificant for it would be only to seduce the Orphan out of the Liberties of the City and whatever practice there were to disparage her in a Marriage it would be dispunishable by them and Notice in this case is impossible to be given but most easie to be taken for what more proper than for a Man to inform himself of the Condition of her whom he intends to make his Wife and if Notice were requisite it must be given to all the Men in England capeable of Marriage and in what manner should that be by fixing it like a Proclamation to some notorious place in the County Yet it would be then hard to maintain that a Man was bound to take notice of such a thing the Statute of this King that takes away the Court of Wards saves and confirms the Iurisdiction of the Court of Orphans in London which being in a general Law is within every mans Notice for the Case of taking away a Mans Servant in a Foreign County to that he was retained in is not like to this for it he be detained after demand made he which first retained him may have an Action and so is at no loss but here there is no remedy by undoing the Marriage and therefore 't is fit the rashness of it should be punished This Custom concerning Orphans is not confined to the Walls of London in many particulars All the Children of a Freeman tho' he dies and they were born out of London shall yet be Orphans If a Legacy be bequeathed to a City Orphan in any Foreign County the Executor c. shall be compelled to give Security to the Court of Orphans for the payment of it Et vid. Luch's Case in Hob. 247. The interest of the City adheres to the person of the Orphan where ever he is as a Citizen of London shall have his personal Priviledges in all places as exemption from Toll Prisage Quaere the last per Hale And as well as they may have a Ravishment

is very clear For tho' in M. Portington's Case in 10 Co. 't is said that the word Condition shall not in a Will be taken as a Limitation yet the Current of the Authorities since are otherwise But here the Court held the Condition void for a man cannot be restrained from an Attempt to Alien For non constat what shall be judged an Attempt and how can it be tryed And when the express words are so there shall not be made another sort of Condition than the Will imports And so the Judgment was affirmed Osborn versus Beversham DEbt for Rent incurred at two Half years As to one of them the Defendant pleaded non debet And as to the other Actio non because he says He was ready to pay it at the Day and Place and has been ever since profert in Cur ' the Rent ideo petit Judicium de damnis To which the Plaintiff Demurred For that he did not say quod obtulit for where the Time and Place of Payment is certain Semper paratus is no Plea without an Obtulit For the Defendant it was said That the Plaintiff ought to reply to a Demand 1 Inst 34. 'T is a good Plea for the Heir in Dower to save his Damages to say That he was always ready Rastal's Entries 159. Semper paratus is pleaded without an Obtulit So 1 Rolls 573. no mention made of a Tender But then another Fault was found that it was pleaded in Bar whereas it ought to have been only in Bar of Damages and not to the Action and this was agreed to be fatal But the Court held the Plea to be naught for the other Cause also Anonymus IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the Case was A man Devised his Land to J. S. after the death of his Wife And after Argument the whole Court were of Opinion that J.S. not being Heir to the Devisor there should go no implied Estate to the Wife for an Heir shall not be defeated but by a necessary Implication Anonymus AN Action for Words for that the Defendant said of the Plaintiff He would have given Dean Money to have Robbed Golding's House and he did Rob the House After Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the first part of the words import only an Inclination and not that he did give any Money And the words He did Rob the House shall be referred to Dean as the last antecedent and not the Plaintiff But the Court were of Opinion for the Plaintiff as was Adjudged where the words were He lay in wait to Rob. Vid. Cockain's Case in the 1 Cro. and in the 4 Co. And the Court said the Words might be construed That the Plaintiff offered Dean Money and he refusing it that the Plaintiff robbed the House himself Smith versus Tracy THe Case being moved again the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Half-Blood should come in for Distribution upon the new Act For as to the granting of Administration the being of Guardian c. the Half-Blood may be taken nearer of Kin than a more remote Kinsman of the Whole Blood Mo. 635 Ro. Rep. 114. Ante. J 's Case J. Brings his Habeas Corpus The Return was that he was Committed by J. S. J. N. T. K. to whom and others a Commission of Bankrupt was awarded for refusing to answer a Question put to him concerning the Bankrupt's Estate c. and so Commissus fuit in custodia by a Warrant to the Officer Virtute Commissionis praedictae haec est causa captionis seu detentionis c. The Counsel for the Prisoner took three Exceptions to the Return First For that there did not appear a sufficient Authority For the Commission is said to be granted to them and others and then they could not act without the rest for the Return does not express any Quorum c. in the Commission Secondly Instead of Commissus in custodia it ought to be Captus for that is the usual Form For this is as if the Commitment were by the Officer that makes the Return Thirdly Haec est causa captionis seu detentionis is uncertain for it ought to be detentionis And upon the first and last Exception the Prisoner was Discharged by the Court but at the same time was told by the Court That he must answer directly to such Questions as were put to him in order to the discovery of the Bankrupts Estate or else he was liable to be Committed Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 29 30 Car. II. In