the Indictment for be it before or after the Offence the Iury ought to find according to the truth of the Case upon the Evidence for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendam c. This must be assigned for Error for if the contrary be said 't is against the Record the Custos Brevium having retorned that the Fine was taken 30 July which could not be in Trinity Term for that ended 8 July otherwise 't is repugnant to it self Econtra It was argued that this is not assignable for Error Dyer 220. b. 12 Co. 124. 't is true if the Party had died before the Entry of the King's Silver it had been Error but if afterwards 't is not so Thus was the Case of Warnecomb and Carril which was Husband and Wife levied a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and this was by Dedimus in the Lent Vacation she being then but 19 years of Age the King's Silver was entred in Hillary Term before and she died in the Easter week and upon a Motion made the first day of Easter Term to stay the engrossing of the Fine it was denied by the Court for they held it to be a good Fine Another reason why this is not assignable for Error 2 Cro. 11. Yelv. 33. is because 't is directly against the Record which is of Trinity Term and can be of no other Term and to prove this he cited Arundel's Case where a Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Fine taken before Roger Manwood Esq in his Circuit he being then one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas and the Dedimus was returned per Rogerum Manwood Militem for he was Knighted and made Chief Baron the Eerm following the Fine passed and this was afterwards assigned for Trror that he who took the Caption was not a Knight but it being directly against the Record they would not intend him to be the same person to whom the Writ was directed Adjurnatur Afterwards the Fine was affirmed Lock versus Norborne UPon a Trial at Bar in Ejectment for Lands in Wiltshire Verdict shall only be given in Evidence amongst privies the Case was thus Viz. Mary Philpot in the year 1678. made a Settlement by Lease and Release to her self for Life then to Trustees to support contingent Remainders then to her first second and third Son in Tail Male c. then to Thomas Arundel in Tail Male with divers Remainders over It was objected at the Tryal that she had no power to make such Settlement because in the year 1676. her Husband had setled the Lands in question upon her for Life and upon the Issue of his Body c. and for want of such Issue then upon George Philpot in Tail Male with several Remainders over the Remainder to Mary Philpot in Fee Proviso that upon the tender of a Guinea to George Philpot by the said Mary the Limitations as to him should be void George Philpot having afterwards made a Lease of this Land to try the Title the Trustees brought an Ejectment but because the tender of the Guinea could not be proved there was a Verdict for the Defendant And now Mr. Philpot would have given that Verdict in Evidence at this Trial but was not suffered by the Court for if one Man hath a Title to several Lands and if he should bring Ejectments against several Defendants and recover against one he shall not give that Verdict in Evidence against the rest because the Party against whom that Verdict was had may be relieved against it if 't is not good but the rest cannot tho' they claim under the same Title and all make the same defence So if two Tenants will defend a Title in Ejectment and a Verdict should be had against one of them it shall not be read against the other unless by Rule of Court But if an Ancestor hath a Verdict the Heir may give it in Evidence because he is privy to it for he who produceth a Verdict must be either party or privy to it and it shall never be received against different persons if it doth not appear that they are united in Interest Therefore a Verdict against A. shall never be read against B. for it may happen that one did not make a good defence which the other may do The tender of the Guinea was now proved DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687 8. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Powis Attorny General Wm. Williams Sollicitor General THIS Vacation Sir Robert Sawyer had his Quietus and Sir Thomas Powis was made Attorny General and Sir William Williams of Greys-Inn was made Sollicitor General Rex versus Lenthal AN Inquifition was taken in the second year of this King under the Great Seal of England by which it was found that the Office of Marshal of the Kings-Bench did concern the Administration of Iustice and that Mr. Lenthal was seised thereof in Fee and that upon his Marriage he had setled the said Office upon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill and their Heirs in Truff that they should permit him to execute the same during his Life c. That the said Trustees had neglected to give their attendance or to execute the said Office themselves that this Canveyance was made by Mr. Lenthal without the notice of this Court that he received the Profits and afterwards granted the said Office to Cooling for Life That Cross and his Wife had obtained a Iudgment in this Court against Bromley and had sued forth Erecution for the Debt