the said Act in such case the Appeal was to Rome immediately XXXV Mich. Term 5 Jacob. Rot. 30. In the Kings-Bench Prichard and Hawkins Case JOhn Prichard brought an Action upon the Case against Robert Hawkins for slanderous words publishèd the last day of August in the third year of the King viz. That Prichard which serveth Mistris Shelley did murder John Adams Childe Quandam Isabellam Adams modo defunct filiam cujusdem Johannis Adams of Williamstre in the County of Glocester innuendo upon which a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given for Prichard in the Kings-Bench and the Iudgment was reversed in Easter Term 7 Jacobi because that it doth not appear that Isabel was dead at the time of the speaking the words for tunc defunct ought to have been in the place of modo defunct XXXVI Easter Term. 8 Jacobi In the Kings-Bench Dison and Bestneys Case HUmphrey Dison said of Nicolas Bestney utter Barester and Councellor of Grays-Inn Thou a Barester Thou art no Barester thou art a Barretor Thou wert put from the Bar and thou darest not shew thy self there Thou study Law Thou hast as much wit as a Daw. Vpon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found for the Plaintiff and assessed damages to 23 l. upon which Iudgment was given and in a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Iudgment was affirmed XXXVII Easter Term 8 Jacobi Regis In the Kings-Bench Smith and Hills Case NOah Smith brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Walter Hill in the Kings-Bench which began Pasc 7 Jacobi Rot. 175. upon Not-guilty pleaded a Verdict and Iudgment was for the Plaintiff and 107 l. assessed for damages and costs In a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber the Error was assigned in the Venire facias which was certified by Writ of Certiorari and upon the Writ no Return was made upon the back of the Writ which is called Returnum album and for that cause this Easter Term the Iudgment was reversed XXXVIII Trinity Term 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Westcots Case IT was found by a Writ of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Roger Westcot That the said Roger the day that he dyed was seised of and in the moyety of the Mannor of Trewalliard in his Demesn as of Fee and of such his Estate dyed thereof seised and that the moyety of the said Mannor anno 19 E. 3. was holden of the then Prince as of his Castle of Trematon parcel of his Dutchy of Cornwall by Knights-service as it appeareth by a certain exemplification of Trematon for the same Prince made 9 Marcii 19 E. 3. And the words of the Extent were Willielmus de Torr tenet duo feoda dimid militis apud Pick Striklestomb Trewalliard per servitum militare reddit inde per annum 8 d. And it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That the Office concerning the Tenure was insufficient and voyd because that the Verdict of a Iury ought to be full and direct and not with a prout patet for by that the whole force of their Verdict relyeth onely upon the Extent which if it be false he who is grieved shall have no remedy by any Traverse for they have not found the Tenure indefinite which might be traversed but with a prout patet which makes the Office in that point insufficient and upon that a Melius inquirendum shall issue forth and therewith agreeth F. N. B. 255. that a Melius inquirendum shall be awarded in Inch a Case The NAMES of the CASES CAse of the admiralty 7. Jac. 51. Case of S. Alphage parish in Canterbury 8. Jac. 70. Baron and Boyes case 6. Jac. 18. Case of repairing Bridges c. 7. Jac. 33. Bedell and Shermans case 40. Eliz. 47. Baylyes case 7. Jac. 48. Case in Chancery Hill 27. Eliz. 19. Case in the common Pleas. 6. Jac. 26. Collings and Hardings 39. Eli. 57. Case of Modus decinandi 6. Jac. 12. Case de Modo Decimandi and of prohibitions before the King 7. Jac. 37. Disow and Bestneyes case 8. Jac. 71. Edwards case 6. Jac. 9. Case in ejectione firmae 7. Jac. 58. Hulmes case 7. Jac. 61. Haywards and Sr. Iohn Whitebrookes case 64. Hughes and Crowthers case 7. Iac. 66. Haidon and Smiths case 8. Iac. 67. Muttons case 7. Iac. 59. More and Webs case 7. Iac. 65. Neale and Rowses case 6. Iac. 24. Porters and Rochesters case 6. Iac. 4. Ca. of prohibition 6. Iac. 30. Sir Allen Percies case 7. Iac. 60. Parliaments case 7. Ia. 63. Prichard and Haukins case 5. Iac. 71. Sir William Reades Boothes case 7. Iac. 34. Syrat and Heales case 44. Eliz. 23. Case of sewers 7 Iac. 35. Sparye case 7. Iac. 49. Samms case 7. Iac. 54. Smith and Hils case 8. Iac. 71. Taylor and Moyls case 6. Iac. 11. Willowes case 6. Iac. 1. Case in the court of wards 7. Iac. 48. Case in the Court of wards 7. Iac. 49. Wills case 7. Iac. 50. Westcots case 7. Iac. 72. THE TABLE A Acts of Parliament are parcell of the Law so to be judged by the judges of the Law fol. 4. Acts none may take upon him any act c. but who hath knowledge in the same 12. Apples not contained within the words of Stat. 5. E. 6. 14. against ingrossors 18. 19. Actions of claime to be brought within 5. yeares 21. Aid to the King who to pay it 26. 27. 28. For what 29. 30. Made certaine and when to be paid 25. Admirall his power how far it extends 51. 52. Court of Admiralty no Court of record 53. Avoury where it shall be good and maintaineable 58. B Brewer is within the act of the 5. El. 4. for that none may keepe a common brewhouse unlesse formerly apprentice 11. 12. Burgage tenure what it is 27. Bridges rivers sewers c. who ought to repair them and how compellable to it 33. Boote a saxon word the signification whereof various 68. Boote and estovers signifie all one thing 68. C Copyhold where a Copyholder may deny to pay his fine 2. Canterbury Arch bishop thereof cannot cite one out of his owne Diocese and the reason thereof 5. 6. 7. 8. Commission High commissioners their power and to whom extendible 11. 47. Customes what Customes shall be good and when and what not 12. 13. Customes where the Kings Court shall be ousted of jurisdiction in Modo decimandi and where not 18. Customes and prescriptions to be tryed by the common Law 40. Canon Eccles against the Kings perrogative the common law c. ipso facto voide 47. Common of Pasture who shall have it and who shall be debared and why 66. Common divided shall be rateable so that the land in which c. shal not be surcharged 66. Coppyholders may of common right take House-boote hedge boote Plough-boote upon his coppy hold 68. Shall have an action against his Lord for cutting
were meer Spirituall such a Defamation is not examinable before the high Commissioners As to the last Article It appeareth now by the Iudgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said words Also the high Commissioners shall not have Conusance of any Scandall to themselves for Judex non potest injuriam sibi datam punire Vi. the Stat. of 23 H. 8. c. 9. that they are parties and such Scandall is punishable by the Common Law as it was resolved in Hales Case which see in the Book of the Lord Dyers Reports and see in my Book of Presidents the Copy of the Indictment of Hales for scandaling of the Ecclesiasticall Commissioners Note the Bishop of Winchester being Visiter of the School of Winchester of the Foundation of Wickam Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop and Cant. and other his Colleagues An. 5 Car. cited the Vsher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them and proceed there against him for which they incurred the danger of a Premunire And so did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Colleagues by force of a high Commission to them directed cite one Humphrey Frank Master of Arts and Schoolmaster of the School of Sevenock of the Foundation of Sir William Sevenock in the time of King Henry the sixth to appear before the high Commissioners at Lambeth the sixth day of December last past which citation was subscribed by Sir John Bennet Doctor of Law Doctor James and Doctor Hickman three of the high Commissioners and Sir Christopher Perkins procured the said Citation to be made and when the said Frank appeared the Archbishop being associated with Sir Christopher Perkins and Doctor Abbot Dean of Winchester made an Order concerning the said School scil That the said Frank shall continue in the said School untill the Annunciation and that he should have twenty pounds paid to him by Sir Ralph Bosoile Knight IV. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Taylor and Shoiles Case TAylor informed upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Domino Reg. quam pro seipso in the Exchequer That the Defendant had exercised the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averreâ— that Shoile the Defendant did not use or exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of the making of the Act nor had been Apprentice by seven years at least according to the said Act c. The Defendant did demur in Law upon the Information and Iudgment was given against him by the Barons of the Exchequer And now in this Terme upon a Writ of Error the matter was argued at Serjeants-Inne before the two chief Iustices and two matters were moved The One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act For the words are That it shall not be lawfull to any person or persons other then such as now lawfully use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation to set up use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an Apprentice And it was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation within the said Branch because the same is easily and presently learned and he needs not to have seven years Apprentiship to be instructed in the same for every Huswife in the Country can do the same and the Act of Henry the eighth is That a Brewer is not a Handycraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for the Averment ought to be as generall as the exception in the Statute is scil That the Defendant did not use any Art Mystery or Occucupation at the time of the making of the same Act for by this pretence if any Art c. then as a Taylor Carpenter c. he may now exercise any other Art whatsoever As unto the first It was resolved That the Trade of a Brewer scil to hold a common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of the Act It is enacted That no person shall be retained for lesse time then a whole year in any of the Services Crafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. So as by the judgment of the same Parliament The Trade of a Brewer is an Art and Mystery which words are in the said Branch upon which the said Information is grounded Also because that every Huswife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth Meat And yet none can hold a common Bakehouse or a Cooks Shop to sell to others unlesse that he hath been an Apprentice c. for they are expresly named also in the Act as Arts and Mysteries And the Act of 22 H. 8. cap. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener Alien are not handycrafts mentioned within certain penall Lawes But the same doth not prove but that they are Arts or Mysterys for Art or Mystery is more generall then Handycrafts for the same is restrained to Manufactures As to the second Point It was resolved That the intention of the Act was That none should take upon him any Art but he who hath skill or knowledge in the same And therefore the Statute intendeth That he who useth any Art or Mystery at the time of the Act might use the same Art or Mystery for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And the words of the Act are As now do lawfully use c. And it was said That it was very necessary that Brewers should have knowledge and skill in brewing good and wholsome Beer and Ale for that the same doth greatly conduce to mens healths And so the first Iudgment was affirmed V. Mich. 6 Jacobi In the Common Pleas. The Case of Modus Decimandi SHerley Serjeant moved to have a Prohibition because that a person Tithes sued to have Tithes of Silva Cedua under twenty years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custome of it which is a great part of the County Tithes of any Wood was never paid And if such a Custome in non Decimando for all Lay people within the said Weild were lawfull or not was the question And to have a Prohibition it was said That although one particular man shall not prescribe in non decimando yet such a generall Custome within a great Country might well be as in 43 E. 3. 32. and 45 E. 3. Custome 15. It was presented in the Kings Bench That an Abbot had purchased Tenements after the Statute c. And the Abbot came and said That he was Lord of the Town c. And the custome of the Town was That when the Tenant cesseth for two years that the Lord might enter untill agreement be made for the Arrerages And that he who held these Tenements was his Tenant and cessed for two years and he entred and
not of Tythes severed from the nine parts for that shall be in Case of a Praemunire and it appeareth to the Common Law See 16 H. 2. in the Case of Mortuary Vide Decretalia Sexti Lib. 3. tit de Decimis cap. 1. fo 130. Col. 4. Et summa Angelica fo 72. the same And that also appeareth by Linwood amongst the Constitutions Simonis Mephum tit de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter fo 139. 6. verbo Consuetudines Consuetudo ut non solvantur aut minus plene solvantur Decimae non valet and ibidem secundum alios Quod in Decimis realibus non valet Consuetudo ut solvatur minus decima parte sed in personalibus c. And ibidem Litt. M. verbo Integre faciunt expresse contra opinionem quorundum Theologorum qui dicunt sufficere aliquid dari pro Decima And that is the true Reason in both the said Cases scil de modo Decimandi de Limitibus Parochiorum c. that they would not adjudg according to their Canons and therefore a Prohibition lieth and therewith agreeth 8 E. 4. 14. and the other Boóks abovesaid and infinite presidents and the rather after the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And also the Customs of the Realm are part of the Laws of the Realm and therefore they shall be tryed by the Common Law as is aforesaid See 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Iustices VI. Mich. 6 Jacob. in the Exchequer Baron and Boys Case IN the Case between Baron and Boys in an Information upon the Sur Stat. 2 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers after Verdict it was found for the Informer That the Defendant had ingrossed Apples against the said Act The Barons of the Exchequer held clearly That Apples were not within the said Act and gave Iudgment against the Informer upon the matter apparent to them and caused the same to be entered in the Margent of the Record where the Iudgment was given and the Informer brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber and the only Question was Whether Apples were within the said Act the letter of which is That whatsoever person or persons c. shall ingross or get into his or their hands by buying contracting or promise taking other then by Demise Grant or Lease of Land or Tythe any Corn growing in the Fields or any other Corn or grain Butter Cheese Fish or other dead Victual within the Realm of England to the intent to sell the same again shall be accepted c. an unlawful Ingrosser And although that the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Sellers of Victual which for their great gain conspire c. numbereth Butchers Brewers Bakers Cooks Costermongers and Fruterers as Victualers yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the Statute of 5 E. 6. For the Buyers and Sellers of Corn and other Victuals have divers Provisoes and Qualifications for them as it appeareth by the said Act but Costermongers and Fruterers have not any Proviso for them also always