Banco Regis Harrington's Case AN Information was preferred against him for that he maliciously and traiterously intending to stir up Sedition and to create a Disturbance between the King and his People upon Discourse of the late Rebellion and those Persons which were Executed at Charing-Cross for the Murder of the late King in praesentia audita quamplurium utteravit propalavit haec verba pernitiosa sequentia viz. Gubernatio nostra consistebat de tribus statibus si eveniret Rebellio in Regno nisi foret Rebellio contra omnes Status non est Rebellio Vpon Not Guilty pleaded he was found Guilty of speaking the precedent Words and Not guilty as to other Words contained in the Information It was moved in Arrest of Judment that Gubernatio signified the Exercise and Administration of the Government and not the State of it which Regimen doth Again That it was Consistebat and so might relate to the Britons or Saxons Time or to the late mutations of the Form of Government amongst us and that to put the words in Latin without an Anglicè was not to be allowed for the Translation might either aggravate or mitigate the Sense And that such a President might be prejudicial as well to the King as the Defendant But those Exceptions finding little weight with the Court his Counsel proceeded to justifie or at least to extenuate the Words alledging That the Relation was so great between the King and People that to raise a Rebellion against the King must also affect the other States and this whether the King be taken as some would have it as one of the Three Estates or as others that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal make two of the Estates and the Commons the third and the King as Chief and Head of all as is the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords and Commons call themselves the Queens Obedient Subjects Representing the Three Estates of the Realm of England and so is the 4 Inst 1. But the Court supposing that the Words did tend to set on Foot that Position upon which the War Levied in 1641. by the Two Houses against the King was grounded were much displeased that the Counsel would pretend to defend them or put any tolerable Sense upon them It was also insisted upon by the King's Counsel and agreed by the Court that the Ancient Presidents and many latter also were to express the

and therefore Henry the First is accounted the Founder he Endowed it with three Hides of Land Richard the First gave them the Mannor of Cirencester and the Seven Hundreds at the Farm of 30 l per annum The Charter of Exemption mentioned in the Verdit was made by King John who Confirmed the Grant of Richard the First at the same Farm This you shall find in Chartae Antiquae Letter G. for the Book goes by Letters Number 9 and the Letter M. in Number 12. Secondly The next thing to be considered is an Hundred Of old time Hundreds were parcel of the Crown belonging of Common Right to the King 11 H. 6. 89. pl. 44. by the Grant of an Hundred there did not pass only a Liberty which had a Court and also commonly a Leet which is called the Leet of the Hundred But there was also an implied Power of making a Bayliff The Bayliff had a double Office First He had the Collection of Perquisites Amerciaments Fees Ancient Duties as Beupleader Head Silver c. belonging to the Hundreds in some places Secondly He had another Office and that was relating to the Sheriff In Ancient time the Bayliffs of the Hundreds were the immediate Bayliffs of the King for the Execution of Process Vid. the Statute of Sheriffs made at Lincoln 9 Ed. 2. the second Statute there 't is said that the Execution of Writs that come to the Sheriffs shall be done by Hundredors i. e. Lords or rather Bayliffs of the Hundred sworn and known in the full County c. which is Confirmed 2 E. 3. cap. 4. and 14 E. 3. cap. 9. This thing of Farming out Hundreds to persons thus grew to be a great Inconvenience For the Hundreds which were of the County and did belong to the Sheriff there was no Inconvenience the Sheriff did sometimes Account as Custos sometimes per Manus Then those many Provisions were made viz. 2 E. 3. cap. 12. whereas all the Counties in England were in Old time Assessed to a certain Farm and then were all the Hundreds and Wapentakes in the Sheriffs Hand rated to this Farm and after were Approvers sent into divers Counties which did increase the Farms of some Hundreds and Wapentakes And after the Kings at divers times have granted to many men part of the same Hundreds and Wapentakes for the old Farms only And now of late the Sheriffs are wholly charged of the Increase which amounteth to a great Sum to the great hurt of the People and ditherison of the Sheriffs and their Heirs It is Ordained that the Hundreds and Wapentakes set to Farm by the King that now is be it for Term of Life or otherwise which were sometimes annexed to the Farms of the Counties where the Sheriffs be charged shall be adjoyned again to the Counties and that the Sheriffs and their Heirs have Allowance for the Time that is past and that from henceforth such Hundreds and Wapentakes shall not be given nor severed from the Counties Then 14 E. 3. cap. 4. Whereas many Mischiefs be happened throughout the Realm for that Sheriffs have lett the Hundreds and Wapentakes to a higher Farm than they do yield to the King and the Farmers do lett the same to others at higher and greater Sums in such manner that by the letting and enhancing of the Farms and by the greater number of Bayliffs Errants Outriders and others whom the Sheriffs Bayliffs and Hundredors do put in the People be in divers manners charged and grieved It is assented and accorded That from henceforth all the Wapentakes and Hundreds which be severed from the Counties shall be rejoyned to the same Counties as before this time hath been established by another Statute and that the Sheriffs hold the same in their own Hands and put in such Bayliffs and Hundredors having Lands within the