and Damages for which he was committed to the custody of the said Cooling and being so in Execution did go at large They find that Cooling had not sufficient to answer Cross and his Wise for the said Debt c. whereupon they impleaded Mr. Lenthal in the Common-Pleas for 121 l. 2 s. 4 d. to answer as superior that at the Trial Mr. Lenthal gave this secret Deed of Settlement in Evidence whereupon the Plaintiffs in that Action were non-suited ad dampnum c. They find that Cooling went out of the said Office and the Trustees neglecting the execution thereof Mr. Lenthal granted the same to Glover for Life that during the time he executed this Office one Wordal was convicted of Forgery and commited to his Custody and that he permitted him voluntarily to Escape by which the said Office was forfeited to the King The King had granted the Office to the Lord Hunsdon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill come in and plead that Mr. Lenthal was seised in Fee and that he made a Settlement of the Office upon his Marriage with Mrs. Lucy Dunch with whom he had 5000 l. Portion viz. upon them and their Heirs in trust prout in the Inquisition and that he did execute the Office by-their permission Mr Lenthal pleads and admits the Grant to Sir Edward Norris and the other Trustee bearing date such a day c. but saith that the next
Trust as in the Case of Wardship formerly which always went to the Executor of the Grantee and which was of greater consideration in the Law than the feeding or clothing of an Ideot and of that Opinion was the Court that the King had a good Title to dispose of both the Ward and the Ideot one till he was of Age and the other during his Ideocy Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Reeves versus Winnington THE Testator was a Citizen and a Freeman of London A Devise of all his Estate passed a Fee and being seised in Fee of a Mesuage c. and likewise possessed of a considerable personal Estate made his Will in which there was this Clause viz. I hear that John Reeves is enquiring after my Death but I am resolved to give him nothing but what his Father hath given him by Will I give all my Estate to my Wife c. The Question was Whether by these words the Devisee had an Estate for Life or in Fee in the Mesuage It was argued that she had only an Estate for life because the Words All my Estate cannot be construed to pass a Fee for it doth not appear what Estate was intended and Words in a Will which go to disinherit an Heir must be plain and apparent A Devise was in these Words viz. Sid. 191. Bowman versus Milbank I give all to my Mother all to my Mother and it was adjudged that a Fee did not pass which is as strong a Case as this for by the word All it must be intended All that was in his power to give which is as comprehensive as if he had said All my Estate 'T is true Kerman and Johnson Stiles 281. 1 Rol. Abr. 834. Cro. Car. 447. it hath been adjudged that where a Man devised his whole Estate to his Wife paying his Debts and Legacies that the word Estate there passed a Fee because it was for the benefit of the Creditors there being not personal Assets sufficient to pay all the Debts But that is not found in this Case therefore the Word Estate being doubtful and which will admit of a double construction shall not be intended to pass a Fee Mr. E contra Pollexfen contra The first part of this Sentence consists in negative words and those which are subsequent explain the intention of the Testator viz. That John Reeves should take nothing by the Will The Word Estate doth comprehend the whole in which the Owner hath either an Interest or Property like a Release of all Actions which is a good discharge as well of real as personal Actions In common understanding it carries an interest in the Land and then 't is the same as if he had devised all his Fee-simple Estate In the Case of Bowman and Milbank it was adjudged that a Fee-simple did not pass by the Particle All because it was a Relative Word and had no Substantive joined with it and therefore it might have been intended All his Cattle All his Goods or All his personal Estate for which incertainty it was held void yet Iustice Twisden in that Case said that it was adjudged that if a Man promise to give half his Estate to his Daughter in Marriage that the Lands as well as the Goods are included The Testator devised all his Tenant-right Estate held of such a Manor 3 Keb. 245. Mod. Rep. 100. and this being found specially the Question was Whether any more passed than an Estate for Life because he did not mention what Estate he intended but it was held that the Devisee had a Fee-simple because the Words were as comprehensive as if he had devised all his Inheritance and by these Words a Fee-simple would pass Curia It plainly appears that the Testator intended nothing for John Reeves therefore he can take nothing by this Will and that the Devisee hath an Estate in Fee-simple for the Words All my Estate are sufficient to pass the same Rex versus Sir Thomas Armstrong Saturday June 14th THE Defendant was outlawed for High-Treason and being taken at Leyden in Holland was brought into England and being now at the Bar he desired that he might have leave of the Court to reverse