after the said Act they have bought Apples and other Fruits by Ingross and sold them again and before this time no Information was exhibited for them no more then for Plums or other fruit which serveth more for delicacy then for necessary Food But the Statute of 5 E. 6. is to be intended of things necessary and of common use for the sustenance of man and therefore the words are Corn Grain Butter Cheese or other dead Victual which is as much to say as Victual of like quality that is of like necessary and common use But the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. made against Conspiracies to enhaunce the prices was done and made by express words to extend it to things which are more of pleasure then of profit So it was said That of those Fruits a man cannot be a Forestaller within this Act of 5 E. 6. for in the same Branch the words are any Merchandize Victual or any other thing But this was not resolved by the Iustices because that the Information was conceived upon that branch of the Statute concerning Ingrossers VII Hill 27 Eliz. in the Chancery HIllary Term the 27 of Eliz. in the Chancery the Case was thus One Ninian Menvil seised of certain Lands in Fee took a wife Fine Dower Relation and levyed a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations and afterwards was indicted and out-lawed of High Treason and dyed The Conusees convey the Lands to the Queen who is now seised the five years pass after the death of the Husband The Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian in a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. last past and thereupon the Wife sueth to the Queen who was seised of the said Land as aforesaid by Petition containing all the special matter scil the Fine with proclamations and the five years passed after the death of her Husband the Attainder and the reversal of it and her own title scil her marriage and the seisin of her Husband before the Fine And the Petition being endorsed by the Queen Fiat droit aux parties c. the same was sent into the Chancery as the manner is And in this case divers Objections were made against the Demandant 1. That the said Fine with proclamations should bar the Wife of her Dower and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her for as long as the Attainder doth remain in force the same was a bar also of her Dower so as there was a double bar to the Wife viz. the Fine levyed with proclamations and the five years past after the death of her Husband and the Attainder of her Husband of his Treason But admit that the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife in some manner when the same is now reversed in a Writ of Error and now upon the matter is in Iudgment of Law as if no Attainder had been and against that a man might plead That there is no such Record because that the first Record is reversed and utterly disaffirmed and annihilated and now by Relation made no Record ab initio and therewith agreeth the Book of 4 H. 7. 11. for the words of the Iudgment in a Writ of Error are Quod Judicium praedict Errores praedict alios in Recordo c. revocetur admittetur c. quod ipsa ad possessionem suam sive seisinam suam as the case requireth tenementorum suorum praedictorum una cum exitibus proficuis inde a tempore Judicii praedict reddit praecept ad omnia quae occasione Judicii illius omisit restituatur By which it appeareth that the first Iudgment which was originally imperfect and erroneous is for the same Errors now adnulled and revoked ab initio and the party against whom the Iudgment was given restored to his possession and to
all the mean profits from the time of the erroneous Iudgment given until the Iudgment in the Writ of Error so as the Reversal hath a Retrospect to the first Iudgment as if no Iudgment had been given And therefore the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. the case is A. seised of Land in Fee was attainted of High Treason and the King granted the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land and afterwards by Parliament A. was restored and the Attainder made voyd as if no Act had been and shall be as available and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been and afterwards B. bringeth Trespass for the Trespass Mesue and it was adjudged in 10 H. 7. fo 22. b. That the Action of Trespass was not maintainable because that the Attainder was disaffirmed and annulled ab initio And in 4 H. 7. 10. it is holden That after a Iudgment reversed in a Writ of Error he who recovered the Land by Erroneous Iudgment shall not have an Action of Trespass for a Trespass Mean which was said was all one with the principal case in 4 H. 7. 10. and divers other Cases were put upon the same ground It was secondly objected That the Wife could not have a Petition because there was not any Office by which her title of Dower was found scil her marriage the seisin of her Husband and death for it was said that although she was marryed yet if her Husband was not seised after the age that she is Dowable she shall not have Dower as if a man seised of Land in Fee taketh to Wife a woman of eight years and afterwards before her age of nine years the Husband alieneth the Lands in Fee and afterwards the woman attaineth to the age of nine years and the Husband dyeth it was said that the woman shall not be endowed And that the title of him who sueth by Petition ought to be found by Office appeareth by the Books in 11 H. 4. 52. 29 Ass 31. 30 Ass 28. 46 E. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. As to the first Objection it was resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with proclamations was not a bar unto her and yet it was resolved that the Act of 4 H. 7. cap. 24. shall bar a woman of her Dower by a Fine levyed by her Husband with proclamations if the woman doth not bring her Writ of Dower within five years after the death of her Husband as it was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common Pleas and 5 Eliz. Dyer 224. For by the Act the right and title of a Feme Covert is saved so that she take her action within 5. years after she become uncovert c. but it was resolved That the wife was not to be ayded by that saving for in respect of the said Attainder of her Husband of Treason she had not any right of Dower at the time of the death of her Husband nor can she after the death of her Husband bring an Action or prosecute an Action to recover her Dower according to the direction and saving of the said Act But it was resolved That the Wife was to be ayded by another former Saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons scil who were not parties to the Fine such action right title claym and interest in or to the said Lands c. as shall first grow remain descend or come to them after the said Fine ingrossed and proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or by any other cause or matter had and made before the said Fine levied so that they take their Actions and pursue their right and Title according to the Law within five years next after such Action Right Claim Title or Interest to them accrued descended fallen or come c. And in this case the Action and right of Dower accrued to the wife after the reversall of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the seisin in Fee had and the Marriage made before the Fine levied according to the â—â—â—ention and meaning of the said Act. And as to the said poâ—â—t of Relation It was resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some intent not For Relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same parties to advance a Right or Ut res magis valeat quam pereat But the Law will never make such a construction to advance a wrong which the Law abhorreth Or to defeat Collaterall Acts which are lawfull and principally if they do concern Strangers And this appeareth in this Case scil when an erroneous