same Bayliffs and Hundreds for whom they will Answer And if they will Lett any Hundreds Bayliwicks or Wapentakes to Farm they shall lett the same at the ancient Farm without any thing increasing and that the King and his People be served by such Bayliffs and Hundredors and their Under Bayliffs in avoiding for ever the Outriders and others which in divers Counties before this time have notoriously grieved the People And that no Bayliff Errant be but in the County where Bayliffs Errants have been in times past in the time of the King's Grandfather that now is and that there be no more but one Bayliff Errant in one County And in the same manner it is assented That all other of what Estate or Condition they be which have Bayliwicks or Hundreds in Fee if they the same will hold in their own Hands then they shall put in such Bayliffs for whom they will Answer and if they will lett the same in Farm to other then they shall lett the same at the ancient Farm without any thing increasing as aforesaid is said c. For the Sheriffs did Farm at a certain Rate and did Account for it in the Exchequer and this was called Firma Ballivarum Hundreds were either parcel of the County and there the Sheriff did constitute Bayliffs these Hundreds which were anciently parcel of the Farm of the Sheriffs that the Stat. of the 2 Ed. 3. cap. 12. speaks of or else they were such as were granted out which the Lord of the Hundred held sometimes at Farm and sometimes in Fee called Hundreds of Fee Liberties of Hundreds Franchises of Hundreds It was found that a great Inconvenience grew from the severing of Hundreds from the Counties The Statute intended that the Sheriff should execute Writs c. and it was unreasonable that he should have Bayliffs put upon him and yet be bound to Execute c. therefore the Statute intended to reconcile this as far as it could well and to restore as many of the Hundreds as could well be to the Sheriff Thirdly I come to the Third thing to be Explained and Considered viz. the Liberty of Retorna Brevium This is a superadded Liberty tho' the Hundreds were granted yet the Sheriff might and must still Return the Writs executed there This Liberty was commonly annexed to the Grants of Hundreds tho' sometimes of Mannors it is acquirable by Grant and I think by Prescription tho' that has been a Doubt But 8 H. 4. c. 7. pl. 10. speaks of Retorna Brevium by Prescription Vid. Mo. 670. contr And it was Adjudged it might be so in the Quo Warranto brought by the Queen against the Earl of Shrewsbury for Retorna Brevium and other Liberties claimed by the Earl in Coleharborow in London You wil find the Pleading in the New Entries Quo Warranto pl. 2. Mich. 41 42 Eliz. in Banco Regis 'T is true It was Adjudged against the Earl but it was Agreed that a man might prescribe for Retorna Brevium and that to have it within a House only for that Place was formerly the Bishop of Durham's Mansion House But the Prescription was naught because it

the Statute are to King James and in administring the Oath King Charles is named 171 172 The Ecclesiastical Court may make Defendants answer upon Oath as the Chancery doth 339 Obligation If two be bound joyntly and one be sued he cannot demur unless he aver the other is living And if there be two Obligees one cannot sue unless he avers the other is dead 34 A Release of one Joint Obligee of all Actions c. upon his own account does not discharge the Obligation 35 I do acknowledge to E. H. by me 20 l upon demand for doing the Work in my Garden Adjudged upon Demurrer to be a good Bond 238 Office and Officer Whether acceptance of a second Grant of an Office be a surrender of the first 297 An Act begun by one Officer and left imperfect what remains for his Successor 319 320. Outlawry Reverst for want of the Words pro Comitatu and why 108 P. Pardon See Witness WHere good without mentioning the Indictment 207 Parliament See Error The Three Estates See King Pasture Custom for Copyholders to have sole Feeding in a Certain Waste it is not needful to alledge that the Beasts were Levant and Couchant Here also a Copyholder may license others without Deed to put on their Beasts 165 Peace See Indictments Ac. Case Formality of Words where necessary in the Proceedings of Justices of Peace 39 Justices of Peace their Proceedings in relation to Bastard Children 48 59 210 310 336 Upon a Forcible Entry 308 Order of Sessions final in relation to a settlement of the Poor 310 King's Bench may judge of Fines imposed at Sessions and mitigate them 336 Perjury See Indictment One gave Evidence at a Trial and afterwards made Affidavit that he was perjured and suborn'd for which Affidavit an Information of Perjury was exhibited against him and he found guilty of Perjury in swearing he was perjured 182 Pleading See Escape Trespass In Debt upon Obligation the Defendant pleads that he delivered it as an Escrow plea nought 9 Where the Defendant pleads in Abatement and the Plaintiff Demurs if it be adjudged against the Defendant it shall be quod respondeat ulterius But if any thing be alledged in Abatement where upon Issue joyned it goes for the Plaintiff there he shall have Judgment to recover his Debt 22 In Actions laid by way of Reciprocal Promise there needs no Averment of Performance 41 178 Double Plea what 48 272 Trespass quare Arbores succidit Declaration insufficient because not exprest what kind of Trees 53 The like of Fishes 272 329 In Battery absque hoc quod moderate castigavit no direct Traverse to the Defendants Justification 70. Yet good after a Verdict ibid. A Plea in Abatement shall not be admitted after Imparlance 76 136 184. Exception 236 A Traverse designed to bring a Colateral matter in question not allowed 77 Executor pleads plene Administravit the Plaintiff confesseth the Plea and prays Judgment de bonis Testatoris quae in futuro ad manus defendentis devenerint 94 Where the Plaintiff denies what the Defendant affirms whether he ought to traverse or conclude to