Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	appear_v	error_n	writ_n	1,717	5	9.5204	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54244	Truth rescued from imposture, or, A brief reply to a meer rapsodie of lies, folly, and slander but a pretended answer to the tryal of W. Penn and W. Meade &c. writ and subscribed S.S. / by a profest enemy to oppression, W.P.	Penn, William, 1644-1718.; Rudyard, Thomas, d. 1692. An appendix, wherein the fourth section of S.S. his pamphlet ... examined.	1670 (1670)	Wing P1392; ESTC R36662	46,879	75

had been more knowing and so more proper per Judges who might give a better and more equal Determination of such Facts which for decision came before them then a Jury of twelve men could or would do Surely the Law would then have left all Controversies to their sole Arbitrary Determination and never have required and commanded Tryals by Jurors which are not only chargeable to the Iury-men Free-holders of this Nation by reason of their Attendance and Expence at Assizes and Sessions but also dangerous and hazardous to perform and do their Duty there But according to that Maxime Lex intendit vicinum vicini facta scire The Law presumes that each man best knows his Neighbours Actions Therefore the most proper Judge whether to condemn his Neighbour as guilty or to acquit him as innocent So we must either lose our Reason or conclude it Illegal and Irrational that Justices whom the Law quo ad hoc concludes Ignorant should judge or condemn Jurors for Ignorance whom the Law quo ad hoc concludes more knowing then themselves 5. Fifthly the fifth Reason and Argument to evince the Illegality of such Arbitrary Proceedings may be drawn from that Maxime of Law more then once used by the learned Cook viz. Lex est tutissima Cassis The Law is the surest Sactuary that a man can take and the strongest Fortress to protect the Weakest Yea saith that Author Sub clipeo Legis nemo decip●tur It fails none that put their trust in it We have no reason to believe that that Author put an Encomium upon the Laws of England we mean the Fundamental Laws the Charters of Liberties of which he then treated beyond their real Worth and Value But must rather conclude that such Arbitrary Proccedings which leave the Freemen of England void of Defence and Remediless of Relief are not according to the Rules and M●xims of Law but clearly otherwise And th●t the Fining and Imprisoning of Jurors are such may further app●ar in these Particulars First In that the Jurors are condemned without a Tryal whether they have done their Duty or not that is whether they have found with or against their Evidence c. 2. Secondly In that the Iudgement against them be it Vitious or Erroneous either in respect of the irregularity of the Proceedings or nullity of the Fact charged upon them cannot be examin'd or revers'd by Writ of Error 3. Thirdly In that no such Superiour Court can receive or hear their Appeal as upon Indictments and all other Proceedings by due course of Law they might Manifesting that such Arbitrary Proceedings against Jurors are far more severe and hard then any Convictions of Traitors Thieves and Murderers who are apprehended Flagranti Delicto and tryed by due Course of Law And since they are so unreasonable that they allow not a Iury of twelve Boni Legales Homines Good and Lawfull Men neither liberty of defence before Iudgment nor an after Tryal or Examination of the Fact for which they were condemned we must necessarily conclude them Illegal and Irrational so null and void according to that known Maxime Cessante ratione Legis cessat ipsa Lex And leave them to that just Censure of the Parliament of the Commons of England THAT THEY WERE INNOVATIONS IN THE TRYALS OF MEN FOR THEIR LIVES AND LIBERTIES S.S. his 2d 3d and 4th Remarks Examined Saith S.S. If it be objected That in the present Case being an Indictment for a Trespass an Attaint doth lie and therefore ought to be punished in Attaint Which he thus himself answers Brook Title Attaint 130. saith Et sic admittitur quod si le Roy fuit merement Party Attaint negist Where the King is sole Party Attaint doth not lie In our present Case the King is sole party and therefore by the old Law no Attaint doth lie In the answering of his own Objection the Author has taken up no less then four or ●●ve Pages of his Discourse and the whole of his second third and fourth Remarks in quoting nine or ten Book-Cases and Statutes to prove his Assertion that no Attaint lies where the King is Party Ending his Libel thus From these four Remarks I conclude Nothing but leave the Determination of this