the Outlawry and he tried by virtue of the Stature of Ed. 6. which Enacts 5 6 E. 6. cap. 11. That if the Party within one year after the Outlawry or Judgment thereupon shall yield himself to the Chief Justice of England and offer to traverse the Indictment upon which he was outlawed he shall be admitted to such Traverse and being acquitted shall be discharged of the Outlawry He alledged that it was not a year since he was outlawed and therefore desired the benefit of this Law But it was denied because he had not rendered himself according to the Statute but was apprehended and brought before the Chief Iustice Whereupon a Rule was made for his Execution at Tyburn which was done accordingly DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 36 Car. II. in Banco Regis 1684. Hebblethwaite versus Palmes Mich. 36 Car. II. in B. R. Rot. 448. AN Action on the Case was brought in the Common-Pleas Possession is a sufficient cause to maintain an Action against a wrong doer for diverting of a Watercourse The Declaration was That the Defendant Primo Augusti c. injuste malitiose did break down an ancient Damm upon the River Darwent by which he did divert magnam partem aquae ab antiquo solitu cursu erga molendinum ipsius quer c. ad dampnum c. The Defendant pleaded that before the said Breach made he was seised in Fee of an ancient Mill and of six Acres of Land adjoyning upon which the said Damm was erected time out of mind to turn the Water to his said Mill which Damm was always repaired and maintained by the Defendant and the Tenants of the said Land that his Mill was casually burnt and he not intending to Re-build it suffered the Damm to be broken down and converted the Timber to his own use being upon his own Soil prout ei bene licuit c. The Plaintiff replied that by the breaking of the Damm the Water was diverted from his Mill c. The Defendant rejoyned and justified his Plea and Traversed that the Mill of the Plaintiff was an ancient Mill. And upon a Demurrer to this Rejoynder Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error now brought to reverse that Iudgment and for the Defendant in the Action it was argued 1. That the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff had not set forth that his Mill was an ancient Mill. 2. Because he had not entituled himself to the Watercourse 3. That the Plea was good in Bar to this Action because the Defendant had sufficiently justified having a Right to the Land upon which the Damm was erected and always repaired it As to the first Point it
it because the words were an entire Sentence and spoken altogether at the same time and therefore if a Prohibition should not go it would be a double vexation DE Termino Paschae Anno 1 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1685. Earl of Yarmouth versus Darrel THE Plaintiff brought an Action on the Case Grant of the King of sole Printing not good setting forth Letters Patents of King Charles the II. by which the Sole Printing of Blank Writs Bonds and Indentures were granted to him excepting such Forms which belonged to the Custom-House and which were formerly granted to Sir Roger L'Estrange that this Grant was to continue for the space of 30 Years and that the Defendant had notice thereof and had printed 500 Blank Bonds which he laid to his damage of the sum of 40 l. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Iury found a special Verdict the substance of which was that the Defendant was a Stationer and that the Company of Stationers for the space of 40 years last past before the granting of these Letters Patents had constantly printed Blank Bonds and so made a general conclusion Mr. Trindar argued for the Plaintiff and the only Question was Whether this Patent did vest a sole Interest in the Plaintiff exclusive to all others In his Argument he insisted on these Points 1. That the King hath a Prerogative in Printing and may grant it Exclusive to others 2. That this Prerogative extends to the Case at the Bar. That he hath such a Prerogative 't is confirm'd by constant Vsage for such Grants have been made by the Kings of England ever since Printing was invented But to instance in a few Viz. The Patent for Printing of Law-Books was granted to one More on the 19th day of January in the 15th year of King James the I. And when that Patent was expired another was granted to Atkyns and others on the 15th day of November in the 12th year of King Charles the II. In 23. Eliz. a Patent was granted to the Company of Stationers for the sole Printing of Psalm-Books and Psalters for the space of 30 years And on the 8th of August 31 Eliz. the like Patent was granted to Christopher Barker for Life Another Patent to the Company of Stationers for printing of Corderius c. These and many more of the like nature shew what the constant usage hath been Now the Statute of Monopolies doth not reach to this Case because of the Proviso therein to exempt all such Grants of sole Printing and by the Statute of King Charles the II. for regulating of the Press 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. 