Iudgment is reversed by a Writ of Error For true it is as it hath been said That as unto the mean Profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law untill the time of the first Iudgment given and that is to favour Iustice and to advance the right of him who hath wrong by the erroneous Iudgment But if any stranger hath done a Trespasse upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversall shall have an Action of Trespasse against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleadeth that there is no such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the speciall matter and shall maintain his Action so as unto the Trespassors who are wrong Doers the Law shall not make any construction by way of relation ab initio to excuse them for then the Law by a fiction and construction should do wrong to him who recovereth by the first Iudgment And for the better apprehending of the Law on this point it is to know That when any man recovers any possession or seisin of Land in any Action by erroneous Iudgment and afterwards the Iudgment is reversed as is said before and upon that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ recites the first recovery and the reversall of it in the Writ of Error is that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall be restored to his possession and seisin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Iudgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod eadem A. ad plenariam seisinam tenementorum praedict cum pertinentiis sine dilatione restitui facias per sacramentum proborum legalium hominum de Com. suo diligenter inquires ad quantum exitus proficua tenementorum illorum cum pertinentiis a tempore falsi Judicii praedict reddit usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die judcium illud per praefat Justiciar nostros revocat fuit se attingunt juxta verum valorem eorundem eadem exitus proficua de terris catallis praedict B. in baliva tua fieri facias denarios inde praefato A. pro exitibus et proficuis
tenementorum per eundem B. dicto medio tempore percept sine dilatione haberi sacias Et qualiter hoc praeceptum nostrum fuerit execut constare facias c. in Octab. c. By which it appeareth That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error cannot have any remedy against any stranger but only against him who is party to the Writ of Error and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to enquire of the Issues and Profits generally between the Reversal and the Iudgment with all which he who recovers shall be charged and as the Law chargeth him with all the mean profits so the Law gives to him remedy notwithstanding the Reversal against all Trespassors in the interim for otherwise the Law should make a construction by relation to discharge them who are wrong doers and to charge him who recovers with the whole who peradventure hath good right and who entereth by the Iudgment of the Law which peradventure is reversed for want of form or negligence or ignorance of a Clark And therefore as to that purpose the Iudgment shall not be reversed ab initio by a Fiction of Law but as the truth was the same stands in force until it was reversed and therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean because he shall recover all the mean profits against him who recovered nor he recovereth after shall be barred of his Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean by reason that his recovery is reversed because he shall answer for all the mean profits to the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Iustice 4 H. 7. 12. a. Note Reader If you would understand the true sence and Iudgment of the Law it is needful for you to know the true Entries of Iudgments and the Entries of all proceedings in Law and the manner and the matter of Writs of Execution of such Iudgments See Butler and Bakers Case in the third part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was resolved in the Case at Bar Although that to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by Fiction of Law by the Fine with proclamations and five years past after the death of her Husband when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any right or title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do wrong by a Fiction of Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and who had not any means to have any Relief until the Attainder was reversed And as unto the other point or Objection that the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for her it was resolved that it needed not in this case because that the title of Dower stood with the Queens title and affirmed it otherwise if the title of the Demandant in the Petition had disaffirmed the Queens title also in this Case the Queen was not entituled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it c. for then she ought to have had an Office to finde her title But in Case of Dower although that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the title of Dower in such case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office because that Dower is favored in Law she claiming but onely for term of life and affirming the title of the Queen See the Sadlers Case in the fourth part of my Reports And the case which was put on the other side was utterly denyed by the Court for it was resolved That if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife of eight years of age and alieneth his Lands and afterwards the Wife attaineth to the age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that the Wife shall be endowed For although at the time of the alienation the Wife was not dowable yet for as much as the marriage and seisin in Fee was before the alienation and the title of Dower is not consummate until the death of her Husband so as now there was marriage seisin of Fee age of nine years during the Coverture and the death of the Husband for that cause she shall be endowed For it is not requisite that the marriage seisin and age concur together all at one time but it is sufficient if they happen during the Coverture So if a man seised of Lands in Fee take a Wife and afterwards she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the Elopement the Husband alieneth and after the Wife is reconciled the Wife shall be endowed So if a man hath issue by his Wife and the issue dyeth and afterwards Land descendeth to the Wife or the Wife purchaseth Lands in Fee and dyeth without any other issue the Husband for the issue which he had before the Discent or purchase shall be Tenant by the curtesie for it is sufficient if he have issue and that the Wife be seised during the Coverture although that it be at several times But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he alieneth his Lands and afterwards she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was absolutely disabled by the Law and by her birth not capable of Dower but her capacity and ability began onely by her Denization but in the other case there was not any incapacity or disability in the person but onely a temporary Bar until such age or reconcilement which being accomplished the temporary Bar ceaseth As if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife and afterwards the Wife is attainted of Felony and afterwards the Husband alieneth and afterwards the Wife is pardoned and afterwards the Husband dyeth the Wife shall be endowed for by her birth she was not uncapable but was lawfully by her marriage and seisin in Fee entituled to have Dower and therefore when the impediment is removed she shall be endowed VIII Trinit 44 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Sprat and Heals Case JOhn Sprat Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Walter Heal for Tythes Covin substraction of Tythes the Defendant in the Spiritual Court pleaded that he had divided the Tythes from the nine parts and then the Plaintiff made addition to the Libel in the nature of a Replication scil That the Defendant divided the Tythes from the nine parts quod praedict the Plaintiff non fatetur sed prorsus diffitetur yet presently after this pretended division in fraudem legis he took and carryed away the same Tythes and converted them to his own use and the Plaintiff thereupon obtained sentence in the Spiritual Court and to recover the treble value according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And thereupon Heal made a