important Affair to the honorable Sages of our Law and Pray that in this and in all other Businesses of Concernment that God the Great Iudge of Heaven and Earth would guide and direct them Answ 1st The Righteous God whom this Libeller imprecates has declared That the Prayers of the Wicked are an Abomination to him Prov. 15.9 and 28.9 2d The Frivolousness and Impertinentness of this Ribaldry to the Controversie in hand will appear to the meanest Capacity that will take the pains to compare it to the Libellers own Text viz. The fining of that Jury that gave two Contrary Verdicts Justified 3d The King being Party so no attaint lies the matter of these three last Remarks is so far from being an Objection to be offered by the Friends of those oppressed Iurors that they not only grant to him that no attaint lies against such Iurors but that it is horrid Injustice and Oppression to punish them by that or any other way which we shall clear briefly in these Particulars 1. First It might suffice any rational man That Iurors betwixt the King and Prisoners ought not thus by Arbitrary Fines or other Means to have punishment inflicted upon them in as much as the Ancient Common Law of England is so far from directing of Pai●es that it declares That all Restraints of Jurors are Abusions of the Law Which we have from Andrew Horn a learned Writer of the Law in the time of Ed. 1. who amongst the great abuses of the Common Law for some of which King Alfred executed several of his corrupt Judges sets down this viz. It is Abuse to compel Jurors to say that which they know not by distress of Fine and Imprisonment after their Verdict And that this is the Statute Law to this day may appear 2d In that the Grand Councels of England in Parliament have no less then Twenty several times given their Judgments about the false or vitious Verdicts of Jurors Enacting twenty one Statutes for the correcting and punishing of such Defaults And doubtless they having been so often near the Point had the Law of England and Right and Liberty of its People admitted of such Punishments as the Adversaries of both at this day put in practice they would have let us understood it and not suffer the Law so many Ages to be Vagum incognitum But those Councels making no such Breach upon our Fundamental Laws Rights and Liberties and this our present Parliament by their Resolves confirming the same we may and must aver the contrary procedures Innovations so illegal and opressive But to conclude 3d Lex semper intendit quod convenit Rationi The Law says Cook alwayes intends that which is agreeable to Reason

or his Feet trod upon Besides It does not appear that the House was seized pursuant to any Tryal Conviction or Judgment by the Laws of England and that such seizure is not according to the sence of them appears by the Statute of the 17th of Charles the first Cap. 10. where it is expresly said That neither his Majesty nor his Council have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power or Authority by English Bill Petition Articles Libel or any other arbitrary way whatsoever to examine or draw into question determine or dispose of the Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods and Chattels of any Subjects of this Kingdom but that the same ought to be tryed and determined in the Courts of Justice and by the ordinary Course of Law Nota 12. page 2● The Jury in Mr Pen's opinion and Bushels both are perjured men for that at last they brought in a Verdict contradictory to this Answ Those that have read the Tryal will apprehend his meaning for upon their bringing me in not guilty of an unlawfull Meeting but guilty onely of speaking in the pl●ce called Grace-Church-Street and the Court menacing them much and saying They would have a Verdict meaning Guilty I said the consent of Twelve men is a Verdict in Law and if they bring in another Verdict contrary to this they are Perjured Men. But what then Therefore when they brought me in Not Guilty had they perjudred themselves Nothing less I am ashamed to read so ridiculous a Non Sequitur in Print If I understand what Contraries mean the opposit to Not Guilty must be Guilty But that they gave no such Verdict absolutely is manifest from the Courts not receiving it for above all things they waited and prest hard for it Therefore to be guilty of Speaking in Grace-Church-Street and not at an Vnlawful Assembly is a not being guilty in Law and consequently their Verdict no Contradiction Nota 13. pag. 26. At this time some of the Jury complained to the Court that the four men viz. Bushel Hammond and the other two would starve