the Country 101 In Trespass where the Defendant claims a Way what Justification is sufficient what not 13 Incertainty in the Declaration or Plea where naught 106 114 120 278. What shall be said a Departure in Pleading what not 121 Where one Declares against one upon a Deed and it appears that another was bound with him it shall not be intended that the other sealed unless averr'd on the Defendants side 136 137 Deed delivered as an Escrow how to be pleaded 210 An apt Issue is not formed without an Affirmative and a Negative 213 To declare that a Bishop was seized in fee and not say in Jure Episcopatus not binds Successor 223 In Debt for Rent semper paratus is no good plea without saying quod obtulit 322 The effect of an Innuendo 337 The Statute for discharge of poor Prisoners how to be pleaded 356 Several Freeholders cannot joyn or be joyned in a Prescription to claim an Intire Interest in another mans Soyl 384. Nor can Freeholders and Copyholders joyn 390 Powers See Rocovery Of Power to Lease where well persued 294 340 Of Power of Revocation See Revocation Whether the Power of Revocation is extinguished by a Fine 368 371 Prescription See Appurtenant Common Grant The Nature and Rules of Prescription 386 Diversity between Prescription and Custom 389 The Owner of the Soyl can by no Prescription or Custom be excluded out of his own Soyl at all times of the year 390. But he may be excluded for a certain time and as to some kind of Profits 391 Prohibition Where it lies to the Admiralty 1 146 To the Ecclesiastical Court where a Parson sues for calling him Knave 2 Whether it lies where a Bishop sues for a Pension in his own Court 3 Whether it lies upon Suggestion that the Proprietors and Occupiers of such a Mannor or any parcel thereof pay a Groat to the Parson for Herbage-Tythes ibid. Lies for citing a man to answer in the Ecclesiastical Court and not delivering a Coppy of the Articles 5. And if the Party be excommunicate a Prohibition with a Mandamus to absolve him ibid. 252 Not lies to the Ecclesiastical Court for calling Impudent Whore 7. Or Whore and Bawd 61 220. Denied to the Ecclesiastical Court for calling Old Theif and Old Whore 10. Secus in London 343 352 In Prohibition on a Suit for Tythes what Suggestion is to be proved within six months 107 To the Ecclesiastical Court to stay a Suit there for Apparators Fees Suggesting there were no such Fees due by Custom 165 To Woodstreet Compter London for refusing to admit a Plea to their Jurisdiction before Imparlance 180 The Defendant in the Ecclesiastical Court pleads that the Tythes belong to another which Plea is refused Prohibition lies 248 335 Granted to the Ecclesiastical Court where Custom and Prescription comes in question tho the Principal Cause belongs properly to that Court as Church-Wardens Rates Tythes Mortuaries 274 Whether it lies to the Ecclesiastical Court for refusing to admit a Proof by one Witness 291 No Precedent for a Prohibition quia timet 313 To the Council of the Marches 330 Proof See Record Where Proof is to be made upon a Writ of Enquiry and where not 347 Q. Queen A Reservation to the Queen of England does not exclude a Queen Dowager 151 One who hath been a Queen not properly called nuper Regina in her Life time 152 Qui tam. See Error Action Judgment arrested because Issue was joyned only on behalf of the Informer and not also for the King 122 Quo Warranto Against certain Persons of the City of Worcester claiming to be Aldermen 366 R. Record If a Record be lost it may be proved to Jury by Testimony 257 Recorder See Mandamus What Causes may be sufficient to remove a Recorder 144 145 Recovery Where a Fine is Levyed to Lessee for years with an Intent

1 W. M. After which Judgment for the Defendants 166 That the said Defendants shall go sine die and have their Costs 167 Averment that the said Judgment remains in full force That the Goods in the said Action of Trespass and this of Trover are the same That the Conversion in this Action and the Taking in the other is the same That the Cause of Action was the same in both And that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are the same Et hoc parati sunt verificare unde petunt Judicium si praedicti the Plaintiffs Actionem suam versus eos habere debeant c. Not guilty to the residue of the Goods The Plaintiffs demur The Defendants joyn 168 Vsury Pleaded Vid. Debt 7. Way Action for stopping it Vid. Action on the Case 5. WE all knowing the Great Learning and Judgment of the Author do for the Benefit of the Public approve of and allow the Printing and Publishing of this Book Intituled The Reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. Late One of the Justices of the Court of Common-Pleas J. Som̄ers C.S. J. Holt Geo Treby Ed Nevill Joh. Powell W. Gregory N. Lechmere Tho. Rokeby G Eyre Jo Turton John Powell Sam. Eyre April the 20 th 1965. The Second Volume TERMINO SANCTI HILLARII Anno Vicesimo primo secundo Caroli Secundi IN COMMUNI BANCO Craw versus Ramsey IN an Ejectment of Lands and the Rectory of Kingston upon Thames in Surrey Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict to this effect viz. That Robert Ramsey Born in Scotland before the Accession thereof to the Crown of England had Issue four Sons Robert Nicholas John and George Antenati Robert died they do not find when leaving Issue three Daughters Margaret Isabel and Jane who were also Aliens and alive 1 Octob. 14 Car. 1. Nicholas had Issue Patrick born in England 1 May 1618. They also find that at the Parliament holden 10 Car. 1. in Ireland it was Enacted That all Persons of the Scottish Nation should be reputed the Kings Natural Subjects to all intents constructions and purposes of that his Realm of Ireland as if Born there And they find the Act of Parliament at large Nicholas Ramsey was alive at the making of that Act. John the third Son afterwards Earl of Holderness was Naturalized by Act of Parliament in England 1 Jacobi and purchased the Lands and Rectory in question and being seised 22 Jac by Indenture Tripartite between him of the First part Sir William Cocke and Martha his Daughter of the Second part and Charles Lord Effingham of the Third part In Consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and Martha did Covenant to levy a Fine to the use of himself for Life and afterwards to Martha for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own right Heirs And 29 Septemb. 