to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevyn in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law For at the Common Law no Replevyn ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff And the Statute of Marlbridg cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. hath authorized the Sheriff upon Plaint made to him to make a Replevyn and all that appeareth by the said Statutes and by the Books of 29 E. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King neither by his Instructions had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant to them power to make a Replevyn against the Law nor against the said Acts of Parliament but the same ought to be made by the Sheriff And all that was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor for very good Law And I say that it might well be that we have granted other Prohibitions in other Cases of English Replevyns Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who had made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and divers others in the nature of an Action upon the Case upon a Trover and Conversion in the life of the Testator of goods and Chattels to the value of 1000 l. and because the other Executor would not joyn with him although he was named in the Bill he had not any remedy at the Common Law he prayed remedy there in Equity and I say that the President and Councel have not any authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold plea between party and party c. unless both parties or one of them tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at the Common Law and in that case the Plaintiff was a Knight and Sheriff and a man of great ability 2. By that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine for he ought to have had 200 l. Fine because that the damages amounted to 4000 l. and that was one of the causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at the Common Law another cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Error or any other remedy And yet the President is a Noble-man but not learned in the Law and those which are of the Councel there although that they have the countenance of Law yet they are not learned in the Law and nevertheless they take upon them final and uncontroulable Decrees in matters of great importance For if they may deny Relief to any at their pleasure without controulment so they may do it by their final Decrees without Error Appeal or other remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Iudges for they can deny Iustice to none who hath Right nor give any Iudgment but the same is controulable by a Writ of Error c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without authority then the subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Iustice And their ignorance in the Law appeared by their allowance of that Suit scil That the one Executor had no remedy by the Common Law because the other would not joyn in suit with him at the Common Law whereas every one learned in the Law knoweth that summons and severance lieth in any Suit brought as Executors and this also in that particular Case was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor and he much inveighed against Actions brought there upon Trover and Conversion and said that they could not be found in our ancient Books Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill sued before the Counsel Banks Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in the nature of an Action of Trespass at the Common Law to his damages of 200 l. and for the causes next before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at the Common Law we granted a Prohibition and that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor And as to the case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous I having forgotten to speak to that the King himself asked what the Case was to whom I answered that the case was That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and that he owed him nothing and yet because the Defendant did not deny the Debt the Councel decreed the same against him and upon that Decree the Pursuivant was sent to arrest the said Watson who arrested him upon which the Rescous was made and because that the Suit was in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus at the Common Law and the Defendant at the Common Law might have waged his Law of which the Defendant ought not to be barred by that English Bill quia beneficium juris nemini est auferendum the Prohibition was granted and that was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor whereupon I concluded that if the principal cause doth not belong unto them all their proceedings was coram non Judice and then no Rescous could be done but the Lord Chancellor said that though the same cannot be a Rescous yet it was a Riot which might be punished there which I denyed unless it were by course of Law by force of a Commission of Oyer and Terminer and not by an English Bill but to give the King full satisfaction in that point the truth is the said Case was debated in Court and the Court inclined to grant a Prohibition in the said case but the same was stayed to be better advised upon so as no Prohibition was ever under Seal in the said Case Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Proces c. as for the count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such cases cannot hold Plea which was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor And I said that it was resolved in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Parots Case and now lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales That no Court of Equity can be erected at this day without Act of Parliament for the reasons and causes in the Report of the said Case of Parrot And the King was well satisfied with these reasons and causes of our proceedings who of his Grace gave me his Royall hand and I departed from thence in his favour And the surmise of the Number and that the Prohibition in the said Case
are to be determined in our Law he shall have a Consultation because that the principal belongeth to them 38 E. 3. 5. Right of Tythes between two spiritual persons shall be determined in the Ecclesiastical Court And 38 E. 3. 