Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	duke_n	king_n	norfolk_n	2,546	5	11.4606	5	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

the case of Proxies Davis Rep. 4. It is said the King has power and that by the Antient Law of the Realm to Visit Reform and correct all Abuses and Enormities in the Iurisdiction Spiritual so that an Offence of this nature is a Violation of the Kings Justice and a Transgression of the Rules of his Administration This is indeed the case of all Crimes of a publick nature the King is most evidently injured by them the Indictments run contra coronam dignitatem c. Now who should have the Forfeiture but he that hath the greatest share in the Injury Again by giving of this Forfeiture to the King the end and design of the Statute is like to be best answered By the Preamble the Statute appeareth to be made that worthy persons might be advanced to places where Iustice was to be administred and who is best to be entrusted with this but the King The Court having given these Reasons they came to consider what had been insisted on at the Bar in the behalf of the Bishop It was said that all the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Diocess was originally placed in the Bishop and the case of Gastrill and Jones 2 Ro. Rep. 646 647. was cited where it is said That the Iudicial power of the Archdeacon was derived from the Bishop he is called Vicarius Episcopi and Oculus Episcopi T is true there are some Archdeacons that have Iurisdictions peculiar and exempt but that is by Prescription or Custom these are taken notice of by Godolphin But there is nothing found of that in the Verdict and so must be taken to be the common case of an Archdeacon and that was agreed It was said this offence was reckoned Simony in the Canon Law And the Bishop had the correction of it as in Smithes Case Owens Rep. 87. This was compared to the Cases of inferiour and subordinate Officers which when they are forfeited the superiour takes advantage as in the Earl of Pembrooks Case and Sir H. Bickly Popham 119. The Keeper of a Walke in a Forest forfeited this went to him that had the custody of the Forest so in Bridgman's Rep. 27. He that hath Liberty of a Park in a Forest when forfeited it goeth to the Lord of the Forest 39 H. 6. 32. The Keeper of the Marshalsey of the Kings Bench forfeited his Office the Duke of Norfolk Great Marshal of England took advantage of it To these Cases it was said by the Court That they differed much from the Case at the Bar. First In the Cases cited the Inferior Officer is put in by the Superior and in some Cases to answer for his miscarriage ubi respondeat Superior they are Offices incident as the County Clark to the Sheriff Mittons Case 4 Co. and Scroggs Case of the Exigenter to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Dyer 175. But here the Bishop doth not put in the Register of the Archdeacons Court He may make one to supply that place if it falls void when the Archdeaconry is vacant but then the next Archdeacon removeth him and puts in another Secondly The Forfeitures in the Cases cited were upon Breaches of Conditions in Law annexed to the Offices and t is a Rule in Law that the Grantor is to take advantage of the Breach of all Conditions but we are in case of a Forfeiture for offending against an Act of Parliament And the Court said tho' it might be supposed originally the Jurisdiction within the Diocess was lodged in the Bishop yet the Archdeacons Court hath time out of mind been settled as a distinct Court 4 Inst 339. and the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. takes notice of the Consistory Court which is the Bishops Court and the Archdeacons Court from which there lies an Appeal to the Bishops Court in 2 Ro. Rep. 150. Chivertons Case The Archdeacon is said to have a Court of himself and that the Courts of Westminster take notice thereof Th●s may be resembled to the Case of the Torn and Leet in the County the Leet is supposed to have been derived out of the Torn and yet upon the Forfeiture of a Leet it shall not go to the Sheriff As to the second Point it was resolved by the Court That the King might in this Case make a Register before Office found It was agreed That where an Estate of Freehold was forfeited to the King by Act of Parliament that an Office would be requisite to vest it in the King and that by the Statute of 5 Edw. 6. against the sale of Offices all the Estate and Interest c. of the Offender is forfeited But Pollexfen Chief Justice conceived this was not an Estate in the Archdeacon but only a Power to appoint a Register and in the nature of a chose en Action like the case of Offices in the King where the King may grant or nominate to the Office but hath not the Office in him to use or execute But he conceived and with that the rest of the Court agreed that however as to the present vacancy the right to supply that was a Chattel separate from the Inheritance and the King might supply the present avoidance before any Office found tho' it be admitted that the right of nomination in point of Estate should not vest in the King before Office found Where the Kings Tenant dies seised of an Advowson or in case of an Outlawry tho' the Estate is not in the King before Office yet if the Church becomes void the King shall present before Office 20 Edw. 4. 11. The case so put of an Advowson appendant Stamf. Prerog 54. B. T is a Transitory Chattel the present avoidance Lanes Rep. 43 64. 1 Ro. Rep. 326. and Jones Rep. 425. So the Body of the Ward is in the King before Office In Case of Simony the King shall present without Office Sed nota 31 Eliz. giveth the Presentation pro hac vice only And the Court said that the Verdict found that the Plaintiffs had a Grant from the Archdeacon also so that if nothing be in the King till Office it must remain in the Archdeacon so his Grant will be good till Office found There are no disabling words in the Statute but only shall Lose and Forfeite so quacunque via data the Plaintiffs ought to have Iudgment Harris versus Parker Ante ult ' Term. IN an Action of Debt for 99 l Rent the Plaintiff Declared upon two Demises which he laid at the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields in Middlesex of a Messuage and divers Lands quae praemissa sunt struat ' jacent ' existent in super acclivitatem de Hampstead Anglicè the rise of Hampstead Hill to hold for seven years reserving upon each Demise eighteen pounds yearly Rent The Defendant pleaded Actio non quia dicit quod praed ' Johannes Harris tempore dimiss ' praed ' nihil habuit in Tenementis praedict ' unde c. The Plaintiff Replied That long before the