22 Jac. the Marriage was had and the Michaelmas Term after a Fine was Levied accordingly The 24 of Jan. 1 Car. 1. the Earl died without Issue Martha Entred and was seised for her Life and died 17 Car. Et eodem anno it was found by Office that the Earl of Holderness died seised of the Rectory as before and without an Heir and that King Charles anno decimo granted this Rectory to one Murray George the fourth Son of Robert was Naturalized by the Parliament here 7 Jac. He had Issue John the Defendant Nicholas died Patrick his Heir in 1651. bargained and sold to the Earl of Elgin and one Sydenham virtute cujus vigore Statuti c. they were seised prout Lex postulat and in 1662. bargained and sold for years to Amabel Countess of Kent and Jane Hart and afterwards Released to them and their Heirs in 1665. They being seised bargained and sold by Lease and Release also to Pullen and Neale who Entred and bargained and sold to Sir Lionel Talmash and West the Lessors of the Plaintiff upon whom John the Defendant Entred Vpon which the Action is brought and the great Question in the Case was Whether Patrick the Son of Nicholas might claim these Lands as Heir to the Earl of Holderness by virtue of the Act of Parliament in Ireland 10 Car. or that they should descend to the Defendant the Son of George Naturalized the 7 of Jac. in England Wyld and Archer who Argued first were of Opinion That however the Point was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment upon this Verdict for they do not find that Patrick entred or was seised but that he in 1651. did bargain and sell c. Virtute cujus the Bargainees were seised prout Lex postulat and then bargained and sold in 1662 and do not so much as find their Bargainees seised prout Lex postulat But they find the Defendant Entred and so the primer Possession is in him which is a good Title against the Plaintiff for whom none is found it not being found that Patrick Entred Again If the Naturalization in Ireland will serve in England the Title appears for the Daughters the Heirs of Robert the eldest Son for 't is found that he died but not when so it might be after the Act of 10 Car. But Tyrrell and Vaughan Chief Justice differed in these two Points As to the First They said it would be intended Patrick entred for a Verdict that leaves all the Matter at large to the Iudgment of the Court will be taken sometimes by Intendment as well as where the Jury Conclude upon a Special Point 2 Cro. 64. find an Incumbent Resigned the Resignation shall be intended accepted So in 4 Co. Fullwood's Case it was found that one came before the Recorder of London and Mayor of the Staple recognovit se debere c. and did not say per scriptum suum Obligatorium nec per formam Statuti yet intended so Vid. Hob. 262. And where they find the Bargainees seised prout lex postulat that doth not leave it doubtful whether seised or no but whether by right or wrong for Seisin must be taken as found expresly Neither do they find any other in possession nor that the Defendant made any Claim in Twelve years after which enforces the Intendment as before And it is found expresly that Pullen and Neale Entred in 1665. so that the Defendant had not the primer Possession however or if he had he should not have Judgment if no other Title were found for him as is Resolved in 1 Cro. 42. Hern and Allen's Case As to the Second It shall be intended Robert died before 10 Car. For he is found an Alien and shall be presumed to have continued so during his Life unless found to the contrary then the Discent to the Daughters is obstructed by the Incapacity of their Father And tho' when the Title is found for the King the Court shall adjudge for him because the Kings Courts are intrusted with his Rights 't is not so of any other person but they shall take no

notice of any Title found for a Stranger Wherefore they held notwithstanding these Omissions in the Verdict that Judgment might be given for the Plaintiff And Tyrrell was of Opinion in the Principal Matter for the Plaintiff In his Argument he considered of divers kinds of Allegiance natural and acquired which was either local or legal As when a man is Sworn in the Leet Denizated by the Kings Letters Patents obtained by Conquest or Naturalized which Naturalization must be by Act of Parliament and cannot be limited 2 Cro. 539. 1 Inst 129. who is to all purposes a Natural born Subject An Indictment of Treason against such an one is contra naturalem ligeantiam Neither can it be confined to Place for 't is due to the Natural and not to the Politick person of the King Mo. 790. And the Plea of infra ligeantiam Regni sui Angliae was rejected in Calvin's Case in Co. and said to be never heard of before Idem est nasci idem naturalizari And he Argued That in regard Ireland hath the like Court of Parliament that England hath it hath also the same Power and conceived that the English Laws were introduced by Parliament in King John's time For in the Charter 11 H. 3. it is recited that Johannes quondam Rex Angliae duxit secum in Hiberniam Viros discretos legis peritos quorum Communi Concilio ad instantiam Hibernentium statuit c. ex diuturnitate temporis omnia praesumuntur solenniter esse acta In the 4 Inst 357. it appears that Parliaments were holden there before 17 E. 3. 