6. where the Right of Tythes comes in debate between two spiritual persons the one claiming the Tythes as of common Right within his Parish and the other claiming to be discharged by real composition the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of it And the said Iudges made humble suit to the King That for as much as they perceived that the King in his Princely Wisdom did detest Innovations and Novelties that he would vouchsafe to suffer them with his gracious favor to inform him of one Innovation and Novelty which they conceived would tend to the hinderance of the good administration and execution of Iustice within his Realm Your Majesty for the great zeal which you have to Iustice and for the due administration thereof hath constituted and made fourteen Iudges to whom you have committed not onely the administration of Ordinary Iustice of the Realm but crimina laesae Majestatis touching your Royal person for the legal proceeding also in Parliament we are called by Writ to give to your Majesty and to the Lords of the Parliament our advice and counsel when we are required We two chief Iustices sit in the Star-Chamber and are oftentimes called into the Chancery Court of Wards and other High Courts of Iustice we in our Circuits do visit twice in the year your Realm and execute Iustice according to your Laws and if we who are your publique Iudges receive any diminution of such reverence and respect in our places which our predecessors had we shall not be able to do you such acceptable service as they did without having such reverence and respect as Iudges ought to have The state of this Question is not in statu deliberativo but in statu judiciali it is not disputed de bono but de vero non de Lege fienda sed de Lege lata not to frame or devise new Laws but to inform your Majesty what your Law of England is and therefore it was never seen before that when the Question is of the Law that your Iudges of the Law have been made Disputants with him who is inferior to them who day by day plead before them at their several Courts at Westminster and although we are not afraid to dispute with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Bacon yet this example being primae impressionis and your Majesty detesting Novelties and innovations we leave it to your Grace and Princely consideration whether your Majesty will permit our answering in hoc statu judiciali upon your publique Iudges of the Realm But in Obedience to your Majesties command We with your Majesties gracious favor in most humble manner will inform your Majesty touching the said Question which we and our predecessors before us have oftentimes adjudged upon judicial proceedings in your Courts of Iustice at Westminster which Iudgments cannot be reversed or examined for any Error in Law if not by a Writ of Error in a more high and supream Court of Iustice upon legal and judicial proceedings and that is the ancient Law of England as appeareth by the Statute of 4 H. 4. cap. 22. And we being commanded to proceed all that which was said by us the Iudges was to this effect That the Tryal De Modo Decimandi ought to be by the Common Law by a Iury of twelve men it appeareth in three manners First by the Common Law Secondly by Acts of Parliament And lastly by infinite judgments and judicial proceedings long times past without any impeachment or interruption But first it is to see What is a Modus Decimandi Modus Decimandi is when Lands Tenements or Hereditaments have been given to the Parson and his successors or an annual certain sum or other profit always time out of minde to the Parson and his successors in full satisfaction and discharge of all the Tythes in kinde in such a place and such manner of Tything is now confessed by the other party to be a good bar of Tythes in kinde I. That Modus Decimandi shall be tryed by the Common Law that is that all satisfactions given in discharge of Tythes shall be tryed by the Common Law and therefore put that which is the most common case That the Lord of the Mannor of Dale prescribes to give to the Parson 40 s. yearly in full satisfaction and discharge of all Tythes growing and renewing within the Mannor of Dale at the Feast of Easter The Parson sueth the Lord of the Mannor of Dale for his Tythes of his Mannor in kinde and he in Bar prescribes in manner ut supra The Question is if the Lord of the Mannor of Dale may upon that have a Prohibition for if the Prohibition lyeth then the Spiritual Court ought not to try it for the end of the Prohibition is That they do not try that which belongs to the Tryal of the Common Law the words of the Prohibition being that they would draw the same ad aliud examen First the Law of England is divided into Common-Law Statute-Law and Customs of England and therefore the Customs of England are to be tryed by the Tryal which the Law of England doth appoint Secondly Prescriptions by the Law of the Holy Church and by the Common Law differ in the times of limitation and therefore Prescriptions and Customs of England shall be tryed by the Common Law See 20 H. 6. fo 17. 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. The Bishop of Winchester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Archdeacon of Surry and declared how that he and his successors were seised by the hands of the Defendant by title of Prescription and the Defendant demanded Iudgment if the Court would hold Iurisdiction being between spiritual persons c. Stone Iustice Be assured that upon title of prescription we will here hold Iurisdiction and upon that Wilby chief Iustice gave the Rule Answer Vpon which it follows that if a Modus Decimandi which is an annual sum for Tythes by prescription comes in debate between spiritual persons that the same shall be tryed here For the Rule of the Book is general scil upon title of prescription we will hold Iurisdiction and that is fortified with an Asseveration Know assuredly as if he should say that it is so certain that it is without question 32 E. 3. Jurisd 26. There was a Vicar who had onely Tythes and Oblations and an Abbot claimed an Annuity or Pension of him by prescription and it was adjudged that the same prescription although it was betwixt spiritual persons should be tryed by the Common Law Vide 22 H. 6. 46. and 47. A prescription that an Abby time out of minde had found a Chaplain in his Chappel to say Divine Service and to minister Sacraments tryed at the Common Law 3. See the Record of 25 H. 3. cited
of Iustice And this was the end of these three days consultations And note That Dr. Bennet in his discourse inveighed much against the opinion in 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Iudg would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said That that was the mystery of iniquity and that they would allow it And the King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answered that it appeareth in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and of profound knowledg in the Canon and Civil Law and who wrote in the Reign of King Henry the sixth a little before the said Case in 8 E. 4. in his title de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter c. fo 139. b. Quod Decimae solvantur c. absque ulla diminutione and in the gloss it is said Quod Consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene Decimando non valet And that being written by a great Canonist of England was the cause of the said saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said plea de Modo Decimandi for always the Modus Decimandi is lesse in value then the Tithes in specie and then the same is against their Canon Quod decimae solvantur absque diminutione quod consuetudo de non plene Decimando non valet And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good Cause for them in the time of King Edward the fourth to say as they had said but I said That I did not relie upon that but upon the grounds aforesaid scil The common Law Statute-Laws and the continuall and infinite judgements and judiciall proceedings and that if any Canon or Constitution be against the same such Canon and Constitution c. is void by the Statute of 25. H. 8. Cap. 19. which see and note For all Canons Constitutions c. against the Prerogative of the King the common Laws Statutes or Customs of the Realm are void Lastly the King said That the high Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormious and exorbitant and cannot permit the ordinary Proces of the Ecclesiasticall Law and which the same Law cannot punish And that was the cause of the institution of the same Commission and therefore although every offence ex vi termini is enormious yet in the Statute it is to be intended of such an offence is extra omnem normam as Heresie Schisme Incest and the like great offences For the King said That it was not reason that the high Commission should have conusance of common offences but to leave them to Ordinaries scil because that the party cannot have any appeal in case the high Commisson shall determine of it And the King thought that two high Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more XV. Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Bedell and Shermans Case MIch 39 and 40 Eliz. which is entred Mich. 40 Eliz. in the com-Pleas Rot. 699 Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his wife Farmors of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in the custody of the Marshall of the Marshalsey and demanded 550 l. And declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were seised of the said Rectory in fee in right of the said Colledge and in June 10. 29 Eliz. by Indenture demised to Christopher Phesant the said Rectorie for 21 years rendering 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the ancient Rent who entred into the said Rectory and was possessed and assigned all his interest thereof to one Matthew Batâ— who made his last Will and Testament and made Sarah his wife his Executrix and died Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to husband the said Robert Bedel by force whereof they in the Right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed thereof and that the Defendant was then Tenant and seised for his life of 300 acres of arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tithes to the Rector of Litlington and in anno 38 Eliz. the Defendant grano seminavit 200 acres parcel c. And that the Tithes of the same did amount to 150 l. and that the Defendant did not divide nor set forth the same from the 9 parts but took and carried them away against the form and effect of the Statute of 2 E. 6 c. And the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet and the Iury found that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to the residue they found Nihil debet c. and in arrest of Iudgement divers matters were moved 1. That grano seminata is too generall and incertain but it ought to be expressed with what kinde of corn the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the forfeiture being by expresse words limited to none by the Act or that the same did belong to the Queen 3. If the same did belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for the same in the Ecclesiasticall Court or in the Kings Temporall Court 4. If the husband and wife should joyn in the Action or the husband alone should have the Action and upon solemn argunent at the Barre and at the Bench the Iudgement was affirmed XVI Trinity Term 7 Jocob in the Court of Wards John Bailies Case IT was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum That the said John Bailie was seised of a Messuage or Tenement and of and in the fourth part of one acre of land late parcel of the Demesne lands of the Mannor of Newton in the County of Hereford in his Demesne as of fee and found the other points of the Writ and it was holden by the two chief Iustices and the chief Barons 1. That Messuagium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain land or any thing which is holden 2. It was holden that is was void for the whole because that no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Messuage or Tenement or the fourth part of the acre lieth and from the Visne of the Mannor upon a Traverse none can come because it is not affirmed by by the Office that they are parcel of the Mannor but Nuper parcel of the Mannor which implieth that now they are not and it was holden by them that no Melius inquirendum shall issue forth because that the whole Office is incertain and void XVII Trinity 7 Jacobi Regis in the Court of Wards THe Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two chief Iustices and chief Baron in this Case That a man seised of lands in fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his son and of his name and blood and posterity that he will stand seised
Trees and Clay c. which he had not but as things annexed to the Land and therefore he could not have them when he had departed with his whole interest nor he could not take them either for Reparations or otherwise But when Tenant for life Leaseth for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Freehold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of the Houses And in the said case of Saunders a Iudgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his term except the Trees that Waste in such case shal be brought against the Assignee but in this case without question Waste lieth against the Tenant for life and so there is a difference c. XXVIII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Hulmes Case THe King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulm seised of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service Mesne and Robert Male seised of Lands in Male holden of the Mesn as of his said Mannor by Knights service Tenant Richard Hulm dyed after whose death 31 Hen. the eight it was found that he dyed seised of the said Menalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during the time that he was within age Robert Male the Tenant dyed after which in anno 35 H. 8. it was found by Office That Robert Male dyed seised of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Heir within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulm then in Ward of the King as of his Menalty for which the King seised the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards anno quarto Jacobi Regis that now is after the death of Richard Male who was lineal Heir of the said Robert Male by another Office it was found That the said Richard dyed seised of the said Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service his Heir within age whereupon Richard Hulm Cosin and Heir of the said Richard Hulm had preferred a Bill to be admitted to his Traverse of the said Office found in quarto Jacobi Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found in 35 H. 8. be any estoppel to the said Hulm to Traverse the said last Office or if that the said Hulm should be driven first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. And it was objected That he ought first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case of 26 E. 3. 65. That if two Fines be levyed of Lands in ancient Demesn the Lord of whom the Land is holden ought to have a Writ of Deceit to reverse the first Fine and in that the second Fine shall not be a Bar And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remains in force To which it was answered and resolved by the two Chief Iustices and the Chief Baron and the Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any estoppel for that is but an enquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it as it hath been confessed and therefore without question the same is no estoppel But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir sueth a general Livery now it is holden in 46 E. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after add that the Land is not holden of the King but that is not any estoppel to the Heir himself who sueth the Livery and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly in 44 Assis pl. 35. That an Estoppel by suing of Livery shall estop onely himself the Heir during his life And in 1 H. 4. 6. b. there the case is put of express confession and suing of Livery by the issue in tayl upon a false Office and there it is holden that the Iurors upon a new Diem clausit extremum after the death of such special Heir are at large according to their conscience to finde that the Land is not holden c. for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and their finding is called veredictum quasi dictum veritatis which reason also shall serve when the Heir in Fee-simple sueth Livery upon a false Office and the Iurors after his death ought to finde according to the truth So it is said 33 H. 6. 