them and that they had brought Strong-water-Bottles in their Pockets designedly Answ 'T is not the Quakers Light but S.S. his Darkness that is the Father of Lyes and Miserable will be the End of such as make them their Refuge For First There was no such Complaint made Secondly Nor was there any just Occasion for one And Lastly Methinks this Libeller might remember that if he thought me condemnable for not giving the Justices more Titles and Additions then their own Names and that of Aldermen he upon greater cause deserves a Check that cannot afford those able and honest Citizens more then half their Names and scarcely that too Nota 14. pag. 26. The Court having regard to the Health of the Jury adjourned till seven next morning although it was Sunday which otherwise they would not have done Answ It was and is a real Question Whether the health of the Jury or condemnation of the Prisoners was most in their eye but no matter which I shall briefly insist upon their adjournment to that Day I suppose it is not unknown to those that know Law that Dies Dominicus non est in lege dies or That the Lords Day is not a Day in Law That is There ought not to be Assizes Sessions or Termes held on that Day because it is a time the Law takes no cognizance of nor has any relation to thus Cook in his first Instit Sect. 201. fol. 155. where he excludes that day from the number of those he calls Dies Juridici or Dayes in Law The consequence of which must needs be this That their whole procedure at that Session becomes question'd and void in Law But to justifie those Transactions they got a Commission after Sessions anti-dated from the time of that Adjournment I shall not much reflect upon the Passage it carries it s own Comment with it But methinks more Skill in Law or Moderation to the Prisoners and Jury might have prevented such an extrajudicial procedure Nota 15. pag. 28. This is the fourth time the Jury brought in this insignificant Verdict viz. That they find Penn guilty of speaking in Grace-Church-Street and how this answers the Question viz. What say you Is W. Penn guilty of the matter whereof he stands indicted in Manner and Form or not guilty Let the World judge whether that be a Verdict or not They thus often abusing the Court made the displeasure of the Court against them and surely not without cause Answ This Nota is upon the Juries continuance of their Verdict of only bringing me in Guilty of spe●king in Grace-Church-Street delivered First day Morning But how reasonable will be the matter of our inquiery and answer If S.S. will have the Jury only Judge of Fact which the Recorder expresly aff●rmed on the Bench using words to this purpose We will have you to know that you shall not be Judges of what the Law says c. Why are they here condemned for undertaking no farther The ●rought in the Fact but that the Court thought incomprehensive of the Indictment which being complicated of Law and Fact were to answer the Question in Manner and Form And if this doth not inthrone them Judges how far the Fact reaches th● Law and whether by Law A.B. is guilty or not guilty I must confess my self mistaken and I am sure to have company enough of all men of sence and Sobriety So that what the Jury is deny'd elsewhere is given here and S.S. equally angry for their being and not being sole Judges Nota 16. pag. 28. William Penn made such a Noise in the Court that the Court could not hear the Jury nor the Jury the Court. Answ If to speak to be heard be Noise I was guilty of his Observation but I need the less to vindicate my self who have so many living Witnesses of Credit to do it for me If they would not hear me they ought not to have condemned me but if they could condemn me they in Conscience ought not to over-rule but hear me But would any know the Noise I made read my words and 't will be found S.S. has only Nois'd a Fiction Upon their menacing of the Jury I thus spoke It is intollerable that my Jury should be thus menaced Is this according to the Fundamental Laws thus far S.S. Are not they my proper Judges by the Great Charter of England What hope is there of ever having Justice done when Juries are cheek t and their Verdicts rejected I am concerned to speak and grieved to see such arbitrary Proceedings Did not the Lievtenant of the Tower render One of them worse then a Fellon and do you not plainly seem to condemn such for factious Fellows who answer not your Ends Vnhappy are those Juries who are threatned to be fin●d and starved and ruined if they give not in Verdicts contrary to their Consciences This was the Noise charged upon me and for this Fetters