2 R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamentum facium Leges And in 4 Inst 452. it is said they may Naturalize an Alien and if they do so he is all one with an Irish man born As one that purchaseth his Freedom in a Corporation hath all Immunities as amply as he that is born a Member of it Neither doth it follow from hence that an Act of Parliament in Ireland could bind England it is the Law of England Cooperating with the Act that gives the Naturalization an effect here The Act is but remotio Impedimenti As if one were Attainted by the Parliament there he should forfeit his Lands here and if that Act were Repealed he should be restored to them again yet neither Act were oligative to England The Act of Ireland is causa remota or sine qua non the Law of England is causa proxima and this of Naturalization was one of the Wonders of the Powers and Priviledges of Parliament As Legitimation of a Bastard and the like The other three Justices were of a contrary Opinion and Argued to this effect that Ireland was a Conquered Kingdom the Conquest compleated if not begun in K. Henry the Second's time in whose time there is no Record of any Establishment and being a Christian Kingdom they remained Governed by their own Laws until King John Anno 12 Regni sui by Charter for so they conceived it to be and not by Parliament for it appears that the Nobles were sworn which is not usual in Acts of Parliament neither is it Teste Rege in Parliamento introduced the English Laws yet it hath ever remained a distinct Kingdom viz. from the bringing in the Laws by King John M. Paris Hist 230. and Calvin's Case in 7 Co. 22 23. the Conquest brought it infra Dominium Regis sed non infra Regnum Angliae Oruke committed Treason in Ireland and it was held tryable by Commission by 33 H. 8. as a Treason out of the Realm 20 H 6. 8. the Judges here are not bound to take notice of the Laws of Ireland Fitzh tit Voucher 239. A man in Ireland cannot be Vouched Anders 262 263. 2 Inst 2. it is said Magna Charta nor the Statute Laws here did not extend to Ireland until Poinings Law 10 H. 7. tho' in truth it appears to be before by 8 E. 4. cap. 10. neither are they obliged by any Statute since unless named Dier 303. It is said of Lands holden in Capite in England and Ireland that there ought to be several Liverties and by several Seals 11 Ed. 4. 7. When the King went into Ireland it was held to be a Voyage Royal. And Wyld said Two Kingdoms could not be united but by Act of Parliament and there ought to be reciprocal Acts and so is my Lord Coke 4 Inst cap. Scotland But this the Chief Iustice said in his Argument was not requisite in case of a Conquered Nation which hereby had lost its Original Right of holding Parliaments but he agreed in case of Kingdoms independent one upon the other He said he had a Charter whereby Gascoigne Guyan and Callice were united to England in Ed. the 3ds time and recited to be by mutual pact upon a Peace concluded that Wales was fully conquered in Ed. 1st time whereupon they all submitted de alto basso to the King and it appears he abrogates some Laws makes some new and continues others and Wales was united and consolidated with England in H. 8 time by Act of Parliament here but there was no Act on their part neither is Ireland only a distinct Kingdom but also subordinate A Law enacted here to extend to all the Kings Dominions shall bind Ireland Writs of Error have been always brought here to reverse Iudgments in Ireland and they naturally lie as the Chief Iustice said into all subordinate Kingdoms Fitz. tit Ass 562. A Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given in an Assize in the County of Glamorgan and 21 H. 7. 31. B. it is said many Writs of Error have been brought to reverse Iudgments given in Callice tho' it was alledged the Civil Law there was in use So the Romans allowed Appeals out of every Province subordinate unto them as appears by the Case of St. Paul in the Acts and 't is against Nature that the Inferiour should have any influence upon the Superiour suppose a Bill of Naturalization were brought into Parliament here and rejected and after it should pass in Ireland should it have the same effect as if it had passed here If this might have been what needed the endeavours in the beginning of King James's Reign to obtain an Act for the Naturalization of all Scots and the Union of both Kingdoms when an Act in Ireland would have been as effectual and procured with much greater facility Neither is the Parliament of Ireland equal to that of England for that might be aliened by an Act of Parliament as Gascoigne and Guyan were by mutual Consent tho' the King cannot do it alone therefore King John's Grant to the Pope was held absolutely void but Ireland could not be transferred from the Sovereignty of England by any Act there for they cannot discharge themselves of their Subordination to England H. 3. granted to Ed. 1. Terrem Hibernicam and it was held to be void 40 Ed. 3. 4 Inst 357. And if they should make an Act

there that no Writ of Error should lie into England the Chief Iustice said it would be void for their Power is merely precarious as to the Parliament of England though not to the King in regard of his Charter Wherefore he said it might be questioned whether they could Naturalize at all for the King cannot alone and their Power is wholly derived from this Charter neither hath it been attempted by them until 10 Car. 1. when the Earl of Strafford was Lieutenant there Whereas it was said on the other side that to be Naturalized in Ireland was the same thing as to be born in Ireland he denied it unless they added by the Laws of Ireland i. e. the Law gives him there all the Priviledges a Native hath but this was not ligeantia nata sed data and therefore can extend no further than the Power of them that gave it and tho' it be said an Act of Parliament can do any thing that must be understood as to civil things which are but the Creatures of Men therefore may be altered and disposed at the will of the Supream Authority but natural things are not within its Power For an Act of Parliament cannot make a Man a Woman or a Man to be born in any other place than