7. by Laicon that if two sisters be found Heirs whereof the one is a Bastard if they joyn in a Suit of Livery she which joyneth with the Bastard in the Livery shall not alledg Bastardy in the other but there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer then during his life and when Livery is sued by a special Heir the force and effect of the Livery is executed and determined by his death and by that the Estoppel is expired with the death of the Heir but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one But as it is expressed the words of a general Livery are When the Heir is found of full age Rex Escheatori c. Scias quod cepimus homigium I. filii haeredis B. defuncti de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus c. And when the Heir was in Ward at his full age the Writ of Livery shall say Rex c. Quia I. filius haeres B. defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite aetatem suam coram te sufficienter probavit c. Ceperimus homagium ipsius I. de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus ut supra c. Which Writ is the Suit of the Heir and therefore although that all the words of the Writ are the words of the King as all the Writs of the King are and although that the Livery be general de omnibus terris tenementis de quibus B. pater I. tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit without direct affirmation that any Mannor in particular is holden in capite and notwithstanding that the same is not at the prosecution of the Kings Writ and no Iudgment upon it yet because the general Livery is founded upon the Office and by the Office it was found That divers Lands or
Tenements were holden of the King in capite for this cause the suing of the Writ shall conclude the Heir onely which sueth the Livery and after his death the Iurors in a new Writ of Diem clausit extremum are at large as before is said And if that Iury finde falsly in a Tenure of the King also the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King c. in Socage the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved onely and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office and when the Father sueth Livery and dyeth the conclusion is executed and past as before is said And note that there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the Grace of the King and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda c. or to the Heir within age as it appeareth in 21 E. 3. 40. And that is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the general Livery doth and therefore it is not any estoppel without question And at the Common Law a special Livery might have been granted before any Office found but now by the Statute of 33 H 8. cap. 22. it is provided That no person or persons having Lands or Tenements above the yearly value of 20 l. shall have or sue any Livery before inquisition or Office found before the Escheator or other Commission But by an express clause in the same Act Livery may be made of the Lands and Tenements comprized or not comprized in such Office so that if Office be found of any parcel it is sufficient And if the Land in the Office doth exceed 20 l. then the Heir may sue a general Livery after Office thereof found as is aforesaid but if the Land doth not exceed 5 l. by the year then a general Livery may be sued without Office by Warrant of the Master of the Wards c. See 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. That the Queen ex debito Justitiae is not bound at this day after the said Act of 33 H 8 to grant a special Livery but it is at her election to grant a special Livery or to drive the Heir to a general Livery It was also resolved in this Case That the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King cometh to the possession by a false Office or other means upon a pretence of right where in truth he hath no right if it appeareth that the King hath any other right or interest to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because that the Iudgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Regis a possessione amoveantur c. which ought not to be when it appeareth to the Court that the King hath right or interest to have the Land and to hold the same accordingly See 4 H. 4. fo 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. XXIX Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis NOte The Priviledg Order or Custom of Parliament either Parliament of the Vpper House or of the House of Commons belongs to the determination or decision onely of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 year of King Henry the sixth There was a Controversie moved in the Vpper House between the Earls of Arundel and of Devonshire for their seats places and preheminences of the same to be had in the Kings presence as well in the High Court of Parliament as in his Councels and elsewhere The King by the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who for that they had not leisure to examine the same it pleased the King by the advice of the Lords at his Parliament in anno 27 of his Reign That the Iudges of the Land should hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Iudges made report as followeth That this matter viz. of Honor and precedency between the two Earls Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the Kings Highness and the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament by them to be decided and determined yet being there so commanded they shewed what they found upon examination and their Opinions thereupon Another Parliament in 31 H. 6. which Parliament begun the sixth of March and after it had continued sometime it was prorogued until the fourteenth of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term anno 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorp the Speaker of the Commons House at the Suit of the Duke of Buckingham was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. damages for a Trespass done to him The 14 of February the Commons moved in the Vpper House That their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his place The Lords refer this Case to the Iudges and Fortescue and Prisoit the two chief Iustices in the name of all the Iudges after sad consideration and mature deliberation had amongst them answered and said That they ought not to answer to this question for it hath not been used aforetime That the Iustices should in any wise determine the Priviledg of this High Court of Parliament for it is so high and mighty in its nature that it may make Laws and that that is Law it may make no Law and the determination and knowledg of that Priviledg belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Iustices But as for proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases they delivered their Opinions And in 12 E. 4. 2. in Sir John Pastons case it is holden that every Court shall determine and decide the Priviledges and Customs of the same Court c. XXX Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Star-Chamber Heyward and Sir Iohn Whitbrokes Case IN the Case between Heyward and Sir John Whitbroke in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanors and Fine and Imprisonment imposed upon him and damages to the Plaintiff and it was moved that a special Proces might be made out of that Court to levy the said damages upon the Goods and Lands of the Defendant and it was referred to the two chief Iustices whether any such Proces might be made who this Term moved the Case to the chief Baron and to the other Iudges and Barons and it was unanimously resolved by them That no such Proces could or ought to be made neither for the damages nor for the costs given to the Plaintiff for the Court hath not any power or Iurisdiction to do it but onely to keep the Defendant in prison until he pay them For for the Fine due to the King the Court of Star-Chamber cannot make forth any Proces for the levying of the