't is Enacted That no person shall Print any Copy which any other hath or shall be granted to him by Letters Patents and whereof he hath the sole Right and Priviledge to Print And upon the breaches of these Statutes several Iudgments have been given Between Streater and Roper in this Court Mich. 24 Car. 2. Rot. 237. 't is true the Iudgment was against the Plaintiff but upon a Writ of Error brought in Parliament that Iudgment was reversed The same Term there was a Iudgment given upon a special Verdict in the Common-Pleas for the Plaintiffs Hill 35 Car. 2. B. R. Rot. 99. who were the Company of Stationers against Seymour for Printing of Almanacks And they obtained the like Iudgment against Wright for Printing of Psalters and Psalm-Books Now to apply this to the principal Case 't is to be considered that these Books for which the sole Printing was so claimed were of a publick nature and importance relating to the good and benefit of the Subjects and so likewise are Blank Bonds for there may be false and vitious Impressions to the ruin and destruction of many innocent people And as a farther Argument that the King hath this Prerogative 't is likewise to be considered that where no individual person can claim a Property in a thing there the King hath a Right vested in him by Law and it cannot be pretended that any particular person hath a Right to Print those Bonds therefore the finding that such were printed by the Company for above 40 years is immaterial because there being an inherent Prerogative in the King whenever he exerts it all other persons are bound up who were at liberty before To prove which the Iudgment in the Case of the East-India Company is express in point for before that Patent the subject had liberty to Trade to those places prohibited by that Grant but afterwards they were restrained by that Grant Neither is this in the nature of a Monopoly 11 Co. 84. 't is not like that of the sole Grant of making Cards which hath been adjudged void and with great reason because that Grant reached to prohibit a whole Trade and therefore differs from this Case for the Defendant may print other Instruments or Books and exercise his Trade in some other lawful and profitable Commodities and so might the Merchants in the Case of the East-India Company for they were restrained by the Patent as to particular places but might Trade to any other part of the World Neither will the Subjects in general receive any prejudice by this or such like Grants for if the Patentees make ill use of their Priviledges tho' it cannot be properly called an Office yet 't is a Trust and a Scire Facias will lie to repeal their Grants It was argued by the Councel for the Defendant E contra That the Verdict having found that the Company of Stationers had used to print those Bonds for above 40 years before the making of this Grant the Question will be Whether they are now divested of a Right so long enjoyed And as to that 't is not a new thing to object That notwithstanding such Grants yet other persons have insisted on a Right to Print and have printed accordingly Thus the sole Printing of Law-Books was granted to one Atkyns yet the Reports of Iustice Jones and my Lord Chief Iustice Vaughan were printed without the direction of the Patentees Printing as 't is a manual Occupation makes no alteration in this Case for the King hath as great a Prerogative in Writing any thing that is of a publick Nature as he hath in Printing of it Now considering Printing as an Art exclusive from the thing printed this Patent is not good For if a Man invent a new Art and another should learn it before the Inventor can obtain a Patent if afterwards granted 't is void Then consider it in relation to the thing printed 1 Roll. 4. 11 Co. 53. id which in this Case are Blank-Bonds 't is not a new Invention because the Company of Stationers have printed such above 40 years and for that reason this Patent is void for where the Invention is not New there Trade shall not be restrained No Man can receive any prejudice by the printing of such Bonds for they are of no Vse till filled up 't is only a bare Manufacture
to Sir Edward Biggs against the Countess as Administratrix of the Earl of Plymouth wherein the Plaintiff sets forth a Writing by which the Earl had given power to Sir Edward to be the Collector and Receiver of his Mony and Rents and that he promised to allow him 100 l. per Annum for his pains and in default of payment thereof that Sir Edward should detein the same which Writing was in these Words following viz. I do direct and appoint Sir Edward Biggs to take and receive to his own use 100 l. of lawful Mony of England out of the first Mony which he shall receive of mine The Action was brought for 75 l. being his Salary for three quarters of a year and Iudgment by Nil dicit It was argued this Term and in Easter Term by Councel on both sides It was agreed on all sides that the Earl left sufficient Assets to satisfie all his Bond Creditors but not enough to pay Debts upon simple Contract First it was said for the Plaintiff in the Errors that no Action of Debt will lie against an Executor upon a Mutuatus 11 Co. Godfreys Case because the Testator might have waged his Law but this was not much insisted on 2. That admitting an Action would lye yet this is an erronious Iudgment because the Suit was for 75 l. for three quarters Salary when by the Writing Sir Edward was to serve the Earl a whole year and this being an entire Contract shall not be seperated Therefore he cannot be well entituled to the Actionn unless his Testator had served a year and he had averred it so in his Declaration As where a Covenant was to pay 2 s. Yelv. 133. 