where he was really born tho' it may give him such priviledges as one hath that is born there viz. such as are within their Power and none else and 7 Co. 18. B. The time of the Birth is of the essence of a Subject born and after in Calvins Case 27. it is said natural Ligeance respecteth the time of the Birth and he cannot be a Natural Subject who was born under the Allegiance of another King for a Natural Subject is the correlative to a Natural Prince and one naturalized there might in all respects be compared to an antenatus who differed from a postnatus in these two things First He was another Princes Subject before a Subject to the King of England Secondly Such an one might have been an Enemy whereas a born Subject may be Traitor but can never be an Enemy Now the Subjects of a Prince that conquers another Kingdom become immediately Denizens of that Kingdom But not è converso as was held in Calvins Case of the antenati in Scotland But the Subjects of a King who is Homager to that King shall not be Aliens in any of his Dominions as in Wales before the Conquest of it in Edw. the 1st Time the like in Scotland as appears Dier 304. Pl. 57. A Scot was indicted of a Rape who pleaded not guilty and prayed a Tryal per medietat ' Linguae and it was denied for that a Scot was never accounted an Alien sed potius Subject ' tho' the Chief Iustice was of Opinion they ought not to have judged so there because the Homage of Scotland had been lost so long before The Statute of 5 Eliz. is that none shall set up a Trade unless he hath been an Apprentice to it by the space of seven years Suppose an Act were made in Ireland that it should be lawful for J. S. to set up a Trade tho' he had never been an Apprentice this would enable him there but no man would say that thereby he should have liberty to set up here No tho' the words of the Act were as if he had served seven years So the Law is that no man can be naturalized here but by Act of Parliament here Naturalization is a great point of State-interest therefore the King cannot do it by his Charter And the inconvenience would be very great if naturalization in Ireland should extend hither for tho' it was objected we might obviate it if found to be so by disallowing their Acts which before they pass there are sent hither and remitted under the Great Seal and so we may repeal their Acts yet it was said the like Power by consequence must be yielded to Scotland and we cannot disannul their Acts so they shall introduce what Aliens they please amongst us without controll And tho' it was said a naturalization there would do us no harm for it could never be made appear because no Certiorari could be awarded from hence thither yet it is manifest there are ways of making it appear In 42 Ed. 3 2. Lord Beaumonts Case Vide 2 Cro. 484. a Certiorari to remove a Record taken at Callis it is said that part of Scotland was within the Kings Ligeance and part without and that the King kept a Roll of such Places as he had under his Subjection and the Party was directed to petition the King to certifie whether Rosse were so or no so the King must be Party to their Acts there and therefore may certifie them or they may be given in Evidence as Foreign Laws or the Sentences in the Ecclesiastical or Civil Law Courts Now we must not always conclude a thing not to be Law because it is inconvenient but that for which there is neither Practical Custom Judicial Precedent or Act of Parliament to warrant may be well judged to be so Wyld and Archer in their Arguments did much insist upon the particular penning of this Act where the Makers did seem to intend that the effect of this Naturalization should be confined to Ireland for the Preamble recites this Your Majesties Realm of Ireland will be much impaired for want of Scottish Planters and that 100000 were planted in the Province of Vlster there it enacts That they and all Scottish shall be deemed Your Majesty's liege Subjects of this Your Realm of Ireland and this your Realm repeated almost in every Clause which would lose its force if the naturalization should be construed to have a larger extent They also took notice of the Proviso of the Act That it should not extend unto any Lands whereof any Office was found for the King and seised into his hands And here was an Office found 17 Jacobi they also mentioned the Statute of 7 Jacobi c. 2. which Enacts That the Bill of Naturalization shall be twiced read unless the Person hath received the Sacrament within a Month before and also taken the Oaths of Allegience and Supremacy To the first Tyril answered First That Naturalization could not be restrained at least not by affirmative words for it doth not say Your Realm of England and not elsewhere the Act hath also these words as born of Irish Parents as natural born Subjects and other words as full as may be also the Act of Naturalization of John and George in England hath the same words mutatis mutandis viz. of this Your Realm and in others they are more restrictive viz. from henceforth shall be deemed c. the Irish Act is that they shall be deemed Natural Subjects that they shall inherit such Lands as have descended after the first day of King Jame's coming to the Crown of England this hath no such restraint As to the Second he answered it was the Rectory only which

