Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	action_n	case_n	writ_n	3,269	5	9.4187	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43105	The English-mans right a dialogue between a barrister at law and a jury-man : plainly setting forth, I. the antiquity of juries : II. the excellent designed use of juries : III. the office and just priviledges of juries, by the law of England.	Hawles, John, Sir, 1645-1716.	1680 (1680)	Wing H1185; ESTC R14849	29,854	42

young lest in time this crafty Cockatrices Egg hatcht and fosterd by Ignorance and pusillanimous Compliance grow up up into a Serpent too big to be master'd ●and so Blast and destroy the First-Born of our English Freedoms And indeed Blessed be God it hath hitherto been rigorously opposed as often as it durst Crawl abroad being Condemned in Parliament and knockt o' th head by the Resolutions of the Judges upon solemn Argument As by and by I shall demonstrate Jurym. Welle but are Iurors not liable then to Fine or Imprisonment in any Case whatsoever Barr. Now you run from the Point Juries Office partly Ministerial partly Judicial Vaughan Repfo 152. we were talking of giving their Verdict and you speak of any Case whatsoever Whereas you should herein observe a necessary distinction which I shall give you in the words of that Learned Iudge last Cited e Much of the Office of Jurors in order to their Verdict is Ministerial as not withdrawing from their Fellows after they are Sworn not receiving from either side Evidence not given in Court Not eating and drinking before their Verdict Refusing to give a Verdict c. Wherein if they Transgress they may be finable But the Verdict in self when given is not an Act Ministerial but Judicial and supposed to be according to the best of their Judgment for which they are not Finable nor to be punisht but by Attaint that is by another Jury in Cases where an Attaint lies and where it shall be found that Wilsully they gave a Verdict false and Corrupt Now that Iuries otherwise are in no Case punishable nor can for giving their Verdict according to their Consciences and the best of their Judgment be Legally Fined or Imprisoned by any Iudge on Colour of not going according to their Evidence or finding contrary to the directions of the Court is a truth both founded on unanswerable Reasons and Confirmed by Irrefragable Authorities Jurym. Those I would gladly hear Barr. They are many but some of the most evident are these that follow As for Reasons 1. A Iury ought not to be Fined or Imprisoned because they do not follow the Iudges directions for if they do follow his directions they may yet be Attainted and to say they gave their Verdict according to his directions is no Barr but the Iudgment shall be revers'd and they punisht for doing that which if they had not done they should by this Opinion have been Fined and Imprisoned by the Iudge for not doing it Which is Vnreasonable 2. If they do not follow his direction and be therefore Fined yet they may be Attainted and so they should be doubly punisht by distinct Iudicatures for the same Offence which the Common Law never admits 3. To what end is the Jury to be return'd out of the Vicinage that is the neighbourhood whence the issue ariseth To what end must Hundredors be of the Jury whom the Law supposeth to have neare knowledge of the Fact than those of the Vicinage in general To what end are they challeng'd so scrupulously to the Array and Pole to what end must they have such a certain Freehold and be Probi legales homines and not of Affinity with the Parties concerned c. If after all this they implicitely must give a Verdict by the Dictates and Authority of another Man under pain of Fines and Imprisonment when sworn to do it according to the best of their own knowledge a Man cannot see by anothers Eye nor hear by anothers Ear no more can a Man conclude or infer the thing to be resolved by anothers understanding or reasoning unless all Mens understandings were equally alike and if meerly in compliance because the Iudge says thus or thus a Iury shall give a Verdict though such their Verdict should happen to be right true and just yet they being not assured it is so from their own understanding are for sworn at least in Foro Conscientiae 4. Were Jurors so finable then every Major and Bailiff of Corporations all Stewards of Leets Justices of Peace c. whatever Matters are try'd before them shall have Verdicts to their minds or else Fine and Imprison the Jurors till they have so that such must be either pleased humored or gratified else no Justice or Right to be had in any Court 5. Whereas a Person by Law may Challenge the Sheriff or any Jury-man if of Kin to his Adversary yet he cannot challenge a Major Recorder Justice c. who 't is possible will have a Verdict for their Kinsman or against their Enemy or else Fine and Imprison the Jury till they have obtained it so that by this means our Lives Liberties and Properties shall be solely tryed by and remain at the Arbitrary dispose of every mercenary or corrupted Justice Major Bailiff or Recorder if any such should at any time get into Office 6. 'T is unreasonable that a Jury should be Finable on pretence of their going against their Evidence because it can never be Tryed whether or no in truth they did find with or against their Evidence by reason no Writ of Error lies in the Case 7. Were Jury-men liable to such Arbitrary Fines they should be in a worse condition than the Criminals that are tryed by them for in all Civil Actions Informations and Indictments some Appeals or Writs of false Judgment or of Error do lie into Superior Counts to try the regular Proceedings of the Inferior But here can be no After-Tryal or Examination but the Jury-man if Fining at all were lawful must either pay the Fine or lie by it without remedy to decide whether in his particular Case he were legally Fined or not 8. Without a Fact agreed it is as impossible for a Judge or any other to know the Law relating to that Fact or direct concerning it as to know an Accident that hath no Subject for as where there is no Law there is no Transgression so where there is no Transgression there is no place for Law for the Law saith Divine Authority is made for the Transgressor And as Cook tells us Ex facto Jus oritur upon slating the Fact or Transgression matter of Law doth arise or grow out of the Root of the Fact Now the Jury being the sole Judges of Fact and Matter in Issue before them not finding the Fact on which the Law should arise cannot be said to find against Law which is no other than a Superstructure on Fact so that to say they have found against the Law when no Fact is found is absurd an expression insignificant and unintelligible for no Issue can be joyned of matter in Law no Jury can be Charged with the Tryal of matter in Law barely no Evidence even was or can be given to a Jury of what is Law or not Nor can any such Oath be given to or taken by a Jury to try matter in Law nor does an Attaint for such Oath if false c. But if by finding against