7 Co. 10. Allen 9. for copying every Quire of Paper and the Breach assigned that he copyed 4 Quire and 3 sheets for which 8 s. and 3 d. was due to the Plaintiff 't is true he had Iudgment but it was reversed because it was an entire Covenant of which no apportionment could be made pro rata 3. That which was chiefly insisted on was to make these words amount to an Obligation that so it might be satisfied amongst the Bond Creditors But those who argued for the Plaintiff in the Errors said that it cannot be an Obligation for it was only a bare Letter of Attorney and an Authority and no more for there were no words to oblige the Earl or which can make a Warranty and therefore if the Mony was not received the Party to whom the Note was given could not resort back to him who made it had they been both living neither shall the Plaintiff now to his Administratrix Like the common Cases of the assigning of Iudgment if the Assignee doth not receive the Mony he cannot have an Action against the Assignor who only directs and appoints him so to do But on the other side Ex parte Def. the second Objection was thus answered viz. That this being only an Executory thing the Plaintiff may now bring an Action for so long time as his Testator served and this may be apportioned secundum ratam if the Law should be otherwise the Case of all Servants would be bad for they are generally hired for a year and not usually serve so long In an Assumpsit to pay for a years board Sid. 225. and the Plaintiff had declared only for three quarters of a year but yet had Iudgment because as the Book saith if there be any variance in the Agreement 't is for the advantage of the Defendant The 3d. Vaughan 92 93. Pl. Com. 182. Dyer 21. Objection answered viz. When a Man is indebted to another by simple Contract which is aknowledged by Deed an Action of Debt will lie against his Executor for any thing which is under Hand and Seal will amount to an Obligation especially where the Debt is confessed Now there are words in this Deed to shew that Mony was due and that makes it a Bond. But the Court was of Opinion that this was an entire Agreement and therefore the Action not well brought for three quarters Salary and for this reason the Iudgment was reversed Nisi c. Chapman versus Lamphire AN Action on the Case was brought for scandalous words spoken of the Plaintiff Words spoken of a Carpenter where actionable who declared that he was a Carpenter and a Freeman of the City of London and that he got great Sums of Mony by buying of Timber and Materials and by building of Houses and that the Defendant having discourse of him and of his Trade spoke these words viz. He is broken and run away and will never return again There was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and a Motion was now made in arrest of Iudgment for that a Carpenter was not a Trade within the Statute of Bankrupts and a day being given to speak to it again Mr. Pollexfen argued that before the Statutes made against Bankrupts words spoken reflecting upon a man in his Trade were actionable even at the Common Law because it might be the occasion of the loss of his Livelyhood 1 Rol. Abr. 59. pl. 6. Hutton 60. and therefore it was actionable to say of a Scrivener that he is broken and run away and dares not shew his Face and yet a Scrivener was not within the Statutes of Bankrupcy before the Act of 21 Jac. therefore the Action must lie at the Common Law because words disparage him in his Trade But the Councel for the Defendant said that these words were not actionable for they do not tend to his disparagement he may be broke and yet as good a Carpenter as before The Case of one Hill in 2 Car. Latch 114. in this Court was much stronger than this the words spoken of him were viz. Hill is a base broken Rascal and hath broken twice already and I will make him break the third time the Plaintiff had Iudgment but it was arrested A Carpenter builds upon the Credit of other men and so long as the words do not touch him in the skill and knowledge of his Profession they cannot injure him Chief Iustice The Credit which the Defendant hath in the World may be a means to support his skill for he may not have an opportunity to shew his Workmanship without those Materials for which he is entrusted The Iudges were divided in Opinion two against two and so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment there being no Rule made to stay it so that he had his Iudgment upon his general Rule for Iudgment but if it had been upon a Demurrer or Special Verdict then it would have been adjourned to the Exchequer Chamber Goring versus Deering IN an Appeal for the Murder of Henry Goring Esq Auterfoits convict of Manslaughter no good Plea in an Appeal for Murder brought by his Widow The Defendant pleaded that he was indicted for the said Murder at the Sessions-house in the Old Bayly in Middlesex that he was found guilty of Manslaughter