whom the King shall have it unless there be a particular person grieved 188 189 267 268 A Forfeiture shall not bind in Equity where a thing may be done afterwards or Composition made for it 352 G Gaming See Assumpsit DIce Play not unlawful in it self tho' prohibited by several Statutes to certain persons and in certain places 175 Grant A Deed having no Execution to make it work as a Grant shall operate as a Covenant to stand seized 261. and by the Statute of Vses 266 Where Land is granted by Deed-Pool in Consideration of Natural Affection without Enrolment or Attornment whether it shall operate as a Covenant to stand seized or be void 318 H Habeas Corpus NO Habeas Corpus to be moved for in the Common Pleas unless it concerns a Civil Cause yet the contrary permitted in the case of an Attorney of that Court 24 Half-Blood The Half-Blood shall have equal Share with the Whole-Blood in Distribution upon the Statute of 22 23 Car. 2. c. 10. 317 Heir See Mortgage Heirs is Nomen collectivum and is sometimes so taken when 't is only Heir in the Singular Number 313 Heir and not Executor shall have the Surplusage of Lands leased for payment of Debts 359 I Infant INfants not foreclosed in Chancery till they come of Age 351 Intent No Exception to Vnum Vasum Vini Hispanici that is not said what the Vessel was made of for it is intended to be made of Wood 67 The Name of a Grantor omitted in an Indenrure supplied by Intendment 142 Racks in a Stable shall be intended to be fixt and need not to be shewn to be so in Pleading 214 Every Agreement must have some reasonable Construction that may may be consistent with the Intent of the Parties and therefore if a man agrees with another that he shall make a Drain through his Ground he shall not make it through the parties Stables or Buildings in case there are other places proper 278 In a Special Verdict nothing shall be intended that is not found 330 Imprisonment See Pleading Impropriation Whether a Rectory Impropriate being made a Lay-Fee can be sequestred by the Court Christian for not Repairing the Chancel 35 Ireland See Naturalization Of its Conquest and the Introducing the Laws of England there 4 The Power of an Act of Parliament in Ireland 5 K King See Forfeiture ALlegiance due to the Natural and not the Politick Person of the King 3 In case of things which are Nullius in Bonis where no visible Right appears the Law gives them to the King as Derelict Lands Treasure Trove Extra-parochial Tythes c. So where the Right is equal between the King and the Subject the Kings Title hath the Preference 268 The King is the Fountain of Justice and that as well Ecclesiastical as Civil and may by the Ancient Law of the Realm visit reform and correct Abuses in the Jurisdiction Spiritual 268 In what Cases Forfeitures are vested in the King before Office found and where not 270 L Law A Thing for which there is neither Practical Custom Judicial Precedent or Act of Parliament to warrant may well be judged to be against Law 7 The clearest way how to understand any Law is to consider what was the Judgment of those People among whom and the Times in which it was practical 17 To excite the People to the disobedience of a Law of a Publick Nature is the highest Offence under High Treason 23 Lease What Lease capable of a Release to work a Bargain and Sale 35 For 99 years if two Persons shall so long live determines upon the death of either 74 Legacy See Executor Legatees are to have their Proportion where the Assets fall short 358 Legatees shall refund against Creditors and if the Ecclesiastical Court give Sentence for a Legacy a Prohibition lies unless they take Security to refund 358 360 Licence See Distress Limitation See Original Mortgage Suit to recover a Depositum in Trust for a Feme Covert not barr'd by the Statute of Limitations 345 London Of the Custom of London relating to Orphans Money 340 341 M Market WHere a Market is granted to the Damage of another the Patent may be repeal'd in a Scire facias notwithstanding a Writ of Ad quod Damnum had been executed for the Return of that Writ was not conclusive 344 Marriage Whether a Man may marry his Great Uncle's Widow 9. He may 18 20 The four Statutes relating to Marriage expounded 11 infr Tho' the Stat. 32 H. 8. c. 38. allows all persons to Marry that are without the Levitical Degrees yet persons Pre-contracted or under a perpetual Impotence are prohibited to Marry 15 To Marry his Brother's Wife prohibited by the Statute tho' not by the Levitical Law 17. So of his Wives Sister ibid. Marriages in the ascending and descending Line prohibited without limit not so between Collaterals and the Reasons 18 The Ecclesiastical Courts have Conizance to punish persons Marrying within the Levitical Degrees but not to determine what is within the Levitical Degrees and what not 22 Agreements to settle in Consideration of Marriage favoured in Chancery 353 354 357 Marriage restrictions how to be observed 365 Mine If a Man opens a Mine in his own Land he may dig and follow the Vein under another Man's Ground 342 But if the Owner did there also he may stop his further progress ibid. Mortgage Where Lands are Mortgaged thrice over the third Mortgagee may buy in the first Incumbrance to protect his own Mortgage and he hath both Law and Equity for him 338 He shall hold the Land against the second Mortgagee until be be satisfied both the Money he paid the first Mortgagee and also his own which he lent upon the last Mortgage ibid. But where only Part of the Lands are mortgaged to the first and the whole to the second and after to the third here if the third buys in the first Title it shall protect only that part that is in the first Mortgage 339 A Purchaser or Mortgagee coming in upon a Valuable Consideration without Notice and purchasing in a precedent Incumbrance it shall protect his Estate tho' he purchased in the Incumbrance after Notice of a second Mortgage ibid. Mortgages not relievable in Chancery after 20 years for the Stat. 21 Jac. 1. c. 16. limits the time of Entry to that number of years and 't is best to square the Rules of Equity as near the Rules of Reason and Law as may be 340 Upon a Mortgage in Fee the Redemption Money shall be paid to the Executor and not to the Heir 348 351 Where by a Devise of all his Lands Lands in Mortgage pass 351 Where a man 's own Covenant shall restrain him from his Equity of Redemption and where it shall not 365 Murder Husband kills a Man in the act of Adultery with his Wife Manslaughter and not Murder the Provocation being exceeding great Vide the First Part